Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Dec 1995

Vol. 459 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Common Agricultural Policy: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Cowen on Tuesday, 5 December 1995:
That Dáil Éireann, mindful of the importance of the Common Agricultural Policy to the economy in general and the rural community in particular, demands that the Government enunciate a cogent and focused response to the EU Commission proposals for change, and that this response be based on an interpretation of the national interest that seeks to maintain as many viable farm holdings on the land as possible.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "particular," and substitute the following:
"approves of the Government's policy in relation to negotiations on the future development of the European Union and in particular their intention to protect the interests of the Irish agriculture, food and rural sectors.".
—(Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry).

This is an opportunity to look at agriculture post 1999. We are aware that the Common Agricultural Policy has worked to the benefit of the farming community. We owe a debt of gratitude to my former constituency colleague, the former Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr. MacSharry, whose reforms met with scepticism from the agricultural community, but proved successful. Brussels is taking very unusual steps in dealing with the agricultural industry. The recent cuts in export refunds should sound a warning bell to all those involved in beef production. The cuts have had a drastic effect on farmer confidence and the sheepmeat industry is in crisis. In spite of the best efforts of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, it would appear he has not been able to secure the top-up premium of £8 per ewe, the amount needed to increase the price to an acceptable level. In a reply to my recent parliamentary question the Minister referred to a top-up premium of £2-£3 which will mean a continued exodus from sheep farming. This would be to the detriment of the sheep industry because we would no longer be able to guarantee a continuous supply and would not be able to compete in the French market.

This year there will be a shortage of home grown grain. It is time to look to the prospect of allowing land to be used for grain production. Following the CAP proposals of 1992 it was felt that feed prices would drop but they are now rising. This will have an adverse effect on intensive producers, especially those involved in winter fattening. On top of the loss of export refunds they will have to bear increased feed prices.

We are seeking the restoration of refunds to their previously agreed level. I am aware that at the Council of Ministers' meeting, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry tried to reverse the recent cuts. While there has been some reversal, it is far from the level necessary to restore confidence.

Milk quotas need to be examined and we will have to put a mechanism in place to allow farmers to expand to a viable level. We recognise that 40,000 gallons is the minimum that will sustain a dairy farm family. I hope this debate will give the Minister an opportunity to plan with his colleagues in Europe for post 1999. There is no point trying to see what we should do in 1998 and then making hasty decisions. We need long-term planning for expansion within the timeframe. If we knew the timescale we would be better able to set about drawing up a proper programme. When we see the level of confusion in the Commission there is a definite need for decisions to be taken as quickly as possible. Commissioner Fischler does not appear to have a plan as to how agriculture will proceed in the future. I find that worrying because he who hesitates is lost. From his recent publication he appears to be going three different ways, (1) to maintain the status quo; (2) to carry out a radical reform of CAP; (3) to develop and build on 1992 reforms. The Minister and his colleagues will have to influence Commissioner Fischler's thinking and will have to point out the need to maintain income on family farms at a level that will maintain rural society as we know it. We would not like to see a situation develop where the small family farms have disappeared and we have large farms without families. That would be to the detriment of rural society and the country. As one third of the population lives in the greater Dublin area it proves the need to ensure there is no further reduction in the rural community.

The expansion of EU membership to include the Eastern European states must be planned. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and his colleagues need to set the agenda from an Irish point of view during our Presidency in 1996. The need for effective action to protect family farms and smaller units is very important and I know the Minister will try his best to do that. He will be judged on how he guides Commissioner Fischler on agricultural reform. The need to maintain small family units should be made clear, whether by means of an extra quota, the continuation of the support system or some other mechanism. It is imperative that the Minister makes his colleagues in Europe aware of our grave concern about the future of the CAP.

I propose to share my time with Deputies Upton and Lynch.

I am sure that is quite satisfactory and agreed.

The motion before us is about the first sign of life I have seen from Deputy Cowen for quite some time in his position as Opposition spokesman on agriculture. The way it has been formulated constitutes a very poor effort indeed. I do not blame Deputy Hugh Byrne, Deputy Ellis or Deputy Nolan. I blame Deputy Cowen because he is in a position to know more of what is behind the matters raised in this motion than he appeared to pretend here last evening.

The motion even misunderstands the nature of the documents to which it refers. The Minister, in a well focused contribution last evening, made that very point, pointing out quite rightly that what the motion describes as proposals in fact are discussion documents, of which there are two, which merit much deeper consideration than Fianna Fáil Deputies have given them so far. I was very impressed by the difference between the Minister 's treatment of the issues last evening, when he examined them and addressed them with some shape and direction to what he said, in stark contrast to what members of the Opposition said when they, and particularly Deputy Cowen appeared to be more interested in throwing political sheafs than in doing anything concrete to assist Irish farmers. It is interesting to note also that, although Deputy Joe Walsh, who was here a moment ago, is a former Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and still a member of the Fianna Fáil front bench, his name does not appear on the motion. I wonder why; perhaps it is because the Deputy, decent man that he is, recognises that he failed utterly to prevent the very thing about which Deputy Cowen complained and warned of last evening.

Is the Deputy suggesting that the other Members on these benches are not decent?

Perhaps it is because Deputy Joe Walsh is rightly ashamed to put his name to a motion for debate on agriculture when that very motion and the contributions to the debate so far by members of the Fianna Fáil Party are critical of the Deputy in what he failed to do as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. So well he might be ashamed to put his name to the motion: Fianna Fáil's record since 1989 on changes in the European Union's agricultural policy and the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations has been pathetic, vacillating and shameful.

I will catalogue its shameful record. The Fianna Fáil Party demurred only very feebly when the Commissioner, former Deputy Ray MacSharry, first opened the European Community's flank to attack by the United States. Again that party demurred very feebly when the Commissioner MacSharry went on to sign the Blair House Agreement, the terms of which rendered it more like a document of surrender by the European Community than an agreement between two negotiating parties.

