Vol. 405 No. 5
1 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason he did not categorically reject the proposals on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, put forward at this month's meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, by the EC Agricultural Commissioner; and if the proposals are not modified considerably in Ireland's case, whether he will use the veto.
2 Mr. Kavanagh asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his views on whether assurances given to Irish farmers in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress that the Government will ensure the essential features of the Common Agricultural Policy are preserved, including Community preference and financial solidarity, are totally at variance with the EC Commission proposals to reform the Common Agricultural Policy as outlined recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
53 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of EC Agriculture Ministers in Brussels on 4 February 1991; if he will give his assessment of the likelihood of agreement being reached on the proposals of Commissioner MacSharry; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
66 Mr. O'Toole asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline the Government's position on the reported proposals of the EC Commission on the reorientation of the Common Agricultural Policy towards the greater protection of the small family farm.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2, 53 and 66 together.
For some time there has been increasing recognition within the Community that the Common Agricultural Policy, which was devised in an era when the EC lacked self-sufficiency in most food products and when the guaranteeing of food security was a major policy objective, is in need of review. This view has been given particular impetus by the apparent inability of market organisations to meet the challenge of surplus supply in several sectors and, of course, by the budgetary constraints operating in the agriculture area which have been put in place by the European Council.
The European Commission has been giving some thought to the question of CAP reform for several months now. At the meeting of EC Agriculture Ministers on 4-5 February 1991 Commissioner MacSharry presented a communication in the form of a "Reflections Paper of the Commission" regarding the development and future of the CAP. This "reflections paper" broadly surveyed the recent evolution of the policy, evaluated the adjustments made since 1985 and set forth objectives and guidelines for the future development of the CAP. The "reflections paper" is not a proposal, as Deputy Deasy suggests, but has the purpose of instigating debate on the reform process. There was general recognition at the Agriculture Council that the process of CAP adjustment is likely to be a protracted one. Given the Commission's apparent intention to table a farm-prices' package for 1991-92 shortly, it is unlikely that detailed proposals for longer-term reform in most sectors will emerge for some months yet.
At the Agriculture Council on 4-5 February 1991 Commissioner MacSharry's ideas drew a mixed response. Ministers accepted that maintenance of the status quo on the CAP was untenable and there was general agreement that fundamental reform of the CAP was now necessary. There was, however, a wide divergence of opinion on how the reform was to be accomplished. In the course of my contribution to the Council debate, I made it clear that, whereas Ireland would not be opposed in principle to necessary adjustment of the CAP's market mechanisms, we would vehemently object to any measures which might undermine the overall effectiveness of the policy, dilute its fundamental principles or discriminate against natural production based on efficient use of grassland. These basic considerations will continue to inform the Government's attitude towards the detailed reform proposals which the Commission has undertaken to submit to the Council.
I have consistently asserted that smaller scale producers and those facing specific handicaps have to be protected and that such protection should be built into the market organisations themselves. In principle, then, the Government would not oppose those aspects of the Commission's ideas on agricultural policy adjustment which aim to provide increased income protection for smaller family farms. However, we also recognise that the maintenance of a competitive food industry as well as the viability of much of rural society requires that the commercially viable element in our agriculture is not undermined.
Obviously, the Government's definitive position on CAP reform must await the presentation of proposals by the Commission. However I can say that whatever proposals emerge from the Commission should respect our vital agricultural interests and afford the fullest safeguards for the future of all categories of family farmers. I have made it abundantly clear at the Council that the agri-food sector is the dynamo of the Irish economy and that any adjustments to the policy must reflect and respect that fact.
The Commission paper acknowledges that any reforms must respect the fundamental principles of the CAP. I expect, therefore, that the detailed proposals, whenever they emerge, will clearly respect those principles viz. a single market, Community preference and financial solidarity.
