Vol. 416 No. 7
4 Mr. Kavanagh asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will undertake a tour of other EC countries with the Taoiseach to inform the leaders and governments of these countries of the detrimental impact that the present GATT proposals and the Commissioner MacSharry Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals will have on Irish agriculture and farm incomes as well as on the Irish economy, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
22 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food whether the Irish Government have set out firm guidelines in the national interest in response to the Common Agricultural Policy; if he has incorporated there in any submissions in respect of (a) rural development and (b) job creation and investment in the food industry, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
24 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline the proposals he has for direct income supports for small farmers, especially in the context of the proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
25 Mr. Bradford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has studied the report by Teagasc on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy published in December, 1991, and if, in view of the disturbing findings in that report, he will make a statement on the matter.
33 Mr. Doyle asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has received a definite commitment from the EC Commission that the stocking rates proposed in the Common Agricultural Policy reform measures will not apply to Ireland and in particular to disadvantaged areas in Ireland.
41 Mr. Nealon asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when negotiations on the 1992-93 price package being put forward by the EC Commission are to be finalised.
46 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline the matters discussed by the EC Agriculture Ministers at their meeting on 19 November 1991; the progress which was made on discussions at the meeting on the Commissioner MacSharry reform proposals, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
53 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when he expects finality to be reached on the discussions on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 22, 24, 25, 33, 41, 46 and 53 together.
Since their presentation in October 1991, the detailed EC Commission's proposals have been discussed at every Council of Agriculture Ministers, including the Council on 19 November. In mid-January the new President of the Agriculture Council, Minister E. Cunha visited Dublin where he received a detailed outline of Ireland's concerns and requirements in relation to the Common Agricultural Policy reforms. This trip was part of a general tour of capitals by Mr. E. Cunha and arising from his various discussions he presented a brief working paper to the Council on 27 and 28 January outlining broad approaches to the reform process. A more detailed Presidency text was presented to the Agriculture Council on 10 and 11 February. Since then discussions at the level of Directors General from the member states have taken place in Brussels and a revised Presidency paper was tabled at the Council meeting on 2 and 3 March.
There are still substantial differences between delegations on most elements in the reform proposals. At a general level, the focus has been on the extent and place of the proposed price adjustments, the budgetary implications, the principles of compensation and the GATT consequences. At specific sectoral levels the substantive points concern the quota proposals for milk and sheepmeat, set aside in the arable crops area, intervention arrangements for beef and the operational arrangements for premia proposed in the beef and milk sectors. In the light of this, it is not possible to indicate when the negotiations will be concluded.
The Government have agreed a negotiating position in response to the European Commission proposals. In coming to that position full account was taken of the possible effects of the proposals on all aspects of the agriculture and food industries including rural development. In that context the quantification of the effects of Common Agricultural Policy reform in the Teagasc report as well as other such quantifications from various sources formed part of the input from my Department to the Government decision-making process.
The Government are opposed to the Commission's reform proposals as they stand. The proposals fail to meet Ireland's requirements in a number of essential areas. We are concerned at the extent and pace of the switch from market to direct income support and I am advocating a more moderate and gradual approach. My view and that of the Government is that, while direct payments to farmers can play an important part in income formation, it is very necessary that market price support should continue to be the principal source of farm incomes. It is essential that realistic stocking limits are set and that our extensive grass-based livestock production system is fully protected. A pre-condition for any reform is that adequate and durable Community finance is available to underpin the new arrangements. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy must also be responsive to the needs of countries such as Ireland with a heavy dependence on agriculture and should not create undue problems for aspiring entrants or new entrants to farming.
Our position has been put forward in the strongest possible terms at all Council meetings at which the proposals have been discussed and in a whole series of bilateral meetings with Agriculture Ministers from the other member states and with Commissioner MacSharry. Earlier this week I attended my first Agriculture Council as Minister for Agriculture and Food and I can assure this House that I took the strongest possible line in detailing Ireland's major difficulties with the reform proposals. In the margins of the Council, I had discussions with a number of fellow Ministers and Commissioner MacSharry and left them in no doubt where I stood on this most crucial issue for Ireland. I have already made arrangements for further bilateral meetings in the coming weeks. Further meetings will be arranged as considered necessary by me in the light of developments. On Sunday last I met Minister Mermaz, the French Minister for Agriculture, in Paris. Next Monday I am meeting Minister Solbes in Madrid in relation to this matter.