Subsequently Deputy Joe Walsh spent much of his time, as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, endeavouring to convince us that the Blair House Agreement did not hold any terrors for us, when we all knew perfectly well — including people like Deputies Hugh Byrne and Nolan, although they had to hold their peace at the time — what road the European Community, in this instance under the guidance of Commissioner Ray MacSharry, was setting out on.

In 1993, very belatedly, the then Taoiseach. Deputy Albert Reynolds, announced to an avidly expectant world that he had formed a strategic alliance no less, with the then President of France, Monsieur Francois Mitterand, to oppose the MacSharry proposals. Unfortunately, that alliance suffered the same fate as all of Deputy Reynold's other alliances — it turned out to be a temporary little arrangement and the strategic partner upped and walked out on him.

Throughout 1992 and 1993 I warned consistently of the dangers inherent in the MacSharry proposals on CAP reform and in his approach to the Uruguay round of negotiations. I attended meetings in different parts of the country, wrote newspaper articles and spoke in this House about the problems the MacSharry proposals would cause Irish farmers. I am happy to say I was not alone.

Not even the Deputy's own party took note.

There were other people in my party who held the same view, as did the IFA and the ICMSA but apparently all of that proved to be absolutely unfathomable to the then Government and Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. Indeed, in the course of 1993, it proved almost impossible to get the agreement of the Government to discuss any of these issues in the House. The Government then consistently ignored warnings in the House and outside it from the farming organisations. When I warned of these dangers now coming to pass — to which I will revert in a moment — I was accused by a prominent member of one of the then Government parties, no less a person than my good friend, Deputy Jim Kemmy, of fomenting a trade war with the United States. In fact a war did take place. What happened in the course of the negotiations on the Uruguay round was a war, when "General" MacSharry retreated, the European Community lost and the United States and its allies in the Cairns group won. The result was a seriously biased agreement that placed enormously onerous obligations on the farmers of the European Union and handed all of the gains to the United States.

What happened then? Once the GATT agreement had been signed Fianna Fáil went into raptures of ecstatic praise of Commissioner Ray MacSharry and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Joe Walsh; no praise was too high for them, no compliment too overblown for those two heroes. Fianna Fáil presented the results of the Uruguay round, the GATT agreement, as the be-all and end-all, contending it would sort out all of our problems; we had a grand new agreement on world trade, everything in the garden was rosy and the Blair House Agreement was not a bogie man at all.

Again what happened? We can now see the very concrete results. The recent reduction in export refunds for beef is a direct result of what Commissioner MacSharry agreed to and which Deputy Joe Walsh, the then Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry failed to oppose.

I heard Deputy Cowen complain about reductions in the beef refunds. I might have had some belief in his sincerity if I did not also remember that he was a member of the party and of the Government that acquiesced in the rape of the Common Agricultural Policy.

It has not all been entirely dark. Although the predictions I made in 1992 and 1993 transpire to have been broadly right — it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to say that — some people were lucky. Our tillage sector was fortunate this year: what saved it from the full rigours of the Uruguay round agreement was the coincidence of a good harvest in much of Europe and a bad harvest in north America. Deputy Cowen certainly had nothing to do with it, nor had Deputy Hugh Byrne or Deputy Nolan.

What about the Minister?

The paper on strategy produced by the European Union Commission last week identifies three possible options for the Common Agricultural Policy in the context of enlargement of the Union. As the Minister pointed out last evening, that is an excessively narrow context within which to examine these issues; there are wider issues involved which we must ensure are fully taken into account. The three options identified by the Commission are the status quo, radical reform and the third is described as developing the 1992 approach; in other words, developing the policy lines set out by former Commissioner MacSharry, praised to the skies by Fianna Fáil, now beginning to cause Irish farmers enormous problems.

Reading that document it takes no great sagacity to see where the Commission is heading. First, significantly, it does not want the Agriculture Ministers to discuss these documents before they go to the Madrid European Council. Ask yourself why and you will immediately come up with the answer: they do not want the Agriculture Ministers to shoot down any of these documents before they unleash them on the Heads of State.

The Commission then says that, while the status quo now appears to be the logical option, it would present major, long-term market and budgetary problems — that is one of them shot down. It goes on to say that it does not advocate the radical reform approach — number two option shot down, and concludes that a resolute continuation of the 1992 reform approach would cause less economic distortion than the other two options. As I have said, it does not need any great sagacity to see that the Commission will push that approach, that of continuing with the MacSharry reforms, with the Uruguay round approach, which Fianna Fáil first failed to oppose with any vigour or commitment, and which the Fianna Fáil Party, including Deputies Joe Walsh and Cowen, praised to the skies.

In this motion Fianna Fáil is complaining about the direct, the inevitable and the predicted outcome of their incompetence and neglect. I submit, Sir, that they would serve Irish farmers better if, instead of putting down nonsensical motions like the one before the House, they were to take themselves off to some suitable place of retreat, cover themselves in sackcloth and ashes and pray for forgiveness.

That was a powerful speech, but the Deputy said nothing.

I wish to share the fraction of time I have with my colleague, Deputy Penrose. This debate is welcome. It is important that we should have an opportunity to consider the changes which are likely to occur not just in the Common Agricultural Policy but also in Europe generally in the next few years and how they will impact on the Common Agricultural Policy. The one thing we cannot ignore is that change is inevitable. It is inevitable because of changes in development and technology, particularly in the area of animal and plant genetics. This gives huge potential for increasing the capacity for agricultural production. There are developments relating to manipulation and enhancement of growth and the production of different types of meat products from animals through the use of chemical agents and through genetics. While many consumers would be appalled at the prospect of these developments, there is an inevitability about some of them.

