Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Feb 2003

Vol. 561 No. 3

Other Questions. - Special Beef Premium.

Seymour Crawford

Question:

9 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps he has taken to rectify the serious situation where only committed beef farmers with applications for over 50 special beef premium will have to bear the full cutbacks which have come about due to excess premium demand as a result of negotiations in Luxembourg in 2002; his views on whether his Department's method of deduction is fair and will have long-term consequences if new Fischler proposals are accepted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4046/03]

While final figures detailing the number of eligible applications in the 2002 special beef premium will not be available until March, it is clear at this stage that the national quota of 1,028,153 will be exceeded significantly. This situation is the result of a rush of applications submitted to my Department in December 2002 in anticipation that 2002 would be a reference year for the purposes of the Commission's proposals for the mid-term review of the CAP. In the event, 2002 is one of the three reference years proposed by the Commission for the single farm payment with the calculation based on the average of the three reference years 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Provisional figures of applications for first age and bull premium of 2002 show that the quota was exceeded by 113,292 or 11.02%. This will be somewhat reduced as the premium is only paid on eligible animals. The final overshoot will not be known for some time yet.

It is clear that the Commission's proposed intention of using 2002 as one of the base years for establishing entitlement to de-coupled payments was a major factor in the huge number of applications submitted in late December. The number of first age animals and bulls applied for in December 2002 was 321,802 which amounted to 28% of all 2002 applications and shows an increase of 27% over December 2001 applications. Of more importance, however, was that three quarters of the December applications were received on or after 19 December. It is probable, therefore, that most of the producers who submitted applications for special beef premium in December did so on the basis that 2002 would be a reference year for the purposes of the proposed single direct payment.

I thank the Minister for the figures. The real problem is that those farmers with over 50 premium rights will have to bear the full brunt of any cutbacks. Does the Minister believe there is a need for high quality full-time beef farmers and is he prepared to defend their rights so that they will not suffer this sort of cut? Is the Minister prepared to go to Brussels or elsewhere to have this situation rectified so that farmers will not lose out in the manner proposed at present?

The Minister mentioned premium rights. If farmers get a cutback in the 2002 premium rights as a result of this, will that carry through to whatever decision is taken on the Fischler proposals in the future and, as full-time beef farmers, would they carry the penalties right through?

I have been helpful to the larger specialist beef farmers and I increased the 90 limit to 180, which effectively allowed for the 360 quota rights. At the same time, to achieve equitable treatment for the smaller farmer, I decided to exempt them from any overshoot that might arise from the former decision. This meant that farmers submitting applications for premia in respect of 50 animals or less would not have to contribute to any clawback. This exemption is fully compatible with the terms and conditions of the special beef premium and it was agreed at the time I increased or doubled the 90 limit. It is fair and equitable.

The negotiations of the mid-term review of the CAP are under way and while they will take some time I have made clear my objections to both the Commission and the Council. There are several months of negotiation ahead and the working groups are only now getting down to work to arrive at a definitive position on our initial proposals.

Some farmers will get a cut this year of approximately €11,000 as a direct result of this clawback. While there are more votes from smaller farmers, will the Minister indicate if full-time livestock farmers are entitled to a fair deal? This cutback will seriously impinge on them.

Is the Minister aware that many may have lost out on their end of year claim due to the postal strike and, if so, will he consider their position in a lenient manner, especially if the Fischler proposals are implemented? Will he clarify if, in addition to the option of the reference years 2000, 2001 and 2002, the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 will also be considered? Alternatively, will he consider recommending that a regional average be taken if the Fischler proposals are implemented?

I was helpful to the larger intensive farmers and increased their numbers, but the smaller farmers did not like it. Last autumn, farmers went to marts and paid over the odds for stores and weanlings. They did this because they took the view that 2002 would be the reference year. The result was an overshoot in our quota. It now appears that the larger farmers are aware of this but want the smaller farmers to pay the piper. That is unfair.

I will consider the problems arising with the postal service at the end of last year. We will try to be as helpful as we can.

Is there an option with regard to the reference years?

I have established consultative groups with the farming organisations and the agriculture industry and they will meet from next week. They were helpful during the Agenda 2000 negotiations in 1999. We want to develop a coherent attitude to the proposals and to get the best deal for the country and the industry. If the industry considers we should opt for the best of three years or some other combination of years I will support it.

Top
Share