While a number of the proposals in the Presidency papers could be seen as movement in the right direction, they still do not go far enough to meet our essential requirements.
The positive aspects in that paper include: an increase in the stocking rate for disadvantaged area from 1.4 livestock units per hectare to 2 livestock units per hectare for beef, dairy cow and suckler cow premia; a choice of 1990 or 1991 as reference years for sheep premium entitlement and restoration of the 1,000 head flock limit in disadvantaged areas; improved Community preference for cereals and more flexible arrangements for the operation of the accompanying measures.
Notwithstanding the Presidency's efforts, Ireland continues to have very major difficulties with the reform proposals as amended by the Presidency and they will require further significant change if they are to approach acceptability.
The Portuguese paper does not adequately address many of the principal Irish concerns and we are pressing strongly for those deficiencies to be rectified. I will continue to negotiate on the detail of the proposals in order to ensure that a package much more acceptable to Ireland is put on the table.
If and when agreement is reached, it will be necessary to ensure that adequate Community resources are provided on a permanent basis to finance the reforms. This is a vital point for Ireland.
The other principal item discussed at all recent Agriculture Council meetings has been the GATT Uruguay Round. Last December the Director General of GATT, Mr. Dunkel presented a draft framework agreement covering all areas of the negotiations including agriculture to contracting parties in Geneva. The agriculture text, in particular, has been rejected by the Community and Ministers — both Trade and Agriculture — have made it clear at a number of Council discussions that it calls into question the foundation of the Community's agricultural policy and that it is, therefore, not acceptable and has to be amended. While discussions have been continuing particularly between the EC and the US, almost all of the major difficulties remain. If these cannot be resolved to the Community's satisfaction there will be no prospect of concluding the GATT Round.
As agriculture and food account for 20 per cent of our GNP, 20 per cent of our employment and 40 per cent of our net foreign earnings, does the Minister agree that Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals alone will mean a loss of £670 million annually to the industry and to the country? Can he tell us how, according to today's edition of The Cork Examiner, he has no real difficulty with the principles of the MacSharry reform proposals as reported this morning?
I accept that the continuation of an unchanged Common Agricultural Policy is not an option and it is realistic to take note of that in the fist instance. I have, in the strongest possible manner, objected to the present proposals and will put up the toughest possible fight to ensure that Ireland's vital interest in the area of agriculture is maintained.
Does the Minister not agree with me that because of the collapse of the talks last night he should take the opportunity to visit every leader and Government of the other 11 countries in the European Community to stress the importance of agriculture to this country and the fact that it is three times as important to our economy as to any other economy of the Community. The only way this message can be got across is by the Minister going to every capital in the Community to spell out the effects which these negotiations will have if they continue on the basis on which they have proceeded in the past?
I accept what Deputy Kavanagh has said and advocate it. I have already had a meeting in Paris with my counterpart, Mr. Mermaz, while next week I will visit Madrid to have a discussion with the Spanish Minister for Agriculture. As I said, I took the opportunity afforded by the negotiations during the past two days to have bilateral discussions with a number of Ministers from other countries. I will continue to hold bilateral discussions and negotiations, as appropriate, to ensure that Ireland gets the best possible deal under the reform proposals.
The Minister and the Taoiseach should do that.
I am sorry, Deputy, I am calling Question No. 5. Time is fast running out for priority questions.
The Minister should take Commissioner MacSharry aside and have a word with him.
The Deputy should know that he may not intervene now. These are priority questions and supplementaries are confined to the Members who have tabled them and only to those.
In fact, I met Commissioner MacSharry on Monday morning and, among other things I brought that matter to his attention.
The Minister had a word in his ear.
Yes.
The Minister reminded him that he came from Ireland.
Exactly, the west of Ireland.