Whether it be a paper or set of proposals my question to the Minister is: why did he not categorically reject what was put forward? Will the Minister protect Ireland's vital national interest? Will the Minister plead the case we made in 1983 to 1984 that Ireland has a special position where European agricultural matters are concerned? If that position is not protected, is the Minister prepared to veto the proposals in their present form, or something approaching their present form?
Deputy Deasy, of all people, should know that there are no proposals on the table. As a former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Deasy should also know that one does not emerge in negotiations on the basis of leaks from any institution. The Deputy should recognise from his experience that the best way of protecting the vital interests to which I referred is to wait until we have proposals while, at the same time, signalling — in relation to general principles — what exactly we expect to be reflected in those proposals. I do not want to say anything about 1984. But there will be many small Irish farmers who will feel they were very badly neglected when the quota system was introduced in 1984 when Deputy Deasy was Minister for Agriculture.
Would the Minister agree that his reply today is totally at variance with the statement he is reputed to have made when he met the Northern Ireland Minister for Food and was quoted in the Cork Examiner, as saying that, in any reformation of CAP, there was a place in agriculture for larger farmers and small, efficient farmers, and warning that small, inefficient farmers could not be maintained on the land just because they existed? That was the Minister's statement on 13 February 1991 reported by Mr. Dick Cullinane, saying that small farmers, because of the difficulties they had and were experiencing at present, were inefficient and, therefore, there was no place for them. Would the Minister agree that that was a very damning statement on the part of any Minister at this time?
It is a very damaging, misinterpretation and distortion of what someone would wish the Minister to be represented as saying. I answered a specific question on this matter yesterday, by way of written reply, which is on the record. In case the Deputy has not seen it let me repeat: I never made a statement as Deputy Kavanagh has just represented it now. In commenting on what the Northern Ireland Minister said — and he did seem to have a view about small farms not necessarily being efficient — I said that obviously efficient farming, whether one was talking about large or small farms, was the only basis on which one could guarantee viability. I never implied that small farms, as such, would not and were not viable. That would be totally contrary to my conviction and that of the Government. I can assure the Deputy that that is not the position.
I am not happy at all. The Minister has not answered my original question which was: do the proposals — or if the Minister wishes to call it a paper — discussed by the Council of Ministers two weeks ago mean that there will be considerable damage done to the farming economy of this country, resulting in many farmers becoming non-viable? Is the Minister prepared to use the veto to protect the interests of those farmers?
I really cannot understand why the Deputy should ask if something which is not what he says it is — and he knows it is not — were to be interpreted as being proposals, which they are not, would I use the veto? That is such a ridiculous question to ask. Let me just tell Deputy Deasy what will be my position. I will continue in coming months, as I have done over the past four years, to particularly recruit support, understanding and influence at Council level among my colleagues. I think I have achieved that fairly satisfactorily. If the occasion arises — and I will not speculate as to what action might arise on proposals, when they are proposals — I will take whatever action is necessary, but I will be doing so with the full support and understanding of my colleagues on the Agriculture Council which is how I think negotiations would be best conducted.
You are not prepared to use the veto.
There are three remaining priority questions and I have five minutes left of the time available. You may do as you wish in the matter.
In view of the fact that the Commission has now agreed a package which will be put to the Council of Ministers and which will affect various products, for instance, the milk quota will be down by 2 per cent, the co-responsibility levy will be increased, butter prices and cereal prices will be reduced and intervention periods will be reduced by two months, indeed a sheepmeat quota will be introduced on the basis of the last three years — will the Minister——
Let us have brevity, please.
——indicate in the House today what his attitude will be? This will obviously be the proposal.
What the Deputy is referring to is another leaked version on a different matter, not the CAP reform. The Deputy is referring to a leaked version of what the proposals may be when they are eventually decided by the Commission. When the Commission decides and brings the prices to us in the proper manner, I will make my view known and I will be happy to consult with anyone in the House. All Deputies will recognise that if we are to conduct negotiations on the basis of leaks we will make a nonsense of the Community.
