This debate gives us an opportunity of bringing home to the people the realisation of what would be the situation if the super-levy were to be imposed on us. Any such move would put a stop to the expansion of our dairy industry. We rely on our dairy industry to a far greater extent than the other member states. Our milk production accounts for 4.5 per cent of our GNP. That is four times greater than the figure in any of the other countries of the Community. Milk and beef which cannot be separated account for 10 per cent of our GNP. That is six times greater than the situation in any of the other member states. Milk and beef account also for almost 70 per cent of our output which is double the corresponding figure for any of our European partners. Therefore, in so far as this sector is concerned, we are far more vulnerable than any of our partners. In addition, we produce this milk and beef while using a much smaller input of concentrates or of imported cereals than these other countries. On average, we use 11 cwt. of concentrates per cow whereas in Holland the figure is 43 cwt. and in Denmark it is 45 cwt.
It can be seen therefore that our contribution to net exports is far greater than if we were using the factory system that is used in other European countries. It is not in the interest of this country that our dairy industry be curtailed. It is an industry that is 95 per cent self-sufficient in terms of inputs. If and when we achieve the derogation, our work will only have begun in reaching an acceptable level of production per cow. This achievement will not come about by way of across-the-board cuts of 6 to 8 per cent in Government Departments nor will it come about by way of employees in the agricultural business sector seeking wage increases that are above the norm. Neither will it come about by way of the Department of Finance pursuing the attitude that they have been pursuing for the past 10 to 15 years, that is, the attitude that support for agriculture is a waste of time.
Given the right climate and the sort of leadership and guidance that our Minister for Agriculture has shown himself to be capable of giving, agriculture will make a major contribution towards eliminating the massive public debt that has been incurred by Governments in the past five to six years. We should be asked only to make a contribution in line with the amount of the problem we have caused. The EEC have asked us to pay for 10 per cent of the total problem whereas we have caused less than 1 per cent of that problem. What the EEC require of us would close us down in terms of development and all because of the problem caused in the main by our EEC partners.
Over the past 12 years we in this country have done more to sell our products on the market place than any of our European counterparts. As a percentage of production we have put less into intervention than any of our European partners. If this proposal is implemented not alone will there be lost 10,000 jobs in the processing industry but 10,000 farmers will be put out of business, which means — with an average of four people per farm, which would entail 40,000 people in family farms — all of these people will be affected by the Commission proposals. None of us can allow that to happen. It is time our financial institutions, unions and every person with a job in this country came out, supported and was seen to support whatever measures are taken by the Government to ensure that the proposed super-levy will not be imposed on us.
Not alone will milk producers be affected but our cereal producers will be equally adversely affected. If we are not allowed increase production our inputs will be less, which will mean that the farmers at that end of the industry will be in as bad a position as those to whom the super-levy will apply directly. Neither will our beef producers have animals for the production units, which will also have an enormous effect on our balance of payments.
Our objective in joining the EEC was to ensure that the common agricultural policy would help us increase our output and develop our main industry, that being agriculture. It is now practically 11 years since we became members of the EEC and, despite the moneys we have received through the implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy, we have lost jobs in industry. I believe the initial thinking behind the Treaty of Rome was that this country, being an agricultural one, should be afforded an opportunity to develop in the way our European partners had developed. At the time of our accession I do not believe any of us thought the Commission ever intended to put proposals before us which would mean the total downfall of our economy, but that is what these proposals now before us will mean. If they are interested in the preservation of the terms of the Treaty of Rome, as drawn up, the larger countries such as England, Germany and The Netherlands should realise — although I believe they do but are not prepared to do anything about it — that we cannot stand idly by, as our Ministers and Government have been telling them for the last eight or nine months throughout the length and breadth of Europe. Proposals such as these would mean that 10,000 of our farmers would be out of business within 12 months, 10,000 people in the processing industry would be out of a job, with an enormous amount of other job losses in the ensuing two to three years in the beef and other ancillary industries.
