Vol. 418 No. 7
22 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he is prepared to use the veto to protect Ireland's vital national interest in the forthcoming talks at EC level on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
23 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline the steps, if any, he is taking to ensure, (a) that Community preference in the EC is maintained where agricultural commodities produced in this country are concerned and (b) that imports of beef, lamb, pork, grain and milk products into the Community are not allowed to increase.
34 Mr. Taylor asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will make a statement on the implications for Ireland of the MacSharry proposals.
37 Dr. Lee asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will give further details, in view of the statement (details supplied) by the Taoiseach on 27 March 1992, that fundamental reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is necessary to provide a sustainable support framework for agriculture; and if he will outline the type of fundamental reform that is proposed.
38 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will give further details, in view of the statement (details supplied) by the Taoiseach on 27 March 1992, that fundamental reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is necessary to provide a sustainable support framework for agriculture; and if he will outline the type of fundamental reform that is proposed.
56 Mr. Nealon asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will give further details, in view of the statement (details supplied) by the Taoiseach on 27 March 1992, that fundamental reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is necessary to provide a sustainable support framework for agriculture; and if he will outline the type of fundamental reform that is proposed.
65 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will give details of the specific commitments, if any, which have been given to Ireland at recent EC summits for the exemption of this country from the worst aspects of the Commission's proposals on Common Agricultural Policy reform; and if he will list the commitments given.
72 Mr. O'Brien asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will give further details, in view of the statement (details supplied) by the Taoiseach on 27 March 1992, that fundamental reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is necessary to provide a sustainable support framework for agriculture; and if he will outline the type of fundamental reform that is proposed.
84 Mr. McGahon asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will give further details, in view of the statement (details supplied) by the Taoiseach on 27 March 1992, that fundamental reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is necessary to provide a sustainable support framework for agriculture; and if he will outline the type of fundamental reform that is proposed.
85 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will give further details, in view of the statement (details supplied) by the Taoiseach on 27 March 1992, that fundamental reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is necessary to provide a sustainable support framework for agriculture; and if he will outline the type of fundamental reform that is proposed.
319 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he considers that the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy should be completed before agreement is reached in the GATT; and whether this is Government policy.
322 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline the extent, if any, to which Common Agricultural Policy reforms and GATT preparations have been finalised and the extent to which these conclusions will impact on this country's agriculture and food industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 22, 23, 34, 37, 38, 56, 65, 72, 84, 85, 319 and 322 together.
Details of the Commission's proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and of Ireland's approach in the negotiations have already been outlined in this House on a number of occasions. In addition, an up-to-date report on the current state of the negotiations was given to the House on 4 March last. Since that date, the proposals together with the amendments proposed by the Presidency have been considered further at meetings of high level Community officials, at bilateral meetings between member states and the Presidency/Commission and at the Council of Ministers on 30/31 March. At the Council which starts today the Presidency will outline the conclusions it has drawn from this series of meetings. While it is not expected that agreement will be reached at this Council, it is hoped that progress can be made with a view to agreement being reached in the very near future.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Commission's proposals, in outline or in detailed form, have been before the Council since February 1991 substantive differences remain to be reconciled before agreement can be reached. At the same time, all Ministers in the Council accept that retention of the current Common Agricultural Policy mechanisms is not a viable option for a number of reasons including the facts that: despite substantial increases in expenditure on the Common Agricultural Policy in recent years, farm incomes have not been maintained; expenditure on the Common Agricultural Policy is approaching the ceiling for agricultural expenditure; if current mechanisms are retained prices will have to be reduced on an on-going basis but there would not be compensation; Community stocks of a number of important products are at unsustainably high levels; and there is a need for a better distribution of Common Agricultural Policy support.
A number of adjustments have been made to the Common Agricultural Policy, particularly over the past ten years but none of these has provided lasting solutions to these problems. Therefore, it is clear that only a more fundamental reform of the Common Agricultural Policy will secure its future and provide a framework to support the agriculture and food sector.
I have already outlined to this House the unacceptable aspects of the Commission's proposals and my objectives in the negotiations. While the Presidency has proposed a number of significant changes to the Commission's proposals, they still do not go far enough to meet our essential requirements. I will continue to seek the necessary changes and will take whatever action is necessary to secure an outcome to the negotiations which safeguards the future of our farming and agricultural-related industries.
The reform proposals have not been discussed at the European Council to date. However, the negotiations have to be seen in the context of commitments given by the Council of Ministers and the Commission to take into account the particularly difficult situation of certain categories of producers and certain regions. Under the Treaty provisions, the Council is also obliged to take into account the objectives of social and economic cohesion in implementing all the common policies including the Common Agricultural Policy.
In addition, the Commissioner has given a definitive commitment to the Council that the compensatory payments will have the same status as current market support arrangements and that adequate Community funding will be provided to meet the costs involved.
A number of studies have been undertaken by bodies and individuals on the impact of the Commission's initial proposals. These indicate, inter alia, that the farming sector would suffer income losses in overall terms, that large scale intensive producers would be most affected and that there would be some consumer gains. However, as the Commission's proposals have already been modified and as they will have to be further changed before they are accepted by the Council the full implications of Common Agricultural Policy reform can be definitively assessed only when the negotiations have been concluded.
