I understand that some of my colleagues also wish to speak so I will be limiting my contribution to five minutes.
European Communities Negotiations: Statements (Resumed).
What is the position about other people who wish to speak?
I am operating an agreement that has been reached between the Whips.
I understand that a number of people wish to speak on this, one of the most important issues ever to come before the House. As a Deputy from a rural constituency who is familiar with the agricultural scene, I am very disappointed at not having the opportunity to contribute. In addition to representing people engaged in farming, I am engaged in agriculture myself.
The Deputy is not being helpful. This is a limited debate and the Deputy is only devouring some of the time of his own party by delaying the House in this way.
We joined the EEC on the basis not only of certain circumstances prevailing at the time but of certain expectations. We all knew then that some of our industries would suffer as a result of the cold winds of competition from Europe but that as a compensatory factor we could expect a great degree of expansion of the agricultural sector by way of the support we would receive for that sector. That was one of the main reasons for the Irish people voting overwhelmingly for accession to the Community.
Ten years later it would be very wrong if the very benefits on which our accession was based were to be removed. We cannot accept the imposition of this super-levy. If it were to be imposed on us we would be in the ridiculous situation not only of having suffered already the results of the competition in the industrial sector, but of suffering a very regressive penalty in the agricultural area, the result of which would be to seriously damage our agricultural economy.
When we joined the EEC our industries were not sophisticated to the extent that those of our counterparts were sophisticated. We did not have the experience of the industrial revolution that was experienced in places like Sheffield and the Ruhr. We were dependent on agriculture and that is why we emphasised the benefits that membership would bestow on that sector. In those circumstances I see no option now but for us to seek an exemption from the proposed super-levy at least until such time as the Irish dairy industry has achieved the same production levels as those enjoyed by our EEC partners. The Germans and the British consider themselves to be subsidising agriculture to a very great extent but they now see as an easy remedy the curtailing of spending on agriculture. This would create a serious embargo in respect of our agricultural industry. It may seem an easy resolution of their problems now but it could very well prove to be a very big problem for some other sectors in two to three years' time.
If the Deputy is giving five minutes of his time to another speaker, he must conclude now.
I support fully the efforts of the Government to date in their negotiations with our EEC partners and I trust that whatever action is necessary will be taken to ensure that no embargo will be placed in so far as the growth of Irish agriculture is concerned.
I, too, welcome this opportunity of expressing my abhorrence of and total opposition to the proposal to introduce a super-levy in respect of the dairy industry. I deny categorically the allegations made before noon by my colleague from South Tipperary, Deputy Byrne, that the Government are not taking this matter seriously. The Taoiseach has visited the Greek Premier and also the British Prime Minister. He has met Mr. Thorn and also the acting Belgian Prime Minister and he will be meeting with the German Chancellor on his visit to Ireland. In his meetings with these people the Taoiseach impressed on them the seriousness of the super-levy.
This proposal would have a devastating effect on our economy which is almost totally dependent on agriculture. Our dairying industry accounts for one in ten of those employed. It accounts for approximately 10 per cent of our total exports and for about 9 per cent of our GNP. The average yield per cow in Ireland is approximately 80 per cent of the EEC average. It is 750 gallons compared with the Northern European figure of 1,100 gallons while the figure for the general area of the Community is 915 gallons.
I must emphasise the impact that the imposition of the super-levy would have on the Golden Vale which is one of the most intensive dairying areas in the Community, excluding the factory-type farming that is common in some parts of Europe. The super-levy would have a shattering effect in terms of the confidence our young farmers have in their future on the land. On joining the EEC we brought about a situation in which at long last the stranglehold of the British market was being broken. We were gaining access to the markets of the other EEC countries. Unfortunately, we were understocked and under-capitalised but our progressive young farmers set about competing with their European rivals in the interest of availing of our new-found opportunities. They built milking parlours, silage layouts, slurry tanks and so on. They purchased machinery, fertilised their lands and generally increased and improved their holdings. All of this work was done by way of mortgaging their farms.
We have been hearing about the various proposals. Some of these proposals we would support but we are opposed to others. We must emphasise the social impact that the proposals would have on rural Ireland. They would mean the disappearance of the family farm. It is absolutely essential that we retain the family farm unit. We must put a stop to any further exodus of the people from the countryside to the towns and cities. We must not add to the unacceptable level of the 16 per cent unemployment rate. The super-levy would result in the denuding of the countryside and in depriving young and progressive farmers of the means to continue on the land. From that point of view I totally reject the super-levy. I might compliment An Bord Bainne on their efforts to obtain alternative markets.
The Deputy's time is up.
In comparison with other member states they have carried out their work in a magnificent manner. There is need for our dairying industry to face the changes in the dairy products centres. For example, in Denmark they produce 85,000 tonnes of special cheese for the Arabs and, in Scotland, 7,000 tonnes. I would urge An Bord Bainne to take a further look at these centres so that we may produce products suitable to the new type of changing consumer states, especially in the newly-found markets of the Third World.
I might re-emphasise my total opposition to the introduction of this super-levy.
I am now calling Deputy Hugh Byrne. I am told that it has been agreed between the Whips that he will have half-an-hour. If that is so he will finish at 4.10 p.m. There will then be five minutes remaining to the Government side of the House before calling on the Minister for Agriculture.
We in the Fianna Fáil Party welcome this debate on the EEC Commission's proposals to change the Common Agricultural Policy with particular reference to the super-levy and how this will affect our economy.
Since returning here after the summer recess we fought on a daily basis to be given an opportunity to debate this issue. Following tremendous pressure by our party, later joined by all farming organisations, including the ICOS, Macra na Feirme, the ICMSA and the IFA, the Government eventually got the message and allowed the debate. One must question seriously their reluctance to have this debate in the first instance. Was it not the Taoiseach himself who said on 7 July 1983, on the occasion of the Adjournment Debate before the summer recess — speaking on the changes in the Common Agricultural Policy — that this was of immense importance to all of us on this island whether we earned our living on a farm or in other walks of life? The Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, at the National Co-operative Conference on Monday, 7 November 1983, said that even if there was no super-levy we should not delude ourselves that things will be easy. I need not emphasise the importance of milk to our economy. Mr. Brendan Halligan, Member of the European Parliament, at the same conference, on 8 November 1983 — when referring to the special problems in relation to the changes in the Common Agricultural Policy — said he greatly feared, on the basis of personal experience, that these problems were not understood. For that reason I am most pessimistic about the prospects of a special deal for Ireland.
