Vol. 403 No. 10
8 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he plans to put in place a post-GATT regional strategy to offset the worst effects of income drops, which will be most marked in declining and less favoured areas on the completion of a new world trade agreement.
12 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if, in view of the proposed changes in the Common Agricultural Policy, he will initiate a policy of better use of Structural Funds for the benefit of agricultural development, particularly for small to medium sized farmers; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
28 Mr. Boylan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will make a statement on reports that the EC is prepared to yield more than 30 per cent offered in the GATT negotiations; and if he will outline the consequences of such a move on Irish agriculture.
50 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if, in view of the severe effects of the GATT world talks outcome on the sheep industry in Ireland, he will seek the establishment of an EC directive to pay headage to all farmers who keep sheep as all or part of their enterprise and who farm in the disadvantaged or less favoured areas in this country; and that such a grant scheme would be loaded in favour of small flock holders with the greatest level of payment per head being made on the first 50 animals.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 12, 28 and 50 together.
The House will recall that on 14 November 1990 in response to questions from a number of Deputies, I outlined in some considerable detail the Community's agriculture offer in the context of the Uruguay Round. The offer, which was submitted to the GATT on 7 November, involves a 30 per cent reduction in internal support over a ten year period from 1986 measured by an aggregate support measurement unit. The Community has also offered to convert its import levy system into tariffs on certain conditions and to reduce these tariffs in line with the rate of reduction in the support price. In addition to the impact of the internal support reduction on export subsidies, the calculation of these subsidies would be subjected to certain disciplines under the Community's proposal.
The Community participated in the negotiations at the GATT meeting in Brussels last week on the basis of this offer. While the Commission negotiators indicated to our GATT partners that subject to certain conditions being met the Community may be prepared to accept some commitments on minimum market access and on the volume of product to receive export subsidy, there was never any question of going beyond the 30 per cent total support reduction agreed to by the Council. Indeed, no such proposal was made by the Commission and the Council made it clear on several occasions, during the week that the negotiations should continue within the confines of the mandate given to the Commission in November.
From my earliest involvement as Minister in the Uruguay Round negotiations I have been most conscious of the need to ensure that the impact of the round on the Common Agricultural Policy and on our agriculture sector as a whole was kept to a minimum. At the same time I have always recognised that the commitments entered into by the Community at Punta del Este in 1986 would entail some concessions on agricultural support and protection. My priorities therefore, were to ensure that these concessions would be as low as possible and to secure commitments on a satisfactory package of compensatory measures to recompense producers and economies most vulnerable to the impact of the reforms. Such a commitment was essential for me in considering the Commission's GATT offer proposal. My persistence, and indeed that of other Ministers, on this point paid off.
At the Council meeting on 5-6 November when the Community's agriculture offer was adopted, there was a firm agreement that account would be taken of the particularly difficult situation of certain categories of producers and regions in the adaptations of support arrangements. The Commission also agreed at that time to submit, coinciding with the concluding stages of the Uruguay Round, concrete proposals supported by appropriate financial solidarity, to ensure a viable future for Community farmers. In practice, these proposals will, on the one hand, involve a reorientation of support to producers taking as a basis the diversity of the structure of farmers and production, and on the other, a reinforcement of structural assistance, including production neutral income subsidies, concentrating on producers and regions which have most difficulties in adapting to changes. Proposals are expected to be adopted by the Commission in the very near future and will then be considered by the Council of Ministers. In the recent GATT negotiations I vigorously defended the mandate of the Council of Ministers to the Commission and I appealed successfully for solidarity in support of that mandate.
These proposals should ensure that farmers and economies most in need will be assisted to meet the consequences of the GATT round outcome.
I thank the Minister for the Commission's view but I am talking about the regions in Ireland that are going to suffer from a decline in income of 25 per cent in real terms by 1995. I want to know, at least in some detail, what the Minister's strategy is for these areas.
The Deputy will be aware of the old Latin phrase: si monumentum requiris circumspice— if you want to see the evidence look around you. As has been recognised by every delegation at the GATT negotiations — well over 120 or 130 of them — the Irish Minister for Agriculture and Food was perhaps the most vigorous in defending the interest of his country.
Oh.
Go and find out for yourself if you do not accept what I say. I have pressed the Commission to have ready immediately a system of compensatory payments, which will be particularly targeted towards those who are in structurally disadvantaged areas — if that means the disadvantaged areas in the west of Ireland particularly, I acknowledge that—and that will be put in place. Until such time as that proposal comes through the Commission, obviously it will not come to the Council. I take it the Deputy is not suggesting, after all our vigorous fighting to maintain the European Common Agricultural Policy, that what he wants is to reintroduce a national income aids policy which would guarantee that there will be no sustainable future——
Read my question.
The Germans have that already.
Is Deputy Connaughton suggesting that we should have a national income aids policy irrespective——
The Minister should have got agreement on the funding——
Please, Deputy.
