Vol. 405 No. 3
6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will ask the National Economic and Social Council to conduct a study into the effect on the total Irish economy of the proposals by Commissioner Ray MacSharry to reform the Common Agricultural Policy.
I do not consider that this would be an appropriate study to ask the National Economic and Social Council to carry out in view of the time-scale involved in the discussion of the agricultural reform proposals now being mooted in the Community. Studies undertaken by the NESC are normally studies requiring a long period of research and discussion.
Provision is made in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress for discussions by the Government with the farming organisations in the light of the developing situation in the Community. I think that this is the most practical way to proceed in regard to the very serious issues which will arise.
Is the Taoiseach aware that Commissioner MacSharry has indicated that he does not expect his CAP reform proposals to be accepted for approximately a year? If that is so, will the Taoiseach agree that there would be sufficient time in the year for a serious study to be done on the impact on the Irish economy in these major cutbacks in agricultural production? Will the Taoiseach further agree that Ireland will lose disproportionately from any cutbacks of this kind, that the PAYE sector in Ireland supplying the agricultural industry and buying from it will suffer job losses with no compensation of the kind being offered to farmers under the proposals? Will he agree, therefore, that it makes a great deal of sense for Ireland to commission a serious, independent economic study and analysis, using the macro-economic model that is available in the ESRI, on the potential loss to Ireland of this proposal?
I do not disagree with the Deputy totally, but we must not assume anything about the outcome at this stage. It will be a matter for determined and skilful negotiation by the Government to make sure that any losses to Irish agriculture or to the Irish economy are minimal and that in so far as there are any we seek compensation for them. Apart from that, I certainly agree that the more information we have on the implications the better, but I believe we can within the Government's service make an excellent study of those implications and the effect any changes would have. The proposals are at a very formative stage yet and there are long political battles to be fought before they are finalised. I do not think NESC would be appropriate but I will talk about it to the people in NESC to see if they can offer us any assistance.
Will the Taoiseach agree that if we wait until the proposals are in a fixed form it will be too late to do a study of this kind? Is he aware that when similar proposals involving the imposition of a super-levy were mooted in the early eighties the then Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, armed himself with an economic analysis of the disproportionate effect of these proposals on Ireland and took the trouble to go and see every Prime Minister in Europe with a view to impressing upon them, on the basis of that analysis, the serious effect for the entire Irish economy, including those living in towns, of proposals of this kind? Would the Taoiseach be prepared to do a similar exercise in the circumstances?
I have to dissuade Members of the notion that they may debate the CAP now.
I must repeat that the proposals are still at the initial stages and we cannot really judge any effects or implications they may have until we know precisely their extent and what compensatory measures will be made available to this country in particular. As regards the implications of major disruption of the existing CAP arrangements, these are well known. We do not have to carry out any study in depth to know, and we have stated again and again, the importance of agriculture both from the point of view of farm incomes and the stability of the rural economy and, indeed, from the point of view of the overall economy.
Not just that of farming.
These are all known and we need no further studies in regard to them. However, if any additional information is needed as to their implication, the Deputy can be assured we will take all necessary steps including consultation with NESC if necessary.
Twice in his reply to supplementary questions from Deputy Bruton the Taoiseach referred to our receiving compensatory amounts from the Commission in lieu of, I presume, production and price reductions. Does the Taoiseach agree that we should suffer price reductions and receive compensation in return?
Two different things are involved here. One is the GATT negotiations and the reform of the CAP in that context, and there is the more long term restructuring of the CAP. It is in that context that we will be seeking compensation for any changes which would involve losses to Irish farmers. In particular, as the Deputy knows, there is new thinking about the way in which farm incomes can be supplemented in the light of any changes that may be detrimental. The farm price package for 1991, of course, is a different matter and we will have to deal with that as a separate matter and see, as we always do, how the best interests of our farmers can be protected in regard to that price package.
Surely that is a very defeatist attitude to adopt in view of Fianna Fáil's attitude when in Opposition, when they said we should not suffer any cuts at all no matter what was the overall situation? Has the Fianna Fáil Party attitude changed in Government?
No more than has that of the Deputy's party.
We have been consistent; we have said no cuts.
Every party in this House, every party in Europe, every Government in Europe, have had to agree to make major changes in the Common Agricultural Policy to deal with the distortions and mountains that arose as a result of the arrangements that were there.
We suspected that but that is the first public pronouncement.
Does the Taoiseach not realise that these proposals will have a disproportionate effect on our economy, far greater than on any of the other 11 economies in Europe and that, therefore, rather than taking this relaxed attitude to the matter, the Taoiseach should be taking initiatives to bring this disproportionate damage to our economy from these proposals to the knowledge and attention of his European colleagues?
I cannot understand why the Deputy should ask me if I do not realise how disproportionate the effects will be for Ireland when I have constantly stated — along with other Members of this House — how infinitely more reliant is this country on its agriculture than any other member state——
What is the Taoiseach doing about it?
I said it as recently as in my contribution to the budget debate here. There is no question about that. It is common knowledge.
What is the Taoiseach doing about it?
The Deputy arrived into the House just a moment ago and is attempting to disrupt what is a serious exchange of views between myself and his party leader. Will he please be quiet?
Yes, teacher.
It is an acknowledged fact, not just in Ireland but in the Commission and indeed in European Councils that the welfare of agriculture is of infinitely greater importance to the Irish economy than to any other. The Deputy and others can be assured that this Government are quite determined to use every possible political and diplomatic opportunity available to them to protect the interests of Irish farmers and our agricultural industry.
The Taoiseach has caved in again.
