Ruairí Quinn
Question:16 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Danish Prime Minister, Mr. Rasmussen; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2765/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Meetings with EU Heads of State.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:17 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the issues he will raise with Prime Minister Jospin and President Chirac when he meets them in February 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2766/99]
John Bruton
Question:18 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Denmark, Mr. Rasmussen. [3637/99]
John Bruton
Question:19 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings and discussions he will have in advance of his meeting with President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin of France in February 1999; if an agenda for the meeting has been agreed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3638/99]
John Bruton
Question:20 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the preparatory meetings and discussions he will have in advance of the informal EU Heads of Government meeting in February 1999; if an agenda for the meeting has been agreed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3639/99]
John Bruton
Question:21 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 4 February 1999 with the EU Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Fischler. [3665/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:22 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Commissioner Fischler last week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3694/99]
Trevor Sargent
Question:23 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with representatives of the Danish Government during his recent visit to Denmark. [3713/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 to 23, inclusive, together.
I met the Danish Prime Minister, Mr. Rasmussen on 4 February in Copenhagen and will meet President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin on 15 February in Paris. I will also meet the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Wim Kok on 17 February in The Hague. These meetings take place in advance of an informal meeting of Heads of State or Government focusing on Agenda 2000 in Bonn on 26 February. The exact scope of the meeting is not yet finalised. However, my understanding is that it will deal exclusively with Agenda 2000. Following that meeting, I will meet Belgian Prime Minister Dahaene and President Santer in Brussels on 3 March.
I view all these meetings as extremely important opportunities to make clear to our partners Irish interests and concerns and to ensure the best possible final outcome for Ireland in the funding negotiations which are scheduled to conclude at a Special European Council Meeting in Berlin on 24-25 March.
In relation to my visit to Copenhagen, my meeting with Prime Minister Rasmussen was very useful in identifying areas of common interest in the negotiations. We discussed the current proposals on Structural, Cohesion and agricultural Funding. I stressed the need for an equitable outcome and indicated that the present proposals, particularly in the agricultural area, if implemented would impact proportionately more on Ireland than any other member state.
I reaffirmed to the Prime Minister my strong support for the ongoing enlargement negotiations with those countries seeking to join the Union. Prime Minister Rasmussen is a strong advocate of the enlargement process and indicated that Denmark would be prepared to increase its contributions to the Union to ensure the success of the process.
We also discussed the launch of the euro and EMU. Denmark is one of four EU countries which did not participate in the launch of the euro and I briefed the Prime Minister on Ireland's experience so far.
Apart from Agenda 2000 related matters, I discussed issues of a bilateral nature and took the opportunity to brief the Prime Minister on the Northern Ireland peace process. We also discussed external issues, such as the crisis in Kosovo, which are of concern to the Union. I also briefed Prime Minister Rasmussen on my visit to the Middle-East and sought his support for Ireland's candidature for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2001-2.
I met briefly Commissioner Fischler on 5 February. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, who had detailed discussions with Commissioner Fischler the previous evening also attended. We discussed the current proposals on CAP reform and their potential impact on our agriculture industry and the wider economy. We had a frank exchange of views and I made clear our position on the key issues arising such as milk quotas, extensification and co-financing.
I expect my meetings with President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin will also focus largely on the Agenda 2000 negotiations. I intend to discuss in detail the current proposals on CAP reform. Our French counterparts, like ourselves, recognise the vital importance of the agriculture industry to our economies. As I indicated to the House previously, while we accept the broad thrust of the Commission's proposals, the pro posals as they stand would damage our agriculture industry and the Irish economy as a whole. We also oppose the suggested co-financing of the CAP. I will also set out our concerns in relation to the Structural and Cohesion Funds.
I intend discussing the retention of duty free during the course of my visits. As the House will be aware, the French President and Prime Minister have been strong advocates for the retention of duty free beyond end-June. I would also expect to discuss issues of a bilateral nature and to take the opportunity to brief each of the leaders on the Northern Ireland peace process.