The Minister for Agriculture, speaking in the House on the Adjournment Debate on the Milk Super-Levy on 26 October 1983, at column 935 of the Official Report had this to say:
This is a time when we must be completely responsible in Ireland, because we are facing up to a very important debate, probably the most important national issue facing us since our EEC accession.
Here we have leading members of the Coalition Parties declaring that the super-levy issue is vital to this country. Yet they were reluctant to have the issue debated here. It is my opinion that their reluctance to have this debate was a grave error of judgment and every day that passed without that debate was a further demonstration of the Government's sheer hypocrisy and lack of appreciation of the extent of the problem. Dáil Éireann is the highest forum in the land. We must ask ourselves: why were the Government anxious to keep the debate out of the House? Was it a fear of exposing their inadequacies, of exposing differences between various Members of the Cabinet, was it a fear of exposing the different views expressed by individuals Cabinet colleagues and the Taoiseach, or was it merely an attitude — well, we hope the problem will go away? Even at this stage — because of the muzzling of the debate — I am convinced our people are not yet fully aware of the implications of the change in the Common Agricultural Policy proposed.
Undoubtedly the Common Agricultural Policy is now in severe difficulty. This is due to a combination of circumstances, mainly of continued increases in EEC farm production, in contrast with relatively static food consumption, with the long-term growth and volume of agricultural production rising from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent per annum. Therefore, the Community has become more than self-sufficient for most of its major agricultural commodities, with consumption rising at 0.05 per cent. Inevitably problems arise when the Commission feel that this can only become more acute in the future. For instance, in the past year, 104 million tonnes of milk were produced, 88 million tonnes were consumed, leaving 16 million tonnes of a surplus. This year there is an over-supply on the American market, leaving little or no scope for exports from the EEC. Thus the Commission decided that production will have to be controlled. Of course, the other circumstances prevailing are, on the one hand, a steady and substantial erosion of the principle of Community preference which appears to have gone out the window and, on the other hand, the full utilisation of existing EEC financial resources with a possible delay until the year 1986 before new, own resources are implemented.
Obviously the Commission had to take stock of that situation. Part of their plan for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy is the proposed introduction of a super-levy or tax on milk production. What that means is that milk producers will have to bear the full cost of disposing of milk surplus, this, mind you, in addition to a co-responsibility levy of 2 per cent on milk introduced in 1977. The Commission decided that 1981 would be the base year and that any milk supplied in excess of that supplied in 1981 would be subjected to the super-levy. The levy is so vicious that farmers certainly would not go beyond the 1981 levels. In Ireland this would have disastrous consequences.
With unemployment figures at their present level, with the amount of poverty that is around, we are all aware that we are in deep recession. But that recession of today is as nothing in comparison with that felt if we allowed this proposed super-levy to be imposed. Indeed it would recall the tortures and hardships of the bleakest days in our history, relatively speaking, those of the Famine years. The real impact of its imposition has not been fully grasped by all our people. The Government have failed to impress on them the devastation it would cause. Their weak, unco-ordinated, haphazard approach gives the impression that this problem will never arise.
I maintain that the battle is being lost, that farming will deteriorate and every provincial town will become a ghost town. Our land is our greatest national asset, as we have heard so often yesterday and today. It is under attack now as never before. Yet the Clondalkin Paper Mills — a vital issue for West Dublin — and Údarás na Gaeltachta — a matter of the gravest concern for the Gaeltacht — pale into insignificance in comparison with the holocaust now confronting us. But one can be sure that the Clondalkin Paper Mills and Údarás na Gaeltachta will steal all of the media attention. I would contend that the media also have failed in their duty to the Irish people on this particular super-levy cause.
In recent times farming organisations, particularly Macra na Feirme, have led the way with a new initiative in bringing home to our people the extent of the problem facing them. The ICMSA, the IFA, the co-operative movement and the ICA play an important and effective role in this issue. I ask them all to keep up the fight at home, especially through any contacts they may have in Europe. I had hoped that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions would have come out more strongly and totally against these proposals. I know they are on our side, as is everybody in the House. As they have said so, I would ask them again to consider the vast implications for their members and to act accordingly.
It is well known that Ireland has one of the most under-developed dairy sectors in the Community and one of the most dependent on the milk sector. Over half of Irish farm families are dependent on milk production. The only hope for recovery in the economy today is from a fully developed agriculture, with dairying leading the way. The beef industry is very dependent, 80 per cent dependent, on the dairy industry. The super-levy, if it were to be introduced would put 14 to 15 per cent of Irish milk production out of existence, with serious consequences for unemployment.
In County Wexford where milk production went up by 22 per cent since 1981, the reduction would be far greater and indeed all agri-related businesses are very worried about that possibility. On a recent tour of County Wexford I discovered that the agri-business expressed deep disatisfaction at the possibility of the introduction of the milk levy. Wexford cheese factory said that they would have to let off a large number of their work force; Albatros Fertilizer claim they would have to reduce staff; Clonroche Mills are completely dependent on the dairy farmers of Wexford, and the hinterland for sales.
In 1960 there were 390,000 full-time farmers in Ireland, and in 1980, there were 220,000. If the levy is imposed, I believe that this number will be halved within the next few years. Where are all the jobs going to be found for all of these people, with unemployment levels at the 200,000 mark at present and with half the businesses in Ireland literally on the brink of bankruptcy? To this we must add 100,000 farmers and their families. Only by doing this can we begin to realise the extent of the problem now facing us.
Agriculture has been the backbone of the Irish economy. Farmers have always reacted to every challenge which ever faced them. They have increased production against all the odds. Whenever agriculture is doing well, so too is the rest of the economy. The PAYE workers have on many occasion spoken out against the penal tax imposed upon them, and with the increase in unemployment, the number of PAYE people from whom tax can be collected is getting fewer, therefore the burden upon them will get greater. I am saying that there will be a revolution amongst the PAYE taxpayers if the milk levy is imposed, because of the consequent unemployment amongst farmers and those working in related businesses.
Ireland of course has a very special position in comparison to other member states. For instance, agriculture accounts for 15 per cent of gross national product in Ireland which runs at about 2 per cent in the other European nations. So it is vitally necessary that we totally reject any proposals for change in the Common Agricultural Policy, and particularly that we reject the proposal to introduce a milk super-levy.
