Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Mar 1984

Vol. 349 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Milk Super-Levy: Motion.

(Limerick West): I move:

That Dáil Éireann solemnly declares that the imposition of the proposed super-levy on Irish milk producers is a matter affecting Ireland's vital national interest and calls on the European Commission to submit a proposal to the Agricultural Council granting an exemption for Ireland from the super-levy for the natural increase in Irish milk production until average European standards are reached.

It is my pleasure to move this motion. Farming and agriculture at the present time are in a climate of economic turbulence. This has come about because of the down-grading of agriculture by this Government over the past 18 months and policies pursued particularly by the European Economic Community. This proposed super-levy has no place in Ireland, and the proposals are no longer, and never were, a farmer issue. They strike at everyone in the country — those in towns and cities as much as those on the land. This is a national issue and calls for a resolute stand by the Government, and particularly by the Minister.

This proposal of a super-levy bodes nothing less than disaster. The huge reduction in family farm income will have consequential damage for the economy, lower everybody's standard of living and add to the already massive unemployment. The dairying industry is the bedrock of Ireland's national income, through the exports of dairy products and the supply of three-quarters of the calves which form the raw material in the beef industry, and it has a significant influence on the standard of living of every home.

The iniquity of this imposition on the dairy farmers is bordering on the criminal. They have responded magnificently to the call for increased output, and now they will have to pay a harsh penalty for that response. Ireland's dependence on dairying is unique in the Community, and this must be recognised. The magnitude of the present issue is far too serious for any compromise. This is no time for weakness. The fibre of our people is being put to the test and the nation expects leadership at this crucial time. Perhaps the key words in the motion are "vital national interest" and "until average European standards are reached".

Let me repeat the factors which to us make it incontrovertible that the issue is one affecting Ireland's national interest. The dairying industry represents 33 per cent of the total agricultural output. Its contribution to the national cattle and beef industry is immense as it provides 80 per cent of the raw material for that important industry. The overwhelming degree to which the beef industry is dependent on the continuing progress of the dairying sector has not been sufficiently brought to public attention. Dairying and the related cattle industry and beef exports account for 70 per cent of total agricultural exports and upwards of 50 per cent of total exports, when one considers the small import content.

Significant changes have been taking place within the dairying industry in recent years. Our creameries have been rationalised and there is a growing trend towards specialisation and greater efficiency on milk producing farms. This augurs well for the future of this most important branch of our economy, provided of course that the pricing conditions remain attractive and no artificial boundaries or barriers are placed in the way of normal progress. For reasons well known to this House, our dairying industry, in contrast to our continental neighbours, has been denied for centuries the opportunity to realise optimum potential.

Other member states have a distinct advantage over our dairy farmers at present. The representatives of the other member states do not deny this. Not to allow Ireland normal growth in milk output to no more than European levels is inequitable and would create a situation where we would be permanently disadvantaged vis-á-vis the other states, apart altogether from the overwhelming importance of our industry to the national economy.

Statutorily the Council of Ministers act on proposals from the European Commission. The Commission have publicly voiced their acceptance of the justification of Ireland's case. I hold that they have a responsibility to translate that acceptance into a formal proposal to the Agricultural Council. The only form that proposal should take must be to grant an exemption for Ireland from the super-levy for the natural increase in Irish milk production until average European standards are reached. Any questioning about the years after 1984-85 is not acceptable. What we are asking is that what the Commission propose is no more than reasonable and just. Our production is well below that in other European countries, and we are asking the Commission to recognise this.

The most appalling feature of the Government's handling of this matter was the Taoiseach's acceptance at the recent summit of a 5 per cent increase for 1984 with no guarantee beyond that. As if that was not bad enough, he accepted what was a disastrous situation for Ireland without knowing in advance that it was going to be rejected by the summit. One would at least have expected that before he voiced his acceptance of a downright bad deal he would have ensured beforehand that, bad and all as it was, it would not be refused by his colleagues. He has since admitted in public that his colleagues' reactions were not tested out beforehand. As our Leader said last week in this House, the Taoiseach was humiliated, as was the Minister for Agriculture at this week's meeting.