The second reason change is unavoidable in the Common Agricultural Policy relates to what is about to happen in Europe. Nobody would doubt that there will be quite a number of new entrants to the European Union in the next ten, 15 or 20 years. Most of these entrants' agriculture is quite underdeveloped. When they join, their agricultural output will grow considerably and that will have a huge impact on the Common Agricultural Policy. At present, some of the countries applying to join the European Union employ about 25 per cent of their workforce in agriculture. The corresponding figure for the EU generally is about 5 or 6 per cent. Agriculture accounts for a much bigger fraction of the gross domestic product in these countries than it does in the European Union. Inevitably, production will increase and that will create pressure on prices and so on.

Deputy Dukes mentioned the options outlined in the report. The first relates to the objective of maintaining the status quo. It is unrealistic, foolish, simpleminded and naïve to believe for one second that maintaining the status quo is an option. It is not an option because of the developments in technology and the state of the economies in the countries that are lining up to join the European Union. This can be crystallised in the expression “let the market rip”; in other words, let EU prices go to world market prices. That would not be desirable from the point of view of this country because of the difficulties it would create for many people here. At the same time it would be unrealistic not to understand that there is a strong force driving in that direction and, to some extent, that force will be felt in the developments that take place in Europe.

The third possibility is the one that appears to be favoured by the Commission, that is, the development of the present system of income supports. One of the alarming aspects of this is the suggestion that the income supports for people involved in agriculture should come from individual countries. It would have serious consequences for this country if that were to happen. It is highly desirable that the Minister should hold out strongly for the provision of income supports, if they are provided, from central European funds rather than placing an obligation on individual countries to provide them.

Let me reiterate what I said regarding change. There is no point in thinking we can resist change. We have to accept it and make the most of it. It is imperative, if we are to make the most of change, that we be prepared to innovate, to alter the way we do things to accommodate to that change and exploit the opportunities that are there. There is no doubt that there are huge opportunities for us if we are prepared to invest in research and development and science and technology and, above all, if we are prepared to innovate.

I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in this debate. This is an opportune motion as it focuses our minds on the type of policy formulation response that we in Ireland must put forward to EU proposals for change. Our response in the past has not always been the optimum one from the viewpoint of the national interest. When the farm modernisation scheme came into being on our accession to the EU, we focused on price support and were driven by the price variable. As somebody who worked with farmers on a practical level, I do not believe that was the correct approach: it certainly did not help the small farmers. It widened the differential in the price of meat in countries like Holland and huge yields and cheap manioc and tapioca coming into the ports at Rotterdam, and it took us many years to catch up. That is why it is important that we should focus on our response at this stage.

The recent EU White Paper on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy is a document of immense importance not just to farmers but to Ireland. The document, while primarily a discussion paper aimed at the Madrid Summit, puts down a number of markers for future policy decisions. The proposals contained in the paper, if adopted, together with the CAP reforms in 1992 and the GATT agreement could amount to a complete altering of our membership of the European Union. The maintenance of the CAP is of vital national importance to Ireland, and the Government should defend it with all the political power at its disposal.

The section of the White Paper dealing with developments in Eastern European agriculture contains suggestions that these countries be given greater access to EU markets and that subsidised exports from the EU should be reduced in these countries. We all recognise the need for trade for these development countries in Central and Eastern Europe, but there is a price to be paid, and it should be paid by the European Union as a whole, not by regions such as Ireland which are heavily dependent on agricultural exports. Ireland could pay on the double by being undermined in our development markets within the EU and being forced out of the markets in Central and Eastern Europe. Concessionary imports from Central and Eastern Europe in the livestock sector has a direct and immediate impact on Ireland. Ireland should be continuously on its guard to ensure that any concessionary imports into the EU do not impinge unfairly on Ireland's interests. Furthermore, the EU should seek a corresponding increase in the EU-subsidised export quota under GATT. In other words, every 1,000 tonnes in concessionary imports from Central and Eastern Europe would lead to a 1,000 tonnes increase in the subsidised quota recently negotiated under GATT. This would ensure that the solution to the Eastern European problem was not paid for solely by European farmers and, in a disproportionate way, by Irish farmers.

The CAP rules are not written in stone, but it would be no exaggeration to say that the CAP was and continues to be the economic cornerstone of Ireland's membership of the EU. We should never allow it to be diluted or changed without full assessment of the short-term and long-term economic consequences. If there are losses arising from any change, they must be fully compensated for and the compensation should be guaranteed. Ireland should resist any attempt to renationalise the CAP. This trend towards renationalisation is contrary to the Single Market and is totally inconsistent with the drive for European Monetary Union.

Ireland needs to further develop its agri-food industries to bring about greater rural development and to stabilise the population decline in the rural and smaller urban areas. The CAP is vital if this is to be achieved. Research work done by the ESRI has shown that if the CAP reforms in 1992 were implemented without compensation they would almost totally offset the positive economic development arising from the Structural Funds. This is the challenge facing Ireland. Ireland should never allow any discussion of or changes in the CAP to be divorced from the overall economic and monetary discussions at European level. I am particularly concerned about the impact on rural areas which have been ravaged and decimated by depopulation, one cause of which is the buying up of land under EU accession schemes when elderly farmers die.

The drift from rural Ireland is contributing to rural degeneration. The consequences is the loss of post offices, churches, schools and Garda stations. Some rural areas which traditionally had football teams are unable to field teams. There are areas in north Westmeath suffering a 33 per cent reduction in population. The focus should be on rural regeneration and policy initiatives should be pursued to ensure the retention of the maximum number of viable family farms. These are areas where high levels of unemployment are endemic and family members drift to the large urban areas to seek employment opportunities.

I propose that the Government consider putting in place rural renewal incentives which would permit significant tax write offs over a set period for small companies or entrepreneurs setting down roots in these areas. If we do not pursue some initiative of this nature we will preside over the death of rural Ireland. This type of scheme could be similar in design to the BES scheme, the section 32 relief for films or the urban renewal schemes. We have to consider this because rural Ireland is at a crossroads. I ask the Government to ensure that initiatives of this type are considered carefully in formulating a response to the challenges ahead.