Let us have a look at how the Irish Government have dealt with this problem to date. Remembering that in 1980 Deputy MacSharry, the then Minister for Agriculture, stopped a similar proposal dead in its tracks with strong and firm negotiations. The super-levy idea has been around for a while now and the Commission have been seeking an opportunity to introduce it for a few years. Why I wonder did they pick 1983? They were aware of course that the Coalition of Labour and Fine Gael had taken over Government in this country last November. They are also aware that the Government of the Coalition parties had dropped the farm modernisation scheme and had withdrawn £156 million pounds in the budget of 1983. Could it be that they felt that there was not a commitment to Irish agriculture by the Government, and did they play on this weakness? How did these proposals come to be on the table? Is this not an indictment of our Government that these proposals were allowed develop? The Taoiseach Deputy Garret FitzGerald, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Barry, attended the meeting in Stuttgart after which the Taoiseach told us that he was quite satisfied that he had protected Irish interests, even though at that stage these devastating proposals were about to be launched. Is it possible that these proposals were formulated under the very nose of the Taoiseach and the Irish Government?
In a flurry of excitement from Government Ministers following the announcement of the proposals, the Taoiseach promised us that he would engage in a tour of the European capitals in order to put Ireland's special case to all his counterparts. The veto would be used, and firmly to let it be seen that Ireland had a conviction about opposing this levy. But as time wore on, no tour of the European capitals and in answer to a Dáil question by me the Taoiseach said that he would meet from time to time with the various Prime Ministers. As I said then, and I still contend, this haphazard approach has led to the situation that we now find ourselves in, one of weakness on behalf of the Government, a weakness that the member states are playing upon. I firmly believe, as do many organisations throughout this country, including the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, that a tour of the European capitals would serve a great purpose even at this stage. Such a tour dealing specifically with the milk levy and the other changes in the Common Agricultural Policy, would attract an enormous amount of attention in Europe, and as such, would demonstrate Ireland's very special position.
The Taoiseach has told us, Deputy O'Donnell, Member of the European Parliament, has told us, the Minister, Deputy Peter Barry, in his statement yesterday has told us, that other member states are well acquainted with the particular Irish problem. Yet, Mr. Brendan Halligan, Labour Member of the European Parliament, said at the Irish Co-operative Conference on 8 November, 1983:
too little, if anything, is known about it on the Continent. The degree of ignorance about Ireland on the Continent is reciprocated by the extent of ignorance about the Continent in Ireland. It is that ignorance about Ireland which poses the greatest threat to us within the Community as regards the super-levy. Decisions are about to be made in Athens which will have devastating effects on our economy, but those who are about to inflict the damage will do so oblivious of what they are about to inflict upon us. They are not adversely disposed towards Ireland, just ignorant of our real circumstances.
Who, might I ask, is telling the truth, and again I will ask the Taoiseach to consider favourably doing a tour of the European capitals, even at this stage.
The Taoiseach has been asked in the Dáil on a number of occasions if he intends to use the veto as a last resort, but we have not yet got a definite answer from him. I would like the Minister in his reply to comment on this point this evening.
When we joined the EEC we knew we had the option open to us to use a veto in the event of our country not being satisfied with any particular proposals. This was in order to give weaker countries a strong power. Why is the Taoiseach dithering on this issue now? The Minister for Agriculture was interviewed before he left this country on one of his negotiating trips. He admitted defeat before he went, and you can be certain that the news of that defeat had reached the ears of those with whom he was going to negotiate, before he reached the negotiating table. The defeatist attitude is one we cannot afforded and one on which we certainly will not win.
Why are the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture not as one on the milk levy? Unity is strength. I appeal to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for Agriculture to put behind them whatever differences there are between them now and to get on with the job of maintaining total solidarity against any such proposal. To date the Government's handling of the affair has been dismal; but the battle is not yet lost and, if I am critical of the activities of the members of the Government, the Fianna Fáil Party will support fully any move for the total rejection of the super-levy. Our contribution to this debate is not to score political points but rather to be a support to the Government so that when they go abroad to do their negotiating they will be aware that they will have strong Opposition support and the member states will also be aware that Ireland is fully united in her opposition to any such proposal.
Total rejection of such proposals must be supported by an alternative. We in Fianna Fáil must agree that we cannot reject totally any proposals to clear up this financial mess of the CAP without putting forward some alternative. The sum of £1,814 million must be saved within the EEC and this is the purpose of the proposal now before us. If the super-levy were not imposed how would this £1,814 million be saved? We say that it could be saved in two ways. The first is complete blockage of New Zealand butter imports into the UK. I was very pleased with the Minister's attitude to this issue and I encourage him to proceed along these lines. Everybody in the House will be aware that Britain imports 80,000 tonnes of butter from New Zealand. Ireland is within the EEC and New Zealand is outside the EEC. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry, said yesterday in his opening statement in relation to the Treaty of Rome, the Treaty establishing the Community affirmed unambiguously that the essential objective of the member states must be the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of the people of Europe. The text went on to underline the need to ensure the harmonious development of the economies of the member states by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions.
This is a fundamental Community philosophy. Is Ireland less important than New Zealand? How can New Zealand get this type of protection from the EEC? Recently a New Zealand Government Minister expressed his confidence that the EEC could improve its butter quota for next year for his country. Is it not ironic that New Zealand's transitional arrangements for butter to the EEC ran out in 1977? Protocol 18 in the Treaty of Accession says on the import of butter and cheese that the UK are authorised as a transitional arrangement to import from New Zealand certain quantities of butter and cheese and that the transitional arrangement is to cease at the end of 1977. Now not only have the transitional arrangements been continued but the number of tonnes of butter imported to Britain is far greater. How can the EEC Ministers support New Zealand's case in the future?
The Deputy has five minutes to conclude.
Where is the support in Europe? What about Ireland's case? From the type of support they are receiving in Europe New Zealand can predict confidently that in five year's time they will be exporting not less than 80,000 tonnes of butter to the UK annually. Can Irish farmers predict with such certainty for the future? Again, New Zealand is not within the EEC; Ireland is. Why is Ireland being penalised while New Zealand's interests are being protected? Has the Taoiseach pointed out this viewpoint to the member states?
Our Ministers should remember that they have the right in the Council to a unanimous vote. The EEC is a wonderful concept in theory but the manipulation of it by the bigger powers leaves one to ask if our continued membership of the EEC is desirable. If the import of New Zealand butter were stopped the saving would be £76 million. One might claim that that is not a great amount, but it would ease the burden — and, of course, the principle more than anything else matters. In line with stopping New Zealand butter we must give strong consideration to the total banning of the import of cereal substitutes from outside the EEC. This year 15 million tonnes of cereal substitutes have been imported into the EEC and this has jumped from 4.7 million tonnes in 1974. It would take 75 per cent of all the land in Ireland to grow the amount of cereal substitutes being imported into the EEC. Half of this 15 million tonnes is used in the production of milk. Cereal substitutes are low in protein. We must import five million tonnes of soya bean to supplement the mix or to create a proper balance. Cereal substitutes add 20 million tonnes of milk to European production, and remember the surplus is 16 million tonnes. The export cost of that 20 million tonnes of milk is £1,270 million and we will save £800 million if we do not have to subsidise our cereals that were displaced by the import of cereal substitutes.
