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.