I recently prepared and published a report on economic, social and educational disadvantage on Cork's northside. The frightening statistics in that report are mirrored up and down the country, whether in Southill, Neilstown or Coolock. There are approximately six areas which have the same inherent problems. After publishing that report I learnt in reply to a parliamentary question that 160,000 farmers will receive £0.75 billion in direct payments this year which is an average of £4,699. However, the Common Agricultural Policy has not benefited all farmers equally.

Large ranchers have gained immeasurably from the CAP. However, according to the Central Statistics Office 1987 household budget survey, 23 per cent of the poorest farm families had a gross household income of under £5,000. They are surely the farmers who should be targeted under any national or European agricultural policy in the same way that industrial policy should but does not focus on our urban unemployment blackspots. A fundamental reform of the Common Agricultural Policy combined with massive affirmative action and measures aimed at the poorest farmers is long overdue. Of course, this is political dynamite and it will require considerable courage for politicians throughout Europe to say to the large farmers, who have fed at the CAP through for decades, "so far and no further".

Unfortunately, with the exception of programmes such as the subsidised milk quota restructuring scheme, the Common Agricultural Policy operates on a simple principle — the more one has, the more one gets. Direct payments such as headage and setaside have disproportionately benefited large farmers and this will continue to be the case unless CAP is subjected to a root and branch overhaul.

The Common Agricultural Policy was devised in the aftermath of the World War II when mainland Europe's economies had been devasted and large parts of the Continent were threatened with starvation. CAP was aimed at making Europe self-sufficient in food production. It succeeded beyond its architects' wildest dreams. Not only has Europe become self sufficient in the past few decades but we have witnessed the obscenity of beef mountains, wine lakes, mountains of butter and seas of milk at a time when half the world's population goes to bed hungry.

CAP has undoubtedly succeeded in making Europe self-sufficient. It has not however succeeded in reducing farm poverty. The cohesion which we hear on the lips of the EU's politicians and Eurocrats has passed Europe's smallest farmers by very swiftly. I would argue that CAP has been the single most important mechanism in driving a wedge between large prosperous farmers and smaller marginal farmers. It has been estimated, for example, that the top 17 per cent of farmers, those with over 100 acres, captured nearly 40 per cent of price support expenditure. Far from effectively addressing the issue of declining agricultural income, the CAP experiment has failed dismally.

Between 1973 when Ireland joined the EEC and 1985, real farm incomes remained static while over 60 per cent of farmers were forced to survive on less than half the average industrial wage and a high proportion received less than a quarter the average industrial wage. The average income for the top 25 per cent of EU farmers is 20 times that of the bottom 25 per cent while in Ireland the ratio is 8:1. These are staggering figures. When we talk about overhauling CAP we should look at those figures rather than the argument put before us. Some 40 per cent of gross income for farm families with holdings of under 30 acres is accounted for by social welfare. These are small farmers in Ireland who did not benefit from CAP. In effect the Common Agricultural Policy facilitates transfers from small farmers, consumers and taxpayers to larger wealthy farmers. CAP is the story of Robin Hood in reverse and is robbing the poor to help the rich.

The reforms introduced a couple of years ago attempted to address some of the problems inherent in CAP and in particular attempted to halt surplus production. However, I would argue that they merely addressed the symptoms of over production and over cultivation rather than tackling the fundamental flaws inherent in CAP. Let us look at the setaside scheme where farmers are in effect paid for leaving their land fallow. Again the more acres one had the more one gets. In 1993 the average setaside payment received by farmers was £2,455. In 1994, this had jumped to £3,292 with some farmers receiving bonanza payments of between £25,000 and £50,000.

The principle behind the scheme, like the principle behind so many EU schemes, is a good one. In an attempt to avoid the environmental consequences of over farming, the use of setaside land for any purpose other than the production of non food crops is prohibited. However, the Irish experience is that little use has been made of setaside land for the designated non food purposes. With some notable exceptions, such as the 484 hectare oil seed project in Leinster, large farmers have simply left their land fallow and reaped thousands of pounds in direct payments. Setaside could have provided us with an opportunity to develop bio-fuel and other non food crops, develop market niches in these areas and become market leaders.

Since the Common Agricultural Policy was first introduced, farm production and non-production has been subsidy rather than market led. It is ironic that the very parties who for ideological reasons — despite the fact that they deny they have any — argued fiercely against interventionist policies should also be so vociferous in defence of CAP, which is surely the mother of all interventions. CAP is already costing us dearly. Irish consumers pay around £20 over the odds each week in taxes and higher food bills. With EU enlargement, which is both inevitable and desirable, the burden on taxpayers will increase further.

The draft Commission report which will be submitted to EU heads of Government rightly concludes that the artificially high prices guaranteed to farmers under the CAP are unsustainable, with or without EU expansion. The report suggests a series of reforms which would eventually largely return control of agricultural policy to national Governments.

It will require considerable courage for EU Governments to face down the big farmers and argue for a reformed agricultural policy which will encourage market rather than subsidy led production. It will require courage for them to argue for a policy which will reduce the burden on consumers and taxpayers while shifting supports from big farmers to small farmers who are currently barely able to scratch a living from their fields and who are forced to take up part-time work in order to make ends meet.

Former Agriculture Commissioner. Ray MacSharry, whose name was bandied around during this debate, began the process of CAP reform. I hope that the Irish Government will take a lead next month in Madrid and argue for a root and branch overhaul of a system which has become unworkable, unsustainable and inefficient.

I wish to share time with Deputies Walsh and Clohessy. Having listened to the sterling performance of Deputy Lynch I am sure she will vote with the Opposition. It is timely that the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on Agriculture should put down this motion. It is a number of years since the CAP was reformed by Commissioner MacSharry who took a courageous stand at the time in tackling that reform.