Cereal substitutes and New Zealand butter are real problems. If both were eliminated there would be a surplus of finance within the CAP; but because of the strength of the Germans and British manipulation of the highest order, we, the underdeveloped Irish nation, are penalised. We must adopt a strong line of action against the importation of cereal substitutes and New Zealand butter. We must revert to the Treaty of Rome and to the principles on which the EEC was founded. We must use every method at our disposal to achieve this aim. We must not adopt a junior partner attitude. Above all, at the end of this debate this evening we must have a clear statement from the Minister for Agriculture to the effect that he and his Government totally reject any change in the CAP.
Deputy Avril Doyle. The Minister has agreed to give Deputy Doyle five minutes of his time, so I ask her to conclude at 4.20 p.m.
I am much obliged to the Minister. The Treaty establishing the Community has a fundamental philosophy that the objective of every state must be the improvement of the living and working conditions of the people and it must decrease the differences that exist between the various regions in this regard. These differences still exist today. Article 5 of the Treaty points out that member states shall abstain from any measure which would jeopardise the objectives of the Treaty. We as a member country of the Community have a vital national interest to protect now and we will do just that. If any limb of the Community is irreparably damaged, the body itself suffers the pain and the loss. The super-levy issue is of vital national interest and would, if implemented here, have such disastrous consequences for the economic wellbeing of our country that nothing short of exemption for the first four years would be acceptable to us.
The recognition of the vital national interest involved shown by the tremendous work of our Minister for Agriculture for months now on this issue is to be lauded by us all. He has travelled all over Europe weekly and in him, together with the solidarity of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Finance and, indeed, our Taoiseach, we have a most talented and impressive team working on our behalf. Make no mistake, we stand alone on this issue. The other nine Members all accept the super-levy proposals. The British perhaps might opt for price cuts in preference, but that would be a disastrous option for us.
If, and indeed when, we get an exemption, we will have other countries to contend with. The French will want exemption for their poorer regions; the British for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; the Italians for Southern Italy. Their cases do not stand up to scrutiny. As to the French and Italians, the European average output is 915 gallons per cow per annum. The Northern Ireland average is over 1,000 gallons per cow per annum. Compare this with our very unfavourable average yield per annum of slightly in excess of 750 gallons per cow. Even COPA, the umbrella organisation of the farm organisations, did not support our case for an exemption and IFA delegates were very disappointed at their reaction. Our ex-Minister for Agriculture and European MP, Mark Clinton, put down a motion recently on Ireland's special case which was defeated. Only today, four MEPs are tabling amendments to try to get support for our case. Yes, we stand alone.
We agree that there is a need for measures. The Commission must increase their own resources. Over 50 per cent of financing comes from the 1 per cent proceeds of VAT from each country. Bluntly, the Community have run out of money. There are proposals to increase the VAT contribution to 1.4 per cent from its present 1 per cent contribution level. Britain and Germany have said that they will not pay that unless the agricultural spending is brought under control and surpluses got rid of. It will cost the Community £3,000 million to rid themselves of dairy product surpluses this year. Without the super-levy in Europe as a whole it would cost £4,000 million next year to be rid of the surpluses. Without the super-levy in Europe which is being made a precondition of the increase in VAT contributions to 1.4 per cent by some members, export refunds on beef and cattle to the Middle East would be very badly hit — something which is of great interest to us here.
One would imagine, listening to some of the intemperate outbursts during contributions of Members of the Opposition in this debate, that there was a difference of opinion in our position on this issue. Our grassland is our greatest indigenous resource for beef and dairy products. We depend on our grass for the future of our economic growth. In the Community production must be concentrated on areas of greatest natural advantage. Where in Europe is it more suitable for dairying than here in Ireland with our good soil, temperate climate and insular position, such an asset for disease control? Ireland contributes only 5 per cent of the total EEC milk production at the moment, compared with more than 23 per cent for the Germans and French and over 11 per cent for the Italians and the Netherlands. However, our dependence on dairying here compared with other countries is very high. Dairying and milk products comprise 32 per cent of our total agricultural output. In Germany milk is only 24.5 per cent of the total agricultural output and in the Netherlands only 26.6 per cent. Its importance to our economy, although our yields compare unfavourably with those of our European partners, being 20 per cent below the European average, cannot be overstated. As 1 per cent of our GNP at 4.5 per cent it is away ahead of the other nine countries. Greece rates next to us, with its milk averaging 1.3 per cent of its gross national product. Forty per cent of employment in this country depends directly or indirectly on the dairy and beef industries. My own county of Wexford is heavily dependent on the dairy industry at all levels, from the farmers and the farm families right down to the distribution to the creameries. Milk, cheese, butter, baby foods, yogurt — all these are produced in Wexford. I live directly opposite Wexford Creamery, one of our success stories. Over 200 people work there on shift, in a town with 25 per cent unemployment.
The Deputy has five minutes.
Think of the effect if there were to be any diminishing of the dairying industry in Wexford alone, and every Deputy could say that for his own county, I am sure.
There has been no progress in Brussels recently, as expected. However, the Greek Presidency have put forward a paper recognising that Ireland has a special case. We cannot accept the terms of the Greek suggestion, but it is a major step in the right direction. It recognises our vital national interest in this issue and underlines our stance for a complete derogation of the initial four-year period. Other EEC Agriculture Ministers do not like the Greek proposals, as they themselves are under pressure from their own farming organisations, which is very understandable. It would be naive to think that agreement on our position would be forthcoming from them. The Special Council of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and the Finance Ministers will have to come up with the answers. It is likely that the Summit in Athens in December will decide the issue. The Greeks would appear to be angling for a favourable conclusion of this issue during their term of Presidency.
Finally, with milk output at 4.54 per cent of our gross national product, our yield 20 per cent lower than the EEC average and with the greatest natural advantages in Europe for dairy production, we will protect a vital national interest and there can be no question of accepting the super-levy proposals.
The Minister to conclude the Debate.