If Fianna Fáil were in Government today there would be no question of the super-levy being imposed on our farmers. In the past these proposals were on the table and were resisted by both Deputy MacSharry and Deputy Lenihan as Ministers for Agriculture representing this country. These proposals were withdrawn, and the negotiating hand of this Government must now be weakened by the approach and the lack of ability to deal with our European partners. The Government certainly have not pointed out to our partners that the milk surplus in Europe is not being caused by our farmers, and, furthermore, they have not pointed out that the super-levy proposal would unfairly penalise the smaller and less well-off Irish industry for the problems that I have already indicated are directly caused by the larger, stronger and better-off Europeans. It is worth also pointing out that the gallonage of milk per cow produced in these countries is already so high and the financial returns so large that the financial loss in their case resulting from the levy would be relatively much lighter than in the case of the Irish supplier.

The limitation of 5 per cent increase would be a disaster for Irish agriculture and our farmers could not plan ahead. In farming planning is fundamental. There is also the question of our young farmers with no programme of expansion. Many of our farmers are heavily in debt, and this would ruin the whole agricultural industry. Our plans for the future would be shattered if there were no guarantees beyond 1984.

The Taoiseach stated last autumn that these were the most important EEC negotiations we would ever undertake. I say that these negotiations have been badly bungled and Irish farmers have been let down. They expected better from a man with great EEC experience and, as he has stated himself, many contacts in Europe.

The Minister for Agriculture has again let down our farmers very badly. He promised at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis last year that he would accept nothing less than complete derogation. As so many times in the past, he has broken this promise. This, together with the total neglect of agriculture by this Government and a hasty retreat from rural Ireland, is the hallmark of this Government both at home and in Europe.

A solution in keeping with the ideal and spirit of the Common Market as outlined in this motion would be an agreement that no super-levy would be imposed on Irish farmers until we reach the European average of production. The Government must not yield to pressure in their opposition to such a levy, which would cause the stagnation of Irish milk production and make our farmers the poor relation of Europe.

I move amendment No. 1:

To add after "standards are reached"

"and supports the efforts being made by the Government to ensure a satisfactory result for Ireland in the current EEC negotiations in relation to milk."

This amendment is in substitution for the amendment circulated.

On a point of order, perhaps the Minister would explain in the course of his address why there has been a change of attitude.

That is not a point of order.

It refers to the amendment on which the Minister is to speak.

Perhaps the Deputy would allow the Minister to speak.

I am asking a question. The Minister may respond if he so wishes as to why the Government changed their minds regarding the amendment they put down.

That is not a point of order. The Minister has 30 minutes.

If I were to reply to every question asked by every Euro-candidate I would probably be here for weeks on end.

Why not answer the question and satisfy us all?

I will not answer any questions which are absolutely out of order.

The Minister might clear some of the unbelievable confusion that exists.

I am not aware of any confusion.

The Minister should be allowed continue without interruption.

He has not started yet.

He is not being allowed to start. I am trying to help both the Deputy and the Minister.

As the House is aware, this issue is under negotiation. Therefore, this is a very delicate time to be speaking on the subject. Obviously, it is not a time when one should tell the whole world what his negotiating position is. At such time one must adopt a prudent attitude to the whole question. Therefore, while the negotiations are in progress it will be necessary to adopt a very careful approach publicly to the whole problem.

We have discussed this issue here on a number of occasions in the past seven or eight months. At all times I have made it clear that we have been looking for an exemption for Ireland until we reached levels of development similar to those in other member states which have had the possibility of developing their production over the years in contrast to the restrictive situation in which we had to operate. That has remained our position throughout the negotiations, and it is in the light of that position that we must look at the present state of the negotiations.

On a point of order, may we have a copy of the Minister's speech?

That is not a point of order but the matter is not one for the Chair.

The Deputies will have a copy of my speech. I should like first to put the current position in perspective. The present oversupplied state of the milk market and the cost of the Community's milk support arrangements are such that action to control the situation has become inevitable. We may disagree with our fellow member states on the methods of control to be employed, but nobody can maintain that no action should be taken. Indeed the main solution put forward as an alternative to the super-levy would have resulted in a price cut of more than 10 per cent.

When the Commission first and afterwards the British proposed a price reduction as an alternative they mentioned a figure in the region of 12 per cent. Certainly it would have been more than 10 per cent. This would have been more damaging to the Irish industry without necessarily solving the problem in the Community. The crisis has been building up for many years and failure to take remedial steps in time has brought us to where we find ourselves now. All involved, including this country, share the responsibility for what has occurred but this does not make it any easier to solve the problem now or to make the solutions more palatable.

It has been evident for many years that the production of milk would cause a serious problem and it is regrettable that the matter was not attended to four or five years ago.

Is the Minister blaming the Irish farmers now?

The Minister to continue, without interruption.