We cannot debate this matter too soon and it is important it starts when there is conflict between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Agriculture on where the EU is going and the proposed involvement of a number of Eastern states. Until that is sorted out it is difficult to see how any commissioner can agree an agricultural policy for the EU.

There are three proposals, the first is to maintain the status quo. I do not believe that is feasible or possible and will be rejected. The second is for a major overhaul of existing policy and that Irish farm prices should move towards world market prices, which would be unsustainable. We are left with the third option which is to extend the existing scheme. The Commissioner and the Council will tinker with the various schemes and that is probably what will happen. It will have implications for Irish farmers and agriculture.

Since our accession to the EU in the 1970s there have been major changes in Irish agriculture. We have seen structural changes in farm sizes and in employment. It is unfortunate that the numbers employed in agriculture have fallen dramatically since then. The propulation outside Dublin is predominantly rural and the maintenance of rural population numbers is a national policy goal. It follows, therefore, that any development is inextricably linked with countering widespread unemployment in agriculture.

One area which is highlighted is the agri-food sector and, to an extent, this has been highlighted by those in the food industry. A number of major players bought factories or took over existing operations in the UK and Northern Ireland because of exchange rate difficulties. No later than today the ICOS stated the strength of the IR£ at £1.035 is putting jobs at risk. Many food manufacturers and exporters are unable to sustain that level of exchange rate.

The IFA called today for a major debate on the single currency. It is time this matter was examined. If something is not done soon problems will occur in the labour market. It is not just that manufacturers receive a lower price for their products in the UK but English food producers who export produce to Ireland are at a distinct advantage because of the weakness of the £.

EU agriculture policy will tend to reflect global trends towards more reliance on markets. Various measures such as compensatory or direct income payments exert a certain holding influence on agriculture labour but the movement of labour out of full-time farming is expected to continue. This is an unfortunate reality that we must face up to. Previous speakers dealt with the problem of set aside. We are delighted that the problems in the 1980s with butter mountains and milk lakes have been resolved and we no longer have ships off the Cork coast holding Irish beef for eventual sale to Russia at huge costs to the EU taxpayer. However, it is difficult to explain why we pay Irish farmers to leave the land fallow. The Government must examine this matter.

There was a debate in the media on biofuels. In Carlow Teagasc carried out major work in this area. There is a problem with the economic production of biofuels which the Government should examine. Present estimates are that fossil fuel reserves will run out within five or six generations. Someone must examine the matter. Why do we not take up the challenge now instead of leaving it to our grandchildren?

The Government must examine the food sector if it is serious about maintaining jobs there. CAP reform will become more important as the years go by. It is unfortunate that it was left to the Opposition to begin the debate in this area. A number of agricultural sectors are doing well, for example, dairying. There is still a shortage of home grown grain although production has increased. The Minister should look at these problems as sufficient lip service has been paid to the various sectors. Unless something is done for sheep farmers many of them will give up sheep farming. The problem is there is no alternative for them as they cannot go into dairying because of the quotas, nor can they go into beef or grain production. The CAP must be examined now rather than in four years' time.

I support the motion on our concern about the draft policy document on the Common Agricultural Policy, the study on alternative strategies for the development of relations in the field of agriculture between the EU and associated countries with a view to their future accession. Draft documents tend to become future policy and it is right that Fianna Fáil, being associated with the negotiation of the present position of agriculture in Europe, should raise this matter and warn that we must be mindful of the situation.

If I were not sufficiently alarmed before I came into the House I would have been by Deputy Lynch's speech. She stated that fundamental reform of CAP is long overdue. It needs a root and branch overhaul, it is Robin Hood in reverse and has failed. Is that general Government policy or the policy of one of the parties in Government? Deputy Lynch stated that conservative parties — I assume she is referring to those on the right — support this policy and that CAP was the mother of all interventionist policies. I doubt if that exchange would go down well at a farmers' meeting in Wexford or west Cork.

I second that.

The agricultural strategy paper deals with the future orientations for the CAP and under option I states:

Trying to simply maintain the status quo, even after 2000, would not appear to be a good policy choice in this context, although it might be a feasible option for a limited number of years.

Under option 2 it states:

Options for a new and radical reform of the CAP have been presented by a number of high ranking agricultural economists, inside and outside the debate on CEC accession. For them, the CAP as it stands now is still too inefficient, too distorting and too bureaucratic to present a sound basis for the future and in particular for enlargement to Central Europe. Although there are a number of nuances as far as the details are concerned there is a large consensus among them on the following features of a new CAP: — no support prices — further decoupling of compensatory payments — direct income support payments — and payments for environmental services on a national basis with or without Community co-financing.

Under option 3 it states:

Following the logic of the 1992 reforms compensatory payments are meant to compensate farmers for significant price support cuts. However, to a limited extent, the 1992 reforms already link environmental and social considerations to the direct income payments. For the longer-term it may deserve consideration to develop this approach further.

This draft document has been presented by the Commission for consideration in Europe. A Government Deputy has applauded it, the Tánaiste supports enlargement and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry does not. Those in our agricultural sector should be extremely concerned about this.

If all or some of this proposal is adopted support prices and quotas will be eliminated. Premium headage payments, which amounted to the payment of in the region of £750 million to approximately 160,000 farmers this year, will also be eliminated. Deputy Lynch stated that this means an average of more than £4,000 per annum per farmer. The elimination of three quarters of a billion pounds in direct income to farmers would be catastrophic and sound the death-knell for farmers. As these payments were painstakingly negotiated they must be protected. Alternatively, it is claimed that premium payments could be made by national Governments. One can imagine the difficulties that would create for our finances and the Minister for Social Welfare. The Government is having enough difficulty agreeing the Estimates without allocating an additional £750 million to the Agriculture Estimate for next year. The document states that we are inexorably heading towards world prices which are between one-third and one-half of our prices. I do not need to spell out the implications of such prices for Irish agriculture.