At the outset, I thank the Deputies for their contributions to this debate which has been useful and constructive. I want to reiterate the point made by our Chief Whip, Minister of State, Deputy Barrett, that the duration of this debate was agreed between the two main parties. Some people have been complaining about the shortness of the debate. There was total agreement, with no objection whatsoever. I want to put that on the record.
Secondly, I heard Deputy Byrne saying that since the Dáil reassembled a month ago there has been a day-by-day clamour for a debate on this subject. The only clamour that I heard — or heard about, because I was away last week — was Deputy Sean Byrne of South Tipperary demanding such a debate. I have been in this House most days since the resumption and have hardly heard a murmur. I do not believe that I have heard a demand on one occasion. I heard a few questions to the Taoiseach but other than that and the Adjournment Debate referred to, little or nothing. I just want to clarify that position.
For the record, every day since we came back we have been demanding a debate.
Every day.
We did not make enough noise.
The Official Report is there. There is an absence of any clamour for a debate.
The Minister did not come in often enough.
There is not very much evidence. I have been here more often than Deputy Byrne, I suspect, with my very limited time.
Does the Minister want to lay a bet on it? Done. I put 19 to one.
I would not mind.
The Minister will not pay up.
That we are having this debate at all when we are currently engaged on perhaps the most difficult and far-reaching set of negotiations for this country since our accession to the Community is because the subjects of the negotiation touch on issues that are fundamental, both for the future of this country and the Community itself.
The Ministers for Finance and Foreign Affairs have already referred to some of these issues, so I am confining my remarks primarily to the Commission's proposals as they affect the Common Agricultural Policy. It is obvious, however, from the debate which we have had, that Deputies are generally familiar with the main provisions of the Commission's proposals to which I will be referring in more detail later.
I do not accept that there is an ignorance among the public, or a lack of knowledge about what is at stake. People are very much aware, all sections of the community, of what is at stake. It gives us great strength that that is so. I would not agree with the suggestion that there is a lack of interest, or knowledge, or understanding. I want to clarify the situation at the outset. We are talking about two different sets of proposals. Originally, on 28 July the Commission — that is the 14-man Commission in Brussels — put forward a series of proposals which would have had very disastrous effects on this country if fully implemented.
We have had three special general meetings since those proposals were published, at the end of August, the middle of October and last week, the middle of November. There was not a great deal of progress made in those discussions because countries, by and large, stated their positions, what they would accept and what they would not accept. They were intransigent when it came to any movement in the direction of an agreed settlement. We have been the most intransigent because the Greek Presidency, at the beginning of last week, put forward a fresh set of proposals. They were not entirely different. There were variations from the Commission's original proposals. While we were not happy with the proposals put forward by the Presidency we got what is in my view a very significant foothold because we are the only country referred to specifically in the document.
The reference to Ireland gives cause for considerable hope. It says:
Because of the special role of the dairy sector in its economy as a whole and developments which have taken place in recent years, Ireland will have a guaranteed threshold corresponding to its [1983] production.
They have not accepted that the 1983 level is totally unacceptable but they recognise that we have a special difficulty. That in itself is significant. We are the only country singled out. The south of Italy and the mountainous regions of France were not singled out. They all might have felt that they should have cause for inclusion but Ireland was the only country which got that special recognition.
When at their meeting in Stuttgart on 18 June, the Heads of State and Government requested that an examination of the Common Agricultural Policy should be carried out, they made two very pertinent points. Firstly, they stressed that the basic principle and aims of the CAP would be observed in keeping with the objectives set out in the Treaty and, secondly, that the adaptation of the policy should be done in such a way that it could fulfil these aims in a coherent manner. In response to that request the EEC Commission submitted a report on 28 July recommending a number of measures to rationalise the CAP.
Before I deal with the more specific aspects of the Commission's report I would like to make a few general comments. It is clear from the general thrust of the proposals, and indeed from the discussions thereon that have taken place in the Special Council of Ministers, that the main emphasis is to impose stricter controls on the CAP and especially its increasing cost. I might state that the special Council which was set up as a result of that Stuttgart meeting of Heads of State consists of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and the Ministers for Finance from each of the ten member countries. The Ministers for Agriculture are not an integral part of that Council but they may be requested to attend while matters dealing with agriculture are being discussed. The overall decision at Stuttgart was to examine the future financing of the Community, which involves a much wider base than just the CAP. I would like to make that point quite clear to Members of the House.
The situation confronting the Community on the budget and its future financing is undoubtedly a very serious one, and it would be foolhardy for any of us to ignore that background in considering the future of the CAP. This problem has been brought home to us strikingly in recent weeks. Because of the precarious situation it is currently facing in financing agricultural expenditure the Commission has had to suspend advance payment of export refunds and make certain other financial changes.
The outlook for financing agricultural expenditure in 1984 is even more serious. Clearly, therefore, the future financing of the Community is of vital importance in considering the future of the CAP. As has already been pointed out by my colleagues, the general question of the future financing of the Community is one of the key issues in the current negotiations as well as such issues as new policies and the restructuring of the Community's social, regional and structural funds. We are, of course, seeking to ensure that parallel progress is made in all those sectors simultaneously with any changes in the CAP.
In its report the Commission recognises the importance of the CAP to the development of the Community and the special characteristics of agriculture which distinguish it from other economic sectors. While acknowledging that adaptation of the policy cannot be made on exclusively budgetary criteria, the Commission stresses the need to adapt the policy to meet the conditions which now prevail and to ensure the most efficient use of the available financial resources. The problem of over-production of certain products is seen to be of critical concern given the limited market outlets and the burden which the disposal of surplus production places on the Community budget.
While expenditure on agriculture remained stable in the period 1980-82 an abrupt change has occured in 1983 when expenditure is estimated to increase by over 30 per cent and its rate of growth will outstrip the rate of increase in the Community's own resources. The Commission draws attention to the record growth in stocks of some products particularly dairy products, cereals and beef and emphasises that the present critical situation cannot be remedied by short-term action. It maintains that only action to adapt the CAP in a rational long-term framework can place the policy on a sound economic and financial basis for the years ahead.
I think that none of us would quarrel greatly with the Commission's general diagnosis of the problems that confront the CAP. It has to be acknowledged that some adaptations of the policy are inevitable and that some sacrifices will have to be made to ensure its survival. Our main concern must be to ensure that the basic elements of the policy are preserved and that its principles and objectives are maintained. However, we must oppose those proposals which would seriously damage Irish agriculture and the Irish economy and support those proposals such as greater price uniformity and Community preference, which would benefit us and ease the burden on the Community budget. In short, our strategy must be to ensure that the Common Agricultural Policy continues to operate in a way which will provide the support and arrangements necessary to enable Irish agriculture to develop its potential in the years ahead and that the necessary funds to support the policy will be provided. In that connection it is clear that, even in the milk sector, the current market and budgetary problems must be solved if Ireland's long-term interests as well as those of the Community are to be safeguarded.