In each of my meetings I will raise Ireland's candidature for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for the term 2001-2.
In preparation for these meetings the Cabinet Sub-Committee and Expert Technical Group on Agenda 2000, which I chair, will continue to meet.
I have a number of questions. Did the Taoiseach indicate a shift in the Irish position on Agenda 2000 with regard to the Government's attitude to the funding of agriculture and the desire that the available reduced sums of money be concentrated on poorer farmers rather than across the entire spectrum of the agricultural community?
On the question of duty free, did Prime Minister Rasmussen indicate the current position of the Danish Government? Did the Taoiseach in the course of his recent discussions with the Heads of State and Government obtain an impression from them that the European Commission will bring forward a proposal to defer the abolition of duty free sales?
I have been advocating for some time that we have to move our line on CAP to a negotiated position. We have made our position very clear on co-financing and on the 1984 position on the milk quotas. We are conscious that there will be a reduction in resources because of the way the negotiations are being dealt with, but at the same time we have to protect the interests of small and medium sized farmers. I am committed to finding a system that can do that. In European terms, between 95 and 96 per cent of Irish farmers would be considered to be in the category of small farmers. Any resolution of that would assist in finding a solution. The French, in particular, are trying the system of regressivity which focuses on smaller farmers. That would certainly help. It would certainly help if we could achieve that in the negotiations. Not everyone, however, is of that view. There will be a five day session of the Agricultural Council the week after next and hopefully they will be able to move to a position. At this stage there are probably 20 obstacles in the discussion on agriculture. I have indicated that we should move to a far clearer negotiating position and I have discussed this with farm leaders.
Did the Taoiseach raise with any of the people he met from the European Commission the question of Ireland's application for regionalisation and the division of the country?
I mentioned that in my presentation to them all. I have explained why and what this country is seeking to do.
What about the question of duty free?
The Danish Prime Minister, Mr. Rasmussen, has never been a strong supporter of the change. His economic Minister has taken the view that there should be no change and no extension and he has continually held that line.
The Taoiseach stated that he accepts the broad thrust of the Agenda 2000 proposals in regard to agriculture.
On the Common Agricultural Policy.
The Taoiseach said he accepted the broad thrust of the proposals on CAP, but rejected co-financing. What aspects of the proposals on agriculture does he accept?
The thrust of the 1997 document was welcomed by agriculture leaders, but that position changed fundamentally in the document of 18 March 1998 because our position on milk quotas was substantially disimproved. It stated we would have an extra 2 per cent, 1 per cent going to a number of countries and the other 1 per cent divided proportionately, even though we had a commitment in 1984 that Ireland would get a priority position. We were doing worse than anybody else. This meant that even though we had a commitment in 1984 that Ireland would get a priority position, we did worse than any other country. That dramatically changed from the Agenda 2000 proposals in summer 1997.
As Deputy Bruton knows well, milk and beef provide 80 per cent of our output. Since last March, in the proposals that have been put forward, the situation has worsened in terms of how it will affect us. We have continually put down markers to that end and I do not accept those proposals. The document last March involved better negotiating proposals. They are drifting all the time into a position which is just not acceptable to us.
Will the Taoiseach elaborate further on his favourable approach to the French proposals in regard to regressivity of age in respect of size? How does that sit with an ambition to have commercial agriculture in Europe, which is to be capable of competing internationally, given that economies of scale play a part in agriculture just as they do in other economic activities?
I am discussing this with the French. I have just read some of the papers and proposals so I would rather wait. However, as Deputy Quinn stated, the French are trying to look at small farmers and are debating the definition of a "small farmer". They are endeavouring to leave the position unchanged for small farmers, to take them out of the equation and not to have them in a negative position between 2000 and 2006. That would affect 96 per cent of our farmers and, naturally, that is a position to which we would link.
With regard to the argument about intensive and extensive farming I argued with Commissioner Fischler recently that because Ireland is pasture based, environmentally friendly and dairying is traditional, there are many merits in our position rather than that which the Commission and others are pressing. That is something we will continue to argue at the Agriculture Council and everywhere else.