I am saying it is regrettable that the matter was not attended to when it was obvious that a problem was arising and that we would not have got to the stage when the problem has become so immense that such major cuts are being demanded throughout Europe.

(Limerick West): The problem was tackled.

The Commission originally proposed that all member states should pay a super-levy on milk deliveries in excess of 1981 deliveries plus 1 per cent. That would have meant a cut in production in Ireland of about 13.5 per cent at a cost to the economy of more than £100 million. This would have been a disaster for the dairy industry, and indeed for the whole economy. Furthermore, it would have closed off all possibilities of future expansion in the industry.

Conscious of the vital importance of the issue to Ireland, the Government, in an unprecedented political and diplomatic campaign, explained our case to our partners and pressed for solutions to the milk problem, which would not damage our essential interests. This campaign was waged against a background of a Community gravely short of money and with huge and costly surpluses in the milk sector.

Milk production is running almost 20 per cent above current disposal possibilities within the Community and indeed some of these disposal outlets exist only because of the extent to which the Community has been prepared to subsidise them. For a substantial quantity of milk, the subsidy has to be so high as to be almost as much as the value of the milk itself to the farmer.

During the negotiations it became clear that virtually all our partners believed that these problems were so pronounced and so serious that the super-levy was the only possible way of dealing effectively with them and bringing the situation under control. Other solutions were not acceptable. Indeed, so seriously did they view the situation in the Community that in general they were prepared to peg their deliveries at the 1981 level plus 1 per cent even though most of them had experienced substantial growth since then. With the exception of Italy and Luxembourg, for whom special concessions are to be made from a Community reserve, the other member states were prepared to accept immediately cuts in production ranging from 3 per cent to 8 per cent. This is a most important factor to be borne in mind in considering our situation.

We were therefore, facing the position in which a solution to the milk problem could meet with a general consensus but it would involve the application of the super-levy. In these circumstances the Government renewed their efforts to ensure that, if the super-levy were agreed, Ireland would in practice be exempt. This would require not just the avoidance of a cutback in Irish production but the scope for further expansion. Obviously, the considerable extent to which other member states were prepared to accept reductions in their own production was a major stumbling block to our efforts in this regard. The other member states accepted that we were in a special position, but because of the sacrifices which the outline agreement involved for dairy farmers in their own countries, many of them were not prepared to accept that these concessions should take the form of an exemption from the levy.

The concept of production controls, from which the super-levy system derives, was really brought in in 1980 and formalised back in 1982 when a Community production threshold for milk production was accepted by all countries including Ireland.

Do the Deputies opposite hear that?

The Minister, without interruption.

The Minister does not know where he is.

(Interruptions.)

Will Deputies on both sides please desist from interrupting?

It is important to make the point that the concept of production controls was introduced in 1980 and formalised early in 1982. It is on those production controls that the concept of the milk super-levy is based and that is the basis of the formula being worked out for the past eight months. At that time there was no exemption for Ireland from the production threshold. Indeed, Ireland did not even seek such an exemption.

(Limerick West): The Minister knows that is not correct.

There was no limitation imposed on the Irish farmer in terms of production.

I am asking Deputy Byrne to please allow the Minister to continue.

Ireland sought no exemption in 1980 and 1982 from the production threshold which was introduced.

There was no specific threshold per individual contract, and the Minister knows that.

No dairy farmer was limited until now.

The Minister without interruption.

That production threshold is the basis of the present super-levy proposal, with .5 per cent being allowed for increased consumption in each of the years 1982 and 1983, that is, a total of 1981 deliveries plus 1 per cent. That is where the 1981 plus 1 per cent base comes from. It comes from the production threshold which was agreed to by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1980 and 1982. That is where the seeds of the super-levy proposal were sown. At the time Fianna Fáil sought no exemption and as a result got no exemption.

(Interruptions.)

That is correct and it is on the record.

(Limerick West): The Minister should tell us what the present position is. We do not want to hear about the past.

Deputies should have respect for the Minister and allow him to continue.

(Limerick West): He is talking rubbish.

I am sorry the truth is unacceptable to Deputies opposite. It is on the record and it can be checked on the Community's record.

(Interruptions.)

Fianna Fáil made no attempt to stop factory type farming in Europe. It is a bit late in the day now to be complaining about it, when it should have been stopped four or five years ago, when the seeds of the destruction of the dairying industry were being sown. Furthermore, the situation now is much different from the position in 1980 when the super-levy was first mooted. At that time other member states were prepared to agree to a freeze on further expansion. Now they are prepared to accept a major cutback for themselves. This makes our task immeasurably more difficult. At the same time the Community's financial and stock situation has worsened greatly, and the Community is on the point of bankruptcy.