It is certainly not in Ireland's interest that the future operation of the CAP should be jeopardised by the financial chaos that could develop if we fail now to take the necessary remedial measures to deal with the serious problems confronting it. Failure to ensure that the Community is provided with the necessary resources to finance its policies could, for example, result in the Commission being unable to continue export refunds and market support measures at a level that would maintain farm prices at reasonable levels. The consequences for us of such a development would be very grave indeed. For example, total FEOGA guarantee transfers to Ireland last year amounted to £345 million and out of that huge sum nearly £260 million was in respect of export refunds and intervention support. The House can see how serious it would be for Ireland if there were a financial crisis within the EEC. As a country heavily dependent on agriculture for our economic survival, we could not contemplate such a situation and so we must approach these vital negotiations in a realistic and determined manner. We are prepared to play our part in resolving the Community's problems but any solution must be fair and equitable both as between member states and producers in different regions. This is where we take issue with some of the Commission's proposals and especially the proposed super-levy on milk.
Of course this is not the first time that a super-levy has been proposed for milk. It was put forward in 1980 — it was stated that Deputy MacSharry saved the day then — but it must be realised that the Community's circumstances at that time were very different from what they are today. In particular the Community was not then faced with the financial crisis to which I have referred. Also milk production has been increasing rapidly throughout the Community and this has resulted in a massive build-up of stocks of butter and skim milk powder. At the same time there has been a marked deterioration in the world market for these products. Indeed, one could say that there is no commercial market available anywhere in the world for most of the 650,000 tonnes of butter at present in intervention stocks. Commissioner Dalsager on Tuesday said even if we wanted to we could not give it away, we had such difficulty in disposing of it. The Community is thus faced with major problems in the disposal of its dairy stocks and this against the background of an acute shortage of financial resources. This is the framework within which the current negotiations are taking place. As I have said, we must be realistic enough to recognise these factors. But we are also fully determined to defend our own vital national interests in arriving at a satisfactory Community solution.
In 1980 when there was a threat of a milk super-levy the funds of the Community were in good shape. There was no question of a financial crisis or the funds being exhausted. It did not have the same degree of seriousness as it does today. It might not have been such a bad idea if a super-levy of some description had been brought in in Europe and Britain because we might not be faced with the dreadful dilemma we have in front of us today. Corrective action should have been taken years ago. Speakers have referred to the import of cereal substitutes which were primarily responsible for the production of surpluses. They have given rise to factory-type farming in the dairy sector and been the cause of the huge quantities of milk produced in Holland, North Germany and Britain. The quantity of these substitutes has increased from six million tonnes in the mid-seventies to 16 million tonnes in the current year. That is the main cause of the problem we have in relation to milk. Corrective action should have been taken and it would not have been any harm had something been done in 1980.
We have the additional problem now in that the United States are also producing huge surpluses of milk, a factor which did not arise four or five years ago. They are competing with us in the same Third Country markets and undercutting is taking place. Bord Bainne will tell any Member of the markets they had in Mexico, Venezuela, the Caribbean and Algeria last year and the year before. Those markets are gone because the Americans took them by selling their produce at a cheaper price. The competition from the United States and the increased competition from New Zealand, has considerably worsened the problem of the milk surplus in Europe. Those factors must be borne in mind.
The Commission's proposals fall under four broad headings: (1) Market management including measures to curb excess production and reduce the cost of surplus disposal; (2) Price policy and restoration of the unity of the market; (3) External trade policy, and (4) Financial guidelines governing agricultural expenditure. In regard to market management and measures to curb surplus production, the principle of guarantee thresholds constitutes the centre piece of the proposals with methods of application varying for the different products. This principle is based on the hypothesis that it is no longer reasonable or indeed financially feasible to provide unlimited support guarantees for products in serious surplus. So there is a consequent pressure for greater participation by producers in the cost of disposing of surplus production.
As Deputies know, this system of guarantee thresholds has in fact already been introduced in the CAP over the past few years for a number of products, notably in the milk and cereals sectors. However, the current proposals of the Commission envisage a fundamental change in the operation of the guarantee threshold system for milk by providing for the imposition of a super-levy on production exceeding the 1981 level plus 1 per cent at a rate of 75 per cent of the target price for milk. While we accept that corrective action is needed to curb the growth in the Community's milk production and limit the cost of disposal of the surplus, the action to be taken must be fair and just and must take account of the level of development of the dairying industry in the different regions of the Community. The proposed super-levy does neither. It discriminates against low-yield producers as well as against some member states, especially Ireland, and favours high-yield producers that are contributing most of the surpluses. In Ireland's case it would freeze production, impede or stop development in dairying and have extremely serious effects on Irish farming and the general economy. If applied to our milk deliveries in excess of 1981 production plus 1 per cent as proposed by the Commission the immediate cost would be of the order of £100 million a year. This does not take account of the long-term effects of blocking further developments of our dairy sector and preventing it from realising its potential. It would prevent us from increasing yields even up to the Community average and much less to that of other traditional milk producing countries in the Community.
Deputy Doyle in the course of her contribution gave some interesting statistics. She told the House that our average milk production is about 750 gallons per cow per annum. The north European average — I am referring to countries that have a comparable climate to ours, Denmark, Germany, Holland and Britain — is well in excess of 1,000 gallons per cow per annum. In fact, the Dutch average is as high as 1,300 gallons. If we take the entire Community, including Greece, Italy and France, the average is 915 gallons per cow per annum which is considerably in excess of our 750 gallon average.
The wider implications for the processing sector and the economy in general in terms of employment and trade have also to be considered bearing in mind that the dairy industry represents some 9 per cent of our GNP. It is important for all interests in this country to realise the seriousness for us of the Commission's proposal and not simply assume that it is merely a problem for the milk farmer or creamery. It is far bigger and would have grave consequences for the future of our economy. For all these reasons a super-levy is unacceptable to us and we have been vigorously opposing it.
Deputy Byrne, in his contribution, suggested that I had adopted a defeatist attitude. That is not the case. I like to think that I am a realist and when it comes to negotiations the tougher the going gets the better I like it.
No comment.
The Minister was not very happy at Dublin Airport. He should tell us about that.