I would say to our partners in Europe that we are so serious about this proposal that we cannot and should not accept such a proposal, which would bring about our total economic ruin. The biggest problem facing the EEC, from reports we have read, is that the larger countries are not prepared to endeavour to alleviate or eliminate the problem they are causing through their importation of cereal substitutes. In the Netherlands they comprise 46 per cent of total inputs, with Great Britain and Germany almost as bad. Then there is the importation of 87,000 tonnes of New Zealand butter. There is at present a Commission proposal before us to reduce that by 2,000 tonnes a year over the next four years. There is no concrete proposal to tackle that problem. We are entitled to retain the jobs existing in our agricultural industry and, above all, be allowed to add to their numbers through increased production. Nobody in this House or indeed anybody involved in any union in the country should be seen as not objecting to the proposals before us. Our unions and their leaders should be condemning these proposals now rather than when such a levy is imposed on us. If they do not then we will find ourselves in a situation in which we are opposing the loss of 10,000 jobs in the processing industry over the next two or three years. I must stress that now is the time for united action against these proposals. Our Ministers for Agriculture, Foreign Affairs, Finance and the Taoiseach have been doing an excellent job in highlighting the situation over the past six months even though we have not as yet had agreement to our submissions. They must be complimented on their unwavering attack on the super-levy. The most important thing is that they do not allow themselves be side-tracked into alternatives, which would be a disastrous tactic. They have said at all times, in all places, to everybody they have met: we cannot have any super-levy; we require a derogation for four years, or as long as such super-levy lasts. We must be allowed increase our production to a level commensurate with that of our European partners, indeed to the level obtaining in Northern Ireland where the average milk production is over 1,000 gallons per cow. Each time we receive any concession in the course of negotiations in Brussels, particularly in recent years, Britain has always contended that such applies to Northern Ireland as well. We are seeking to increase our production to the same level.
Coming from a farming background and having developed a dairy herd, I would not like to see eight years after we had been told to develop our farms and to increase our production, a proposal introduced which would mean that farmers with incomes of less than £5,000 would have to carry this heavy financial burden. We cannot lay sufficient emphasis on this point often enough because every Irish citizen will be affected by this proposal if it is accepted by this Government. Perhaps after this debate the people will be more aware of the real problems facing us.
A great deal of money has been collected over the years to finance the Common Agricultural Policy. The bigger states in the Community will object to increasing this 1 per cent until something positive is done about the surpluses, surpluses which were not of our doing. When we get to the level of our European partners none of us will object to paying our contribution to that surplus, but to be asked to bear the brunt of a 10 per cent levy across the board when we are contributing to less than 1 per cent of the surplus is not realistic and every Member of this House strongly objects to this measure.
It is very important to have this debate. I was one of the first to ask the Taoiseach and the Government to make time available for this debate and to outline the seriousness of the problem to the people. In doing this we would also be outlining the seriousness of the problem to our European partners. There is no way our European partners, powerful as they may be at negotiating level, could be allowed to implement proposals which would have a detrimental effect on our economy. None of us could stand for that.
At the summit meeting in Athens I hope we will emphasise the fact that we cannot accept this proposal at this time. We must be entitled to extra years to develop our family holdings because at present many of our farmers have incomes of less than £5,000 a year. A Commission proposal which would have a detrimental effect on such people is very short-sighted. In the final days of negotiating for an exemption for Ireland the Taoiseach and his Ministers must insist that Ireland be given extra years to draw level with our European partners who are involved in this most important industry. The reason we are so far behind our partners is that in the sixties and seventies we concentrated on industrial development. It is a pity we did not spend pound for pound in agriculture as we did in industry. Knowing the farming industry inside out I can assure the House that if we had got an injection of money at the time we joined the EEC in 1973 we would have had no problem meeting the same levels our EEC partners have reached today. We have the capacity for increased production; we have the best soil in Europe and, most important of all, we have the people to do the job and at lower costs.
We say no to the introduction of a super-levy and to the unions we say that we need their support to ensure that this proposal does not come into effect.