It appears the European Union consulted many prominent economists on this matter but their deliberations did not extend to Dublin or the Minister's office. We were not briefed on the position and when the Minister was presented with the bombshell at the last meeting of the Council of Ministers he stated he would raise the matter with the Taoiseach. That is a rather lame way to address the matter. I do not know of any previous Minister for Agriculture who attempted to pass his responsibilities in that manner.

A number of Members referred to exchange rate difficulties, in particular with sterling. For the past six or seven months our food produce has had to compete unfairly on the UK market because of the weakness of sterling and various organisations representing Irish agriculture have issued statements about this. ICOS stated that:

...the Irish Pound has been trading at above parity for almost six months now and there is no sign of any change in this position. This exchange rate has reduced the competitiveness of Irish exports to the UK.

It went on to state:

The strong Irish Pound against Sterling has reduced returns for all Irish food sales to the UK and cheese is particularly hard hit. For each 1p change in the exchange rate, the return to Irish exporters is reduced by over 1p per gallon of milk equivalent.

What has been our response to this? Have proposals been submitted to Government? Have there been suggestions for a contingency proposal? Nothing has been done about the matter. ICOS went on to criticise the Government's failure to take steps to reduce the cost of doing business here and stated that these cuts must be reduced to the lower levels which apply in the UK because of the damage they are doing to the Irish food industry. The difficulties of farmers are being ignored.

The increase in the importation of lamb into the European Union from New Zealand and Argentina almost went unnoticed at a time when thousands of Irish farmers marched in desperation in this city to get the Ministers to do something about the matter. A recent press release from the IFA states:

Last Friday's meeting, at which Minister Yates had his representatives, agreed to allow in an additional 8,850 tonnes from New Zealand and an additional 2,000 tonnes from Argentina. These combined increases of 10,850 tonnes are the equivalent of almost 600,000 head of lambs.

The appallingly high and drastic cuts in export refunds are of major concern. While the Minister was in New Zealand on a little junket, the eye was off the ball——

——and that export refund on beef is costing our industry dearly. Members may have read in the Irish Farmers' Journal that this was only a temporary measure and that it would be restored. This has not happened, the 35 per cent cut still applies and anybody who visited a mart during the week will know that the price of cattle has reduced. There is major cause for concern because of the lack of support for hard won rights for farmers. This does not augur well for the future unless people pull up their socks.

I thank Deputies Walsh and Nolan for giving me the opportunity to express my party's viewpoint on this issue. The agriculture industry has done exceptionally well under the Common Agricultural Policy. I welcome the motion as it provides the House with an opportunity to discuss agricultural matters in depth and chart the way forward as we approach the turn of the century with regard to our rights in and the contributions we receive from the European Union.

Political developments have dramatically changed the map of Europe in the past five years and are likely to have an equally dramatic impact on the workings of the Common Agricultural Policy during the next five years. Plans are well advanced to expand the European Union eastwards. This process of enlargement could result in up to ten new member states joining the Union extending it from the Baltic to the Balkans.

Most of the aspirant members are countries with substantial food production and food export industries, Poland and Hungary being notable examples. If the benefits of the Common Agricultural Policy were extended to all these countries, the cost of maintaining the present array of price supports would rise dramatically.

Recent studies indicate that bringing the five Central European countries into the European Union would increase the overall Union budget by well over £20 billion per year. Of this, agricultural spending would account for up to £10 billion. This forecast is based on the assumption that the Common Agricultural Policy would continue to offer the present level and range of price subsidies and income supports.

For the people who have to pick up the bill, the taxpayers of Germany, this is not an attractive prospect. It is unrealistic. The Germans contribute about 80 per cent of the EU budget or roughly £10 billion per year. With reunification already putting a strain on their public finances, the German authorities are likely to think twice before extending the benefits of the Common Agricultural Policy as currently constituted to the dairy farmers of the Central European countries.

It is estimated, for instance, that the former West Germany is currently channelling about £85 billion in Government aid into what used to be East Germany. Something will have to give and that means a cut in EU agricultural spending. In other words, the entire process of enlargement will accelerate moves towards a comprehensive reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. This is due for reform before the end of the century while a further round of GATT changes will inevitably push Europe towards a more market-based pricing system for all agricultural produce.

Any change in the operation of the Common Agricultural Policy would have major repercussions for this country. Ireland receives almost £1.5 billion in payments each year, a huge sum for a country of its size. Any major reform of the Common Agricultural Policy would, therefore, pose a major threat to that important stream of income. Given the scale of the moneys involved, it is highly unlikely that any significant shortfall in receipts from Brussels could be made up by the Exchequer. To put the matter in context, the cash we receive is roughly equal to about 10 per cent of total annual Government spending.

If the Common Agricultural Policy is to be reformed, it is vital that we do everything we can to ensure that our interests are protected and that this country does not become an innocent victim of the enlargement process. At the very least we should look for the gradual phasing in of any new regime so that the economy would have time to adjust to the considerable financial shock that could be involved.

We have a fight on our hands and it is up to the Minister and the Department to lead that fight on behalf of our farmers and taxpayers. That fight must begin now. We cannot wait until the end of the century to start defending our corner because if we do, we will have left it too late and will be swamped.

The drive towards enlargement is unstoppable and there is no point in opposing it. The eastward expansion of the European Union is in Germany's strategic interest and, as the EU's paymaster, the Germans are well positioned to face down any opposition to enlargement.

We must concentrate our efforts on ensuring that a revised Common Agricultural Policy does not penalise our agriculture industry or erode the living standards of our farmers. The Government should get its act together and signal clearly the kind of agricultural regime it wants to see in place in 2001.

One possible route that reform could take is the delinkage of supports from production. In other words, farmers would no longer be paid production-related subsidies, but would be compensated directly by way of income supports. Other alternatives include paying farmers for acting effectively as guardians of the natural environment. I would like to know what the Government's views are on "cheque in the post" farming regimes of this type and how they would affect us here in Ireland.

