Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1997

Vol. 477 No. 1

Priority Questions. - Green Pound Revaluations.

Joe Walsh

Question:

6 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry whether he will provide pound for pound from Exchequer funds to match the EU aid in respect of the recent green pound revaluations as provided for in EU regulations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8658/97]

At the Council of Ministers' meeting on 17-19 March I secured agreement to the payment in 1997 of EU funded compensatory aid of some £45.77 million to producers in the milk, beef, cereals and sugar sectors. EU funded compensation of approximately £30.5 million will be available in 1998 and approximately £15.3 million in 1999. This compensation is for income losses suffered by producers as a result of price support cuts following the green rate revaluations of 8 November last and 11 January this year.

I am planning for the payment of this compensation to producers in May. The green rate applicable to the CAP reform premiums, including payments under the accompanying measures, was not affected by either of these green rate revaluations. Farmers will, therefore, receive the same amounts in Irish pounds this year as last year by way of such payments. At this stage there are no proposals to supplement the EU compensation from Exchequer funds.

I am monitoring the situation carefully as we face the prospect of a further revaluation on 28 March. I will discuss with my Cabinet colleagues what would be appropriate vis-á-vis matching funds as we monitor agricultural prices generally. My mind is not closed on this question.

Will the Minister accept he gave an undertaking to the IFA at a meeting in a Dublin hotel in early February that he would match pound for pound EU compensation for revaluation?

I state categorically that I have never been in a position to give such an undertaking and am unaware the IFA holds such a view. I am monitoring other member states which also have the opportunity to put up matching money, but which have not done so. To date, seven other member states, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Luxembourg have qualified for similar aid. Of these countries, only Germany and Luxembourg paid the full amount of national funds while Belgium only paid it for beef. I understand in the current revaluation, the UK will certainly not do so and Italy's position is unclear.

I am anxious to preserve farm incomes and pleased we got a change in the rules at this Brussels meeting whereby instead of this money being paid after 1 August — no electoral significance should be read into this — a time when the Department and Brussels are quiet, farmers will receive the £77 million in May. With BSE compensation, it ensures the cash flow needs of farmers will be met.

The Minister's deportment at that meeting has been well highlighted. What did he mean when he stated following the 19 March meeting that he would consult his Cabinet colleagues on the national budgetary resources which would provide pound for pound funding?

I am glad the Deputy raised the question of my deportment because a Sunday newspaper article was brought to my attention on Monday. The author of the article did not contact me and was not present in Brussels and the report was fallacious. I found it faintly amusing but I was as astonished as others as regards the contents of the article. I confirm it was utterly untrue, however amusing.

As regards my comments on 19 March, if there is a further revaluation and full matching moneys, the requirement on the Exchequer this year could be in excess of £70 million. Because of the time of the budget and the Estimates, no provision was made. In addition to that, because this is the year of the Maastricht criteria vis-à-vis the public finances and because of the nurses' and hepatitis C awards which must be met, there has been no positive response to my representations to date from the Minister for Finance. If, however, there is a further revaluation, I will consider raising this question again with the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach and will be sympathetic to sponsoring such a case.

I am not in a position to say the Government has taken a final decision on this matter or that money is being provided at this time. The package of £122 million which I put together is one of the largest cumulative packages of compensation and that money will be winging its way to farmers from 12 May.

As regards the meeting at which a portion of this money was allocated, the Minister's information officer was quoted on his prowess at genuflection and bear hugging. There was a graphic description of him pleading for money to buy farmers' votes ahead of a general election. The fact remains that it is a concession to EU member states to match this pound for pound. The Minister indicated he will consult his Cabinet colleagues and has made this known to the farming organisations. He stated it would cost too much for the Exchequer. Is there anything in this for the farming community which has lost £120 per head in livestock and 25 per cent in dairy incomes?

I was so intrigued by the newspaper report that I checked with my information officer who informed me he was also surprised by it. He confirmed my recollection of events which were not in keeping with those in the article. The vicissitudes of being a Minister are that one must take these things on the chin but I assure the House it is not true.

We believe the Minister, but thousands would not.

I know the Deputy would not believe me. My relationship with Commissioner Fischler is excellent and that will stand farmers in good stead.

That was the reason for the bear hug.

He is bigger than I am. I could not physically do it if I wanted to. I am not in a position to state that matching Exchequer funds will be forthcoming now but I am monitoring the situation carefully. I have already had discussions with the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance about it and we are keeping it under active review. I cannot say with certainty what the prospects are for a further revaluation thus prompting the need for further compensation but we will make decisions in the light of those events.

The Minister will have to go on his knees again.

Top
Share