In our view, alternative measures for dealing with the Community's milk problem can and should be devised so as to meet the budgetary difficulties and distribute the burden more fairly between member states. We have made it clear to our Community partners that, if the super-levy proposal is proceeded with, then it must not be applied to Ireland in view of the importance of milk to our economy and to our future economic development.
The Commission has also proposed that a special levy should be imposed on intensive milk producers, that is, those delivering more than about 1,300 gallons per acre. While this is a step in the right direction and one we could support, it is inadequate because it would apply to only to about 5 per cent of Community milk and thus raise a relatively small amount of money. To be effective, the levy of 4 per cent proposed should be significantly increased and the trigger threshold of 1,300 gallons per acre significantly reduced.
Deputy Kitt today referred to the levy on intensive production. He said it had disappeared and has now come back into the picture again. He wanted to know the reason for this. It came back into the picture because last week I demanded that it be re-introduced. However, I am most unhappy with the rate of 4 per cent which is proposed. In our estimation that tax would realise only about £25 million in a full year. We think the intensive producers of milk should be subjected to a considerably greater penalty and we are asking that that level of taxation be increased significantly. However, I must point out there is immense opposition to the tax on intensive production. The countries creating the problem obviously do not want it and they are opposing it vigorously. However, we are backing the Commission and the Presidency on that proposal. In fact, we are asking them to increase the intensity of the levy.
In the milk sector the Commission has proposed to suspend intervention for skim milk powder during the winter months. We have considerable doubts about the wisdom of this proposal. It could result in increased sales to intervention in the summer months and weaken the market in the winter and thus could be counter-productive from a cost-effectiveness point of view.
With a view to redressing the imbalance between butter-fat and vegetable oils and fats, the Commission has proposed the introduction of a non-discriminatory tax on consumption of oils and fats. This is a measure we can support. It is long overdue. It will help to raise revenue for the Community and relieve the pressure on the milk and olive oil markets, while the level of tax proposed will not have any significant impact on consumers.
The tax is being vigorously opposed by a number of countries, primarily the British, the Germans and the Dutch. These countries, for domestic reasons, use a lot of these vegetable oils and they do not want to impose extra costs on the consumer. However, there is significant support for this proposed tax on vegetable oils and fats and I hope there will be agreement on the matter at the end of the day. Even the low level of taxation proposed by the Commission would bring in 600 million ECUs or £400 million, which is not an inconsiderable amount and could help to defray the cost of the milk surplus to a considerable extent.
In the case of cereals, the Commission quite rightly recognises the need for a rapid and effective limitation on the increasing level of imports of cereal substitutes. More than 16 million tonnes of these substitutes are imported into the Community, most of them at low rates of duty or even duty-free. Community imports represent more than 85 per cent of world trade in cereal substitutes and, clearly, action is necessary to curtail the extent of these imports.
It is totally illogical to allow these products virtually free access to Community markets while, at the same time, displaced Community cereals have to be sold to third countries at great cost to Community funds. In addition, they are a major contributory factor to the milk problem and particularly to the encouragement of factory-type dairy farming in certain member states. For these reasons we support fully the Commission's proposals to invoke its rights under the GATT to curb the importation of these substitute products. We feel it is necessary not merely to stabilise the volume of imports but to reduce them.
Last Tuesday we had what could be called a row in Brussels on this matter. We are demanding that the imports of cereal substitutes not only be stabilised but be reduced. That will not be easy because of the intensity and the ferocity of the opposition we are meeting on this issue. However, this matter is fundamental because these substances are primarily causing the problem of the milk surplus. I do not think the countries advocating the continuance of these imports are being fair because they are responsible for the huge surplus of milk. They are adopting a contradictory and hypocritical attitude and we have said so. I hope there will be some action on the part of the Community at least in stabilising, and I hope reducing, the level of these imports. It should have been done years ago.
In this matter we have had significant support from the French. They have very good reasons to support us, although they may not be the same reasons that we have. The French produce a vast quantity of cereals and they have considerable difficulty in getting rid of them because of the substitutes coming in from abroad at very low prices. When they find themselves competing with the Americans on markets such as the Egyptian market for cereals and flour they are in considerable difficulties. They support us very much on this question but for different reasons.
From the point of view of the Community it is extremely important that the imports be stopped or at least curtailed. Last year while the Community spent approximately 4,000 million ECUs in getting rid of milk products, it spent 2,000 million ECUs in getting rid of cereals. The cost of getting rid of the cereal surplus is 50 per cent of the cost of getting rid of the surplus of milk. This matter is not being faced up to in the Community. All we hear about is milk but the cereals have to be disposed of abroad at giveaway prices purely because the Community is allowing the import of these substitutes. This problem should be attended to by the Community and I hope we will embarrass them into taking some action. However, we face a problem in that the British and the Dutch in particular want to maintain these imports and, if possible, increase them. These countries are anxious to retain reciprocal trading arrangements with the USA and they also want to keep good relations with the USA for political reasons. I have often said we should first put our own House in order before we worry about our reciprocal trading arrangements with the United States.
Are we not as important in the EEC as New Zealand?
I ask the Deputy to allow the Minister to continue with his speech. He has only ten minutes left.
I would point out to the Deputy that there is no disagreement on that. The Commission has also proposed that in fixing cereal prices in future the Community should speed up the narrowing of the gap between its prices and those of its main competitors. While we see the reasoning behind the Commission's approach, our view is that in fixing farm prices the Community must retain its autonomy and freedom of action and take into account inter alia trends of farm income and production costs in the Community.
In addition, it is not a practical proposition to tell Community farmers and particularly Irish farmers, that their cereal prices will be the same as the United States when one considers the rolling plains of the mid-west where a farmer may have 10,000 or 20,000 acres of cereal while a farmer in Ireland may have seven or eight acres. It is not realistic to say we should have the same price structure as the United States because the factors involved are totally unequal.
On beef, the Commission intends to restrict intervention to shorter and more specific periods each year for certain cuts. We consider that this proposal is too rigid and does not take adequate account of the needs of the market. Neither will it do anything to correct the current imbalance in the market which derives largely from a decline in beef consumption. For those reasons we feel that the present system whereby intervention is operated by the Commission in a flexible manner to cater for the needs of the market should be retained. In the beef sector also the Commission is proposing to terminate the calf premium and the UK variable premium. As regards the calf premium — which applies to Italy and Greece as well as Ireland — we have pointed out that it was extended to Ireland two years ago as a farm income measure and we are seeking its retention for us as the circumstances that gave rise to its introduction continue to apply. It was not given to us an aid to increase production but because of the recognition by the Community that farm incomes here were well below the Community average. It was given purely as an income supplement and we want it retained for that very purpose.