Does the Taoiseach see that if one adopts a policy of regressivity there is a difficulty in that potentially viable commercial units are penalised as their unit costs are increased relative to units that may not be potentially viable? While that may be socially acceptable from a rural development point of view, or at least a population maintenance point of view, it is not necessarily conducive towards competitive international commercial efficiency in Irish agriculture and, ultimately, that must be an objective as well. We should have an agriculture industry that can stand on its own two feet.
That, of course, is true and is an argument. However, Deputy Bruton will accept, given our social and rural background and our agriculture industry traditionally, that when one looks at present resources and the breakdown of the £1.065 billion allocated to the industry last year relatively small amounts were given to the majority of farmers. One does not have to be a statistician looking into the future at the age profile of farmers to see that one way or the other their profile will change dramatically over the coming years. If these farmers are not given a soft landing in the next round it will create mayhem in the agricultural sector.
Even the representatives of larger farmers see that point. At the same time they do not want to be in an agreement that will exclude their interests, but that is what we must fight for. The ongoing debate and some of the proposals put forward, which have dealt with this very closely, would devastate Irish agriculture and many arguments put and presentations made by continental farmers are really designed to look at big farmers and what some of them call "factory farms". We cannot get caught up in those types of negotiations and the French are the nearest to our position on that. I am not saying we can totally agree with them but they are adopting a policy of regressivity and they have been the hottest opponents of co-financing, similar to ourselves. It makes sense for me to support that line.
When the Taoiseach met Mr. Rasmussen, Prime Minister of a country well used to referenda on matters of national interest and importance, did he raise the question of the NATO-led Partnership for Peace? Will he raise the ramifications of PfP with Prime Minister Jospin and President Chirac?
I did not. As I said, my meetings were primarily on Agenda 2000 and I do not think I will get around to discussing PfP. However, if I were to, I would emphasise the importance of our peacekeeping efforts to enhance our ability to address emerging EU security debates in the future.
Does the Taoiseach accept that there is a need, given its age structure, to encourage more young people into farming and that it will be difficult to attract such people on a full-time basis if the perspective is solely one of social supports where the predominant part of their incomes is based on socially determined objectives? Does he further accept that there is a need to create some perspective for young people entering the industry in terms of a medium-term commercial future and that the structure should support that as well as the short-term social objectives, which, of course, are right from both a human and rural development point of view? However, we must also have that other element of the objectives of commerciality.
I have no difficulty with that. Dairying is the one aspect of agriculture which has been good and that is the argument about the milk quota. If we were to agree to the present milk quota arrangements, we would get 1 per cent and Austria would get 9 per cent, while other countries would get 6, 7 or 8 per cent, and that would be an entirely negative feature for young farmers who want a career in this area. The strongest case has been put by our farm leaders in dairying as to why that would be devastating for them. I have no difficulty with that argument, but I am doing it in addition to the other case.
Of course, the income of more than half our farmers does not come entirely from the land, they have other sources of income, professionally or working in industry and services. That position has changed even from a decade ago and while that is not necessarily a good position it is a reality. What certainly is not a good position is that 57 per cent of farm income is made up of direct payments and that is not giving much of a future to those who are trying to build up a viable—
Young people will not go into that perspective.
I accept that, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the age profile of the 150,000 or so farmers is such that we must protect what is effectively a soft landing position and that must be negotiated.
Is it possible to separate clearly and conceptually the two elements in the Common Agricultural Policy, the soft landing aspect as described by the Taoiseach with one set of provisions and the commerciality objectives which he also accepted should be part of the deal? There should be two separate parallel arrangements for both rather than the current situation where the two are mixed together and one tends to frustrate the other, which is the ultimate difficulty for both Government and farmers.
The discussions would be much easier if they were separated but they are inextricably linked. The case is keenly fought but there will not be complete separation.
That concludes Taoiseach's question time. We now proceed to questions nominated for priority for which 20 minutes are allocated. If Question No. 42 is not reached in that time, it falls.