Whatever changes take place, our agriculture industry must be given some freedom to expand and develop. In the dairy industry, for instance, the present quota regime would probably be unsustainable against a background of falling prices. Farmers would want to increase output to compensate for the reduction in milk prices. This may mean the end of the quota system as we know it by the end of the decade.

Our farmers are probably the most efficient milk producers in Europe and our grass-based system means that our costs of production are well below those of our European rivals. It has been said by some industry experts that Ireland is the only European country capable of matching New Zealand in terms of milk production efficiency.

Milk is an industry in which we enjoy a significant competitive advantage. A relaxation of the quota regime could offer significant benefits to the economy. What we might see emerging is a two-tier A and B quota system. Farmers would enjoy guaranteed prices for their A quota and would be free to produce as much milk as they wanted as part of their B quota, but this milk would have to be sold at world market prices without any EU supports. As Europe's most efficient milk producers, we would be free to increase our output substantially. This would be good news for existing dairy farmers and for those seeking to enter the milk business for the first time.

Reform of the quota system would also halt the continuing decline in the number of dairy farmers in the country. A recent study by Teagasc forecast that the total number of dairy herds in Ireland would fall from 47,000 at present to just 28,000 in ten years' time. Away from the farm, reform of the quota system would also be good news for our processing industry which could improve its economies of scale by increasing its volume throughput.

Neither the Minister nor the Department has had much to say so far about the major changes which are imminent in the European agricultural regime. The Minister should lead the debate on this issue, not follow it. He should set out clearly his objectives and the kind of agricultural industry he wants to see in place in this country in five years' time.

A reformed Common Agricultural Policy need not necessarily be a disaster for Ireland. It could even have positive consequences for this country. We must, however, get our act together now if we are to have any influence on the important decisions that are imminent in this area. We cannot afford to let this issue drift. I ask the Minister to tackle it with urgency.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the recent European Commission's communication on the effect of enlargement and the accompanying agricultural strategy paper. It is useful that this debate is being held at this time because it is clear from the trend and tone of the debate that there is a misconception on the Opposition Benches in relation to the nature of the Commission paper. The debate, therefore, gives an opportunity to clearly indicate what the paper contains and to set out the Government's position on it.

The Commission documents are discussion papers only, although admittedly very important ones. The papers do not contain any firm proposals although they identify three possible options for the Common Agricultural Policy in the context of enlargement. The first formal discussion on the papers will take place at the Madrid European Council next week.

Detailed decisions on the terms for enlargement will be made in the long-term rather than very soon. The European Council decided some two-and-a-half years ago in Copenhagen that "the associated countries in Central and Eastern Europe that so desire shall become members of the European Union". That position was subscribed to by the previous Government and it is also the position of the present Government. It is clear that a period of economic modernisation in these countries will be necessary before membership can be envisaged for any of them. There is a major job of transition still to be completed before all of these countries will be ready to meet the terms set down in the conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council meeting. It is instructive to reflect on those terms.

As agreed at Copenhagen "accession will take place as soon as an associated country is able to assume the obligations of membership by satisfying the economic and political conditions required". More specifically, the European Council went on to state that "membership requires ... the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the union".

It is likely that the accession negotiations with the applicant countries will coincide with the next round of international trade negotiations under the World Trade Organisation, the successor to the GATT. Each of these developments will obviously have a bearing on the other. It is clear that these complex negotiations will require careful and lengthy preparation at both national and Union levels. For this reason also early decisions, other than on broad principles, are a long way off.

One of the requirements the Minister indicated yesterday evening should be met, is for a comprehensive study and debate within the Union institutions on the effects of enlargement on each of the agricultural sectors to ascertain what problems may lie ahead and satisfactory solutions will have to be found and agreed for these. The ACC Bank, the Farmers Trust and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry have already commissioned a study entitled: "Implications of possible adjustments to CAP on the agricultural economy in Ireland in the light of emerging pressures and in particular those arising from further eastern enlargement of the EU".

The results of this study, which are expected within the next two months, will aid our detailed policy formulation on enlargement. The Government has been planning ahead, and will continue to plan, for what will be a major development in the history of the European Union. I assure the House it is determined that Ireland's vital interests will be fully secured in the enlargement process. An essential feature of any negotiations on enlargement is that there can be no renationalisation of the CAP. That is very important and has been stressed by Members on this side of the House. It is vital for us that there is common financing of all CAP expenditure. In these circumstances I recommend the alternative motion to the House.

Deputy Walsh made a point on the importation of 8,000 tonnes of sheep from New Zealand and 2,000 tonnes from Argentina. It was beef, not mutton, that was imported to the EU.

The enlargement of the EU will represent major changes for everyone. It is very important — I am glad Deputy Cowen raised the point earlier — that we should all unite in the national interest to ensure that we recognise the challenges ahead. We in this House must proceed as a unit to share common ideals. I thank the Deputies who raised this Motion.

The debate on this issue is the first major public discussion to take place on a matter of vital consequence to our economy. I welcome the statement made by the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, that the issue should be brought before this House. Deputy Dukes suggested that the Fianna Fáil Party was being ridiculous in bringing it before the House. There appears to be some dispute on the Government benches as to what is correct and desirable.

Deputy Dukes informed the House that he was aware in 1982 and 1983 that the problems we now face would eventually appear. Given that he had access to such knowledge, it is surprising that no one, not even the Taoiseach who left him on the sidelines took notice of this great messiah. Members who contributed to the debate, with the exception of Deputy Deenihan, seem to have——

Deputy Deenihan is a Minister of State.

——failed on this issue. They have developed an attitude of defeat before the enemy has been approached. The Minister of State suggested that there is a misconception on this side of the House with regard to this issue. Members on the other side do not have a monopoly on wisdom and neither do I nor my colleagues. Those of us who are active in agriculture — some of us are farmers — are well aware of what is proposed. There should be no doubt about that.

