Vol. 438 No. 7
12 Mr. Sheehan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the action, if any, he intends to take to counteract the decision on Commissioner Steichen's proposal to use 1991 as the base year for calculating Ireland's beef premium quota instead of 1992 which was originally agreed as the base year.
34 Mr. Crowley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the proposals, if any, the EU Agriculture Commissioner has made in relation to suckler cow quotas for 1994; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 34 together.
In the context of the farm prices proposals for the marketing year 1994-95, the EU Commission has proposed that member states should be allowed to choose 1989, 1990 or 1991, but not 1992, as the reference year for determining national quotas applicable to the special beef premium. The Commission has made no proposal in relation to the quota arrangements for the suckler cow premium.
When the Commission's proposals come to be considered by the Council of Ministers, my aim will be to ensure that the productive capacity of Irish agriculture is not reduced.
Farmers were under the impression that 1992 would be the base year for establishing quotas. If the Minister allows the Commissioner to base the quota on the 1991 output it will drastically reduce farmers' incomes and affect their capability of gaining any decent quota base for beef production. Will the Minister impress on Commissioner Steichen the necessity to treat 1992 as the base year?
I will strongly resist any attempt to reduce the quota to Ireland based on 1992 output. The Commissioner explained that the reason for this proposal is that the special beef premium for beef cattle had increased by 30 per cent compared with previous years because producers were allowed to use 1992 as a reference year and calves born in the spring of 1992 were eligible when we allowed a second application in November. About eight other countries had massively increased quotas for that year. The Commissioner explained that this could only lead to a deterioration in the market balance in the not too distant future. He emphasised that abolishing 1992 as a reference year would not lead to a reduction in the existing premium benefits but would reduce the incentive to increase production in the future.
I am delighted the Commission has not gone ahead with the proposal to make a change in the suckler cow premium base. Will the Minister comment on the fear that the proposed deletion of 1992 as the base year could reduce the number of special beef premiums paid here by up to 400,000? Will the Minister further agree that we are seeing an attempt by the Commission to row back on the compensations that were supposed to have been given for the CAP reform with which the Minister agreed and for the GATT which the Minister allowed?
We are having quite an extension of the subject matter.
That is what these premiums were for, Sir.
I had a bilateral meeting with Commissioner Steichen last month in relation to these matters. On the question of suckler cow premiums, farmers have individual quotas and individual quota rights, so there is a legal question. Some farmers are still concerned, but there is no proposal to tamper with that. The present proposal envisages reducing our quota by 33 per cent, from 1.54 to 1.13 million, but on the basis of existing cow numbers, 2.2 million head, we will never reach 1.5 million. On average, the number of male calves born annually and likely to reach eight months should not exceed 360,000 head. We have an adequate quota and are unlikely to be penalised by the quota proposed. Nevertheless, I will insist that the Commissioner sticks to the agreement based on 1992 output.
It is part of the CAP reform compensation which should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, but given that it has, we want the Minister to keep the compensation.
This is only a proposal and nothing has been allowed to happen yet. The Commissioner is looking at individual states and at the increase of 30 per cent on the base year. He, naturally, came to the conclusion that member states took advantage of the base year and decided that quotas should be brought back nearer to what the average should be for the preceding three years.
The Minister seems happy to go back to 1991 on the basis that we will never be able to fulfil our quota under the 1991 figures. Surely that is not mindful of agricultural interests in the long term when we may be well able to fulfil the quota we are allowed under the 1992 figures. It is essential that the Minister ensures the base year finally agreed is 1992. He is damaging our case by almost conceding the point to Commissioner Steichen.
I hope the Deputy is listening more attentively in other quarters than he is here. I said on at least three occasions that I will resist this attempt to tamper with the quota.
The Minister almost conceded the point.
He used to say that about the GATT.
As I said, I will resist the proposal to reduce the quota. I gave the reason behind the Commissioner's proposal for the information of the Deputies.
And the Minister justified it.
In regard to the numbers, our suckler cow herd is fixed at 1.1 million head. Unless the Deputy has a proposal for twinning or multi-calvings the likelihood is, on the basis of the scientific evidence available, that we will not reach a figure of 1.5 million head in this century. Nevertheless, I will resist the proposal before the Council of Ministers' meeting.
In the light of the confusion over this issue, will the Minister assure the House that farmers will still be able to use 1992 as the base year in relation to the suckler cow scheme? I cannot let the occasion pass without commenting that it has been a difficult day for our friends across the House and it is nice to see them here. It is a shame that one of the Opposition parties has chosen to miss the occasion.
The Deputy knows all about it.
Let us not introduce extraneous matter now.
You should have been shot for what you did. There is no fear of us doing that.