Every other government got it and the Minister could not stop them——
Please, Deputy Connaughton. If you wish to put a question you know the procedure. You will rise in your place and be acknowledged by me.
I would like to ask——
I will call you again.
I would like to raise one matter——
Deputy Connor, please resume your seat.
I would just like to ask——
I am on my feet, Deputy. Please do not interrupt me any more. There are a number of Deputies who have tabled questions in respect of this matter and I will call them in the order in which their questions appear before me; first Deputy Joe Sherlock and then Deputy Andrew Boylan.
I asked the Minister if, in view of the proposed changes, he would initiate a policy for the better use of Structural Funds. Does he support the policy of the EC Commissioner, Ray MacSharry, of favouring the smaller farmers by giving them a much greater share of the subsidies? Will he publish a document to show what effect the change in policy in the redistribution of Common Agricultural Policy funds will have for this country and for small farmers?
The Deputy will appreciate that, as I indicated, the Commission has not yet made any formal proposals. The proposals are expected to be considered by the Commission very shortly, and when they emerge I will certainly give them the most detailed consideration. It would be premature for me to indicate my position on proposals which have not yet been made. Commissioner MacSharry indicated that he felt it was wrong — he was talking about the European Community and not just Ireland — that 20 per cent of the producers were getting 80 per cent of the benefit. He said he wanted to see that corrected in the interests of equity and particularly of protecting the smaller producer. I share that view but I am waiting to see what the precise proposals are before commenting on them.
Would the Minister not agree that making the offer of a 30 per cent reduction before the bargaining started in the GATT talks was a major tactical mistake for which we are now paying? Would he not agree that the income supplement that must be granted in view of the depressed prices for agriculture will only be granted to the areas that are designated as severely handicapped? That being so, is it not all the more important that the Minister should have sought that a larger area of the country be included as disadvantaged— all the country would come under this category when you compare our scale of farming with that of the rest of Europe?
There is no basis for what the Deputy has interpreted. I take it that it is a bona fide misinterpretation on his part. The subsidy will not be confined to severely handicapped areas, and I can assure the Deputy that it was never intended that that would be the case. We persuaded the Commission, in giving the extra guarantees, to include regions or vulnerable areas particularly dependent on agriculture. As the Deputy will know, Ireland is classified as a region in the European Community sense. It is not just Ireland we are talking about but regions like that.
The Minister did not reply to the first part of my question regarding the tactical mistake of offering a 30 per cent reduction before the negotiations started.
When that was first hinted I indicated that the 30 per cent offer was very severe and said I could not consider it unless there were some other adjustments or compensations. I am glad to say that the Commission did make adjustments and compensations. Let me leave no Deputy in any doubt that at the end of the last day's negotiations there was one Commissioner, one Community of Twelve who was adhering to this offer and that was very difficult in the face of all the other countries represented in the GATT negotiations. What we have demonstrated through our solidarity, and have proved to the other countries, is that their expectations were unreasonable and unrealistic. Hopefully when the negotiations resume in January-February they will be much more realistic. I think the House will appreciate that these are the most complex and difficult negotiations we have been involved in.
Would the Minister——
One moment, please. I think the House will agree that we have made very poor progress today in respect of questions. I want to bring this question to finality. I will hear the Deputy briefly and a final question from Deputy Connor. Then I will proceed to other questions.
The Minister spoke about adjustments or compensation for the losses to Irish farmers as a result of the price support mechanisms being reduced. Surely the Minister cannot tell Irish farmers he has been successful at a time when the French and Germans pay their farmers three times the headage payments we are paying our farmers. Not alone has the Minister not been able to hold the line in the negotiations but he did not hold it with his EC colleagues. In the worst year for farming in 25 years the Minister comes back here to tell the House that everything is all right. That is dreamland.
If I do not have brevity I will proceed to other questions.
It is pure dreamland. The Minister should come back to reality.
The Deputy said I am not able to hold the line in the negotiations, but I would refer him to a variety of major publications throughout Europe, such as the Financial Times, Le Monde, Le Figaro to see what their impression was as to who held the line in the negotiations.
The Readers Digest and Ireland's Own.
I would take their view on that issue any time as against that of Deputy Connaughton.
Talk to the farmers. That is where the Minister went wrong.
Deputy Connor, a final and brief supplementary on this question.
My original question was about a regional strategy for less favoured areas. Holland, Denmark, Germany and France have submitted detailed proposals to the Commission for their less favoured areas post-GATT. Will the Minister say, without obscurantist wool-gathering, whether he has done that?
The Deputy has been gathering wool and if he wants to scatter it let it be on his own farm. Of course I have——
Where are they?
We submitted very detailed proposals in relation to structures in disadvantaged areas and the Deputy will have good news in that regard very shortly. The Deputy will be aware, if he looks at the Estimates for next year, that major developments are planned, such as the programme for integrated rural development. We are ahead of all the other countries in Europe.
They should have been introduced two years ago.
I have done what the Deputy wanted.
Two years late.
