Vol. 397 No. 3
13 Mr. Pattison asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has any views on the possibility of differentiated milk price supports, to give a higher level of support to the smaller producers; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Milk price supports in the dairy sector, such as the intervention purchasing mechanism, the export refund system and the various aid schemes for disposal of dairy products, do not take into account the size of the producer from whom the milk was originally obtained. For control and administrative reasons, I believe it would be impossible to do so.
Since becoming Minister for Agriculture and Food, I have ensured that small producers have always received priority in cases of distribution of milk quotas under schemes operated within the EC milk quota system. I have decided that of the 11 million gallons made available under the recent increase in quota, eight million gallons will be distributed to such producers. The Deputy will also be aware that I negotiated the elimination of the co-responsibility levy in the disadvantaged areas and a reduction in the levy for small producers elsewhere as part of last year's price fixing agreement.
Would the Minister not agree that the Common Agricultural Policy in regard to blanket price support schemes takes no account of volume of production and always benefits the large producer to the disadvantage of the small producer and also to the disadvantage of the consumer? Would he agree that the end result is that the fat cat gets fatter and the small cat goes without any cream?
Under the various schemes, such as intervention purchasing, the export refund system and aids for disposal of products, the Deputy's suggestion would not be practical or administratively possible as this would require those products to be manufactured and accounted for separately, depending on farm size. That is not possible. The principal difficulty in aiding small producers in that way is due to the fact that milk price supports are applied at processor rather than producer level. A number of actions have been introduced and will be introduced at this year's price negotiations specifically targeting the small producer. I have mentioned the reduction or elimination of the co-responsibility levy, which is effectively a price increase, for small producers. Other schemes have already been announced in great detail. The Deputy can be assured that under all these schemes, disadvantaged areas payments, headage payments and otherwise, the small producer will remain a priority.
Would the Minister not agree that if some of the money now available for these schemes were to be used directly to supplement the income of smallholders rather than to subsidise the price support schemes, we would have a better chance of keeping these people in high production areas and working on the land?
I agree with the spirit which has motivated the Deputy and I share it. We will target the type of producer the Deputy speaks about in all the actions which are open to me in terms of the extension of disadvantaged areas, reclassification, headage payments and rural development programmes.
Is the Minister aware that since the introduction of the quota system in 1983 30,000 milk suppliers have ceased production, the vast majority of whom were small milk quota holders? Would he not accept that the emergence in recent weeks of a third farming organisation, which specifically purports to represent those farmers most marginalised, the small milk quota holders and those with small holdings without a quota, is proof positive of the crisis at the lower income levels in agriculture? What steps does the Minister propose to take? The disadvantaged areas scheme is imperfect because it tends to benefit most the farmer who is up and running. Would the Minister consider some form of direct income aid for those farmers in order to ensure their viability? Their demise would mean the demise of rural society.
I understand from statements made by the spokesman of the organisation that has been referred to that their formation is as much a reaction to what they saw as a lack of concern on the part of the existing organisation as anything else. I am not saying they are right or wrong but that is what they said. Therefore, do not misrepresent the position. I think I had better send this to all the Deputies telling them all the action I have taken to help those small producers who were, as I said, unfortunately ignored.
Too well we know them. They had no effect whatever.
Seven thousand left the land last year.
They are not leaving it now.