The UK variable premium has created distortion in our trade, especially in recent years, and we have been pressing for corrective measures to remove those anomalies from its operation. If the premium is continued in the future those anomalies will have to be removed. The main anomaly is generally referred to as the clawback. We are demanding a clawback on the export of meat from Britain because it gives them a great trading advantage vis-à-vis Irish meat factories.
Extend it here.
The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.
Deputy O'Keeffe sounds like a hurler on the ditch. He has all the answers but none of the solutions.
The Minister is selling us out. Remember Dublin Airport.
On general price policy, the Commission stresses the need to pursue in the future a restrictive line taking account not only of the farm income situation but also of the market and budget situation. Indeed, it mentions that for certain productions, for example, milk and cereals it may propose fixing prices for two years in advance. It will also aim, especially for cereals, to narrow the gap between the Community price level and the producer prices of its main competitors. Where the market situation is particularly serious, the possibility of freezing or even reducing prices is not excluded. The Community have, of course, been pursuing a prudent price policy for some years past and, while acknowledging the need for prudence, it is my view that the income position of farmers and the escalating costs of production cannot be ignored when we come to consider prices in the years ahead. Neither can we ignore the income situation of small farmers in particular.
For many years now the price unity of the Community has been seriously upset by the operation of the MCA system. I welcome and fully endorse the Commission's proposals for the phased dismantlement of the MCAs. Indeed, I would wish to see a quicker dismantlement than that proposed by the Commission but at least if we can get effective measures taken to that end, it will be a big step forward. We are, therefore, pressing for this in the negotiations, although there is very vigorous opposition from the Germans who have a 10 per cent positive MCA.
With regard to the Community's external trade policy we have made it clear that if the Community is to demand greater disciplines of its own producers, that burden must be shared by third countries supplying the Community with products that are already in surplus in the Community. We have referred in particular to products such as New Zealand butter, concessionary imports of beef and cereal substitutes.
Some speakers have referred to the problem of imports of New Zealand butter. We have adopted a very stiff attitude in Brussels in that regard. Three weeks ago the New Zealand Minister for Foreign Affairs and External Trade lobbied every member state of the Community and Dublin was his final stop. I told him it was a pity that Dublin was not his first stop because he could have done a canvass for us among the other member states since what is good for Ireland is good for New Zealand. If we get a favourable settlement to the super-levy issue New Zealand might fare a little better at the end of the day. If we do not get a good settlement, I do not fancy their chances.
Finally, the Commission suggested in its report that certain financial guidelines on Community agricultural expenditure should be adopted. This would be tantamount to imposing an arbitary ceiling on CAP expenditure. It makes little sense given the nature of agriculture where conditions can vary considerably both in the short and medium term. Some member states want these guidelines to be even more rigid than those proposed by the Commission as well as making them legally binding. They would set a fixed financial target and if production was so large the targets were exceeded, all ten countries would have to pay for the extra production themselves. That would be a serious matter for this country and we have strenuously opposed these proposals. While Britain has put in even tougher proposals, the Commission's proposals may well be acceptable at the end of the day since they are not quite so savage.
Despite the fairly protracted discussions that have taken place in the special Council meetings over the past few months, the positions of delegations on some of the major issues are still far apart. In particular, there is a considerable divergence of views on such questions as the dismantlement of the MCAs, the proposed tax on oils and fats, the importation of cereal substitutes and financial guidelines. While the vast majority of the other delegations seem prepared to go along with the idea of the super-levy on milk, at least one delegation still favours the idea of curbing production through a reduction of the support prices. There is also considerable opposition by a number of member states to the proposal for a special levy on intensive milk production.
We have presented a special paper to the Council and all member states setting out our position. I am satisfied that our representations have created the necessary awareness of the special nature of our position throughout the community, despite what some Labour Member of the European Parliament may have stated. They all know what we are looking for. It is ringing in their ears. There is no lack of knowledge and neither is there a lack of lobbying.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister to conclude without interruptions.
I am satisfied that our representations have created the necessary awareness of the special nature of our position. This has been acknowledged and is reflected in recent compromise suggestions by the Greek Presidency. These latter suggestions do not go at all far enough to meet our case, but they are a welcome recognition of Ireland's problem and an indication of movement in the right direction. We will, of course, be continuing our efforts to secure a satisfactory outcome on this major issue.
I am aware that our farmers' representatives have been active in bringing the special nature of Ireland's case to the attention of their colleagues in the Community farmers' organisation — COPA — and this has been most useful.
The Irish Members of the European Parliament have also been most active and their efforts are greatly appreciated. None of us should falter in our resolve to get the right outcome for this country.
I have not dealt with some of the more detailed proposals made by the Commission — indeed some of them may well fail to be dealt with in the context of the fixing of agricultural prices for 1984-85 — but does not in any way detract from the importance of some of them for us. I should also mention that work is currently going on in the normal Council framework on the revision of the Community's sheepmeat regime and agricultural structures directives.
I have outlined our attitude on the main issues affecting us. Our approach will continue to be directed along those lines with a view to getting the best possible outcome for Irish agriculture and I look forward to the assistance of Members of the House in that regard.
I now refer to some of the points made. I reject Deputy Gerry Collins' scathing remarks about the effectiveness of our lobbying in Europe. I have met each of the nine Ministers for Agriculture on numerous occasions and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Finance have also met their counterparts. As the Taoiseach told the House on 26 October, he has had discussions with the acting Belgian Prime Minister and other Belgian Ministers, with the President and Vice-President of the European Commission, the French Minister for Agriculture, the President of the European Parliament, the Greek Prime Minister and the Greek Minister chairing the Special Council. He will also meet the German Chancellor, Herr Kohl, in the near future. He will shortly meet the Dutch Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Luxembourg.
Mrs. Thatcher effectively terrorises him.
Order, please. This is a serious matter and should be treated as such.
Our embassies are fully briefing all the member states and there is no lack of determination on the part of the Government in these negotiations.
(Limerick West): May I ask the Minister one question of national importance?
(Limerick West): Will the Minister use the veto if it comes to that?
When statements were before the House previously, a question was allowed which led to confusion. There will be no questions asked or answered now.
(Limerick West): The Minister is not prepared to answer the question?
He is not being allowed to answer it.
Dún Laoghaire): By agreement, despite the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) on today's Order of Business, the Minister for the Gaeltacht will be allowed to speak at 7.45 p.m. Although it has been agreed, I should like it on the record of the House.
It is agreed that the Minister for the Gaeltacht will speak at 7.45 p.m.