However, it is clear that the implications of not reforming the Common Agricultural Policy outweigh any effects such a reform might have. The alternative to reform is to continue the present system which would result in continuous reductions in output and/or in prices to producers without compensation. This would adversely affect producer viability, agricultural output and, as a result, employment and the overall economy.
While we would have preferred if the Common Agricultural Policy and GATT negotiations were concluded in parallel, it is now unlikely that the Uruguay Round can be concluded in the near future. In the circumstances, I believe that Common Agricultural Policy reform should proceed in order to provide a degree of certainty for farmers. In that situation, however, there must be a clear and explicit understanding that a later GATT agreement will not undermine Common Agricultural Policy reform. This requires inter alia the safeguarding of compensatory arrangements under a reformed Common Agricultural Policy and the maintenance of Community preference. As regards the latter, the proposals put forward by the Director General of the GATT for the conclusion of the Uruguay Round would require the Community inter alia to provide substantially increased import facilities for a range of products.
The Community has rejected these proposals and the Commission is currently conducting bilateral and multilateral negotiations in an effort to secure the necessary improvements. At the same time, it has to be recalled that one of the main objectives of the Uruguay Round is to increase trade flows and some increases in imports cannot be ruled out. However, the Community is seeking to ensure that any such increase will be within very strict parameters and that access opportunities will become available elsewhere for Community and Irish products.
That was more like a maiden speech.
What a load of waffle. A Cheann Comhairle, you complained about the loss of five minutes some time ago but the Minister just spent six and a half minutes on this reply.
I have no control over Ministers' replies.
If priority questions are to have significance we must be able to reach each question. I asked a simple question and I expected a simple answer. Are our vital national interests affected, and if so, will the Government veto the proposals?
I am sorry to interrupt you, Minister but was it your intention to reply to other questions together with Question No. 22——
Do not tell us that they will have to be read out again.
And the Protocol——
——that is, Questions Nos. 22, 23, 34, 37, 38, 56, 65, 72, 84, 85, 319 and 322.
During the furore I told the House I proposed to take all these questions together. It is inevitable therefore that my reply would be lengthy.
Deputy Deasy raised a specific question and with your permission Sir, I will address it now. May I assure the Deputy and indeed every Member of the House that the Government together with the Minister for Agriculture and Food will do everything possible to ensure the most satisfactory outcome for the agricultural industry and Irish farmers in the Common Agricultural Policy negotiations. We have already indicated a number of the positive steps we are taking. We will pursue the negotiation until we are satisfied that the interests of the nation and Irish agriculture are best served. If the Deputy wants me to outline the steps we are taking, I will be pleased to do that.
Save us from that. Will the Minister explain why additional imports of beef and milk are allowed into the Community thus causing a crisis, as already the Community is over-supplied in those products.
The import of these commodities into the Community results from the last round of the GATT negotiations when special provision was made to allow a certain level of imports into the Community. We are taking every possible step open to us in the GATT negotiations at present to ensure that the Community market is protected for Community producers. We have very strong views in this country on the protection of the European market for producers from Ireland and other member states. The Deputy can take it from me that everything that can be done by the Minister for Agriculture and Food will be done. Everything is being done to ensure that community preference is given to member states over outside countries. Deputy Deasy knows full well——
I know that nothing has been done.
——that what is happening is the result of the provision in the last round of the GATT negotiations.
What are you doing for Irish farmers?
Will you use the veto?
Is the Minister aware of the widespread hardship suffered by farmers who made genuine errors in completing the application form for headage payments? The Department imposed heavy penalties on them, although in many cases the applicants brought the error to the notice of the Department. Would the Minister agree that a simplified form might help to overcome these problems? The Taoiseach said at the Ard-Fheis that he would specifically address this problem which raised farmers' hopes, but as yet nobody knows what steps have been taken.
This is a very serious question. Deputy Ferris must surely be aware that considerable progress has been made in the payment of all outstanding grants.
Not in my area.
If time permitted, I would give all the facts and figures. I hope that the outstanding grants will be paid in the next two weeks. However, to get back to the point Deputy Ferris raised, I hope that grants will be paid in the next few weeks to the applicants who made genuine errors.
We have been listening to that for the last four months.
However in certain cases of irregularities, grants cannot be paid. We are, however, prepared to re-examine the unsuccessful applications to see if it is possible to pay grants to these applicants. We realise the importance of these grant payments to agriculture. However let me say the number of grant payments made under all headings are at a more advanced stage than they were at this time last year. A great deal of progress has been made in a short period.
We have taken steps to streamline the system. We have put in place a simplified application form and we have taken steps to assist farmers in completing the application forms; indeed we have ensured that mistakes will be identified at the local district veterinary office and that farmers will then be assisted to complete the application forms. Let me say to Deputy Ferris that everything that can be done is being done. In the cases where grants have not been paid we will ensure that the applications will be re-examined to see if it is possible to pay the headage grant.
The Minister of State is better than Deputy Brian Lenihan — he is more longwinded.
Will the Minister now reply to Question No. 25?
May I withdraw Questions Nos. 25 and 26 until a future date?
We will then proceed to Private Notice Questions.