The Minister of State informed the House that the Commission's documents are discussion papers. I sincerely hope so because discussion papers often become policy, with very little change involved. Fianna Fáil is determined to ensure that CAP and reform is a matter of public debate. Our aim in bringing this motion was to seek a focused and cogent response from the Government, not the piffle we have had to listen to tonight.

A cogent response is required from the Minister and the Minister of State on the proposals for CAP reform suggested by Commissioner Fischler last week. It has been confirmed by this debate, that Government policy on agriculture under the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, is entirely reactive. Our ambition is to shake the Minister from his apathetic approach to the process of CAP reform. If we in Fianna Fáil have not been surprised, we are very disappointed. It is increasingly apparent that if Irish interests are to be served we must be policy makers, not policy takers. It is a national imperative that our priorities for the next round of CAP reform be articulated. The farming community — not unnaturally — looked to the Minister of the day to lead the debate. Not only has the Minister not led the debate, it is now evident that he has very little to contribute to it.

In preparing for this discussion, I listened carefully to the Minister's contribution last night. I carefully read that contribution today because I could not believe my ears. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry has absolutely nothing to say on the vital process of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. When praise comes from his chief opposition on the Government benches, Deputy Dukes, it is time to worry. Not one of the many specific points raised by the Fianna Fáil spokesman, Deputy Cowen, was answered. As a consequence of the furious row between the Tánaiste and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry on CAP reform the Government is in chaos. The Tánaiste stated that EU enlargement is not only a political necessity but would present new markets and opportunities for Ireland, while in contradiction Deputy Yates stated that backward eastern states would never be compatible with membership of the EU. It is against that background of in-fighting and incompetence that the vital issue of CAP is being publicly debated for the first time.

As if that was not sufficient trouble in the camp, tonight a member of Democratic Left, in typical fashion, made an outrageous attack on the right wing parties. I presume she was in some measure referring to the Fianna Fáil Party, but in large measure she was speaking about Fine Gael. We all know that coalition governments of two parties experience difficulties, but when there are three parties in coalition matters are even more difficult. When the three parties discuss an issue of vital national importance, with each one taking a different view, Mr. Fischler is laughing up his sleeve. The Minister, Deputy Yates, is complaining on the one hand, the Tánaiste's statement is in total contradiction and on the sidelines is the loose cannon, the maverick the Democratic Left, slating the farmers and Fine Gael.

The only point of fact the Minister offered was the semantical caveat that the document produced by the EU Commission is a discussion paper, not a proposal — we have heard that time and again. The Minister conceded that a debate has begun, a debate to which he has made little or no contribution to date. Everyone must contribute to this debate, the IFA, the ICMSA, Macra na Feirme, the UFA, business interests, unions unemployed organisations and ICOS, all of whom will be affected by the proposals put forward by Mr. Fischler. If we are successful in bringing about such a debate it will be a good day's work.

If Irish interests are to be protected there must be a clear vision of what our future holds. Are we prepared to continue a system that does little to secure the future of more than half our farm families? On current trends, more than 12,000 dairy farmers will be out of business in five years — we are talking here about the sector that appears to have fared best in these difficult times. If 12,000 farmers leave the dairy sector, how many will leave other sectors? What will happen to the farmers who leave the land? Sheep farmers are leaving the land at an enormous rate. Are they to compete for the scarce resources, unemployment benefits, housing and other services thereby putting pressure on all services?

I was amazed the Minister last night ruled out seeking extra quotas for Ireland. We must have a clear and cogent vision of the desired position in 20 years' time. Fianna Fáil firmly believes that the focus of our energy must be devoted to smaller and marginal enterprises. Given the importance of the milk quota to our economy, I was flabbergasted to hear the Minister say last night that he sees no point in pursuing what is a very strong case for additional quota. We have a strong case, as has been recognised time and again, and our peripheral location is its strongest plank.

The Minister said, before he meets Mr. Fischler, that he is defeated. We have a strong case and I ask the Minister to believe that. Otherwise, the losers will be the tens of thousands of marginal farmers who depend on a new deal at EU level. My colleague, Deputy Cowen, put it very well last night when he said that Deputy Yates is a typical X generation kid. There is no instant gratification in long-term planning, therefore Deputy Yates is not interested. Lateral thinking does not make a good photo opportunity. The Minister is to be commended for his mighty PR machine. We see beautiful pictures in newspapers every day of the week, but the farmers cannot cash a photograph; that is the bottom line.

Last month when the crisis in the sheep sector was debated in the Dáil, not in Government time but in Private Members' time at the request of Fianna Fáil, I remarked that the Minister is a very lucky politician. He has the knack of being in the right place at the right time. No Minister for Agriculture came into office at a better time — the tillage sector, beef sector, dairy sector and pig sector fared well, and Deputy Yates reaps the benefit.

The Deputy should not give me too much credit.

The good news has its origins in the sound policy of the Minister's predecessors.

And the Labour Party.

The agriculture spokesman for the Labour Party is in the House.

I warn that next year may not be as good, weather-wise or otherwise. When the Minister and his Fine Gael colleagues link Democratic Left, who is well known to be antifarmer, through the lobby tonight, the farmers will say: "Shame on you." The Minister cares little for the farmers who, within the next few years, will have to leave the land. I will be watching, like every farmer, the direction the Minister will take tonight and whether he will link Democratic Left through the lobby.

Question put: "That amendment No. 1 be made."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 60.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bhamjee, Moosajee.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bhreathnach, Niamh.
  • Bree, Declan.
  • Broughan, Tommy.
  • Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connor, John.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Dukes, Alan M.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • Fitzgerald, Brian.
  • Fitzgerald, Eithne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Mulvihill, John.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Penrose, William.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, P.J.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Upton, Pat.
  • Walsh, Eamon.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Brennan, Matt.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Liz.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Batt.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Fox, Mildred.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hughes, Séamus.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Keogh, Helen.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Moffatt, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.
Top
Share