In 1980 the stock of butter in intervention was some 280,000 tonnes. At present it is over 800,000 tonnes. In 1980 there were 165,000 tonnes of skim milk powder in intervention. The stock now is over 900,000 tonnes — getting close to a million tonnes. Taking butter and skim milk together, the increase in stocks over 1980 is equivalent to about 10 million tonnes of milk or over 2,000 million gallons, that is, nearly double Ireland's annual production.

Community consumption of milk and milk products is about 87 million tonnes. This includes some substantial quantities which are disposed of for animal feed at high cost to FEOGA. A further 10 million to 12 million tonnes are sold to third countries at very heavy cost to Community funds. Any production in excess of this is really surplus to requirements. Total production in 1983 was about 104 million tonnes, while the estimate for 1984, if no action is taken to restrain production, is 106 million tonnes or more. The cost to the Community budget of supporting the milk sector has increased by about 60 per cent over the last three years. These figures illustrate clearly the magnitude of the problem and the seriousness of the milk market situation.

We must bear those figures in mind. Anything in excess of 86 million tonnes of milk costs the Community a considerable amount of money. When we get to somewhere in the region of 97 million tonnes we are in very serious difficulties, because 10 million tonnes or 12 million tonnes in excess of 86 million tonnes can be sold to third countries at a substantial loss, but anything in excess of 97 million tonnes or 98 million tonnes is not capable of being sold. In 1983 milk production in the Community was 103.7 million tonnes, and obviously we are producing millions of tonnes of milk which cannot be sold.

Unless restrictions were imposed in 1984 the figure would be greater, we believe between 106 million tonnes and 107 million tonnes.

What about New Zealand imports of butter?

Major steps have already been taken by the Commission to secure savings in agricultural expenditure, and the effect of these is being felt by Irish farmers. If the current crisis is not overcome, further cuts in support arrangements by the Commission are inevitable.

Nevertheless, the Government remain satisfied that our case is a justified one and that it can be met only by arrangements to allow further expansion. Obviously, given present circumstances, exemption without any formal limit is not attainable. Therefore, what we have been seeking is an arrangement which would exempt us up to the level of the likely increase in deliveries in the years ahead.

How many years?

On the past evidence, that is, our actual performance between 1972 and 1983, we could expect to expand at about 5 per cent a year. Our average expansion in milk production since we became a member of the EEC has been 5 per cent a year.

The French Presidency suggested exemption for 1984-85 up to about 5 per cent above our 1983 level, with the position in future years to be decided on the basis of annual reviews. A number of other countries are adamant that this goes too far and are seeking lower increases, and there has been a suggestion that some additional co-responsibility levy should be paid by Irish farmers to offset some of the cost involved. The negotiations remain at this delicate stage, with the Agriculture Council due to resume its discussions on Friday next.

Another relevant matter that is involved in the negotiations is the future of imports of New Zealand butter into the UK. We have made it clear from the outset that agreement on the future level of imports of New Zealand butter into the Community will depend on the outcome of the negotiations on the super-levy issue. The quota for imports of New Zealand butter into the UK has been reduced from 166,000 tonnes in 1973 to 87,000 tonnes in 1983. There has been a drop in the consumption of butter in the UK and a very sharp rise in domestic production of butter in that country. The drop in consumption has been enormous. It dropped from 440,000 tonnes to 280,000 tonnes. That means that New Zealand's relative share of imports into Britain has increased substantially while other members of the Community have seen their share of the market drop considerably. We certainly object to that state of affairs. Overall, New Zealand's share of the UK butter market has gone up from 25 per cent in the middle seventies to over 30 per cent in 1983. At the same time the share of the UK market held by imports from Community countries has fallen from close to 70 per cent in the mid-seventies to less than 30 per cent now. Some Community countries, notably Denmark, agree that if there are to be imports from New Zealand they should be spread around the Community and not channelled into the UK market only. That would seem to be a fairer system and would give us an opportunity to recover our share of the UK market as well as giving Denmark an opportunity to recover their share.

The Commission has proposed a new five year regime for New Zealand butter under which imports would come down to 83,000 tonnes in 1984 and by a further 8,000 tonnes over the subsequent four years, bringing the proposed level down to 75,000 tonnes.

New Zealand are getting better guarantees than we are.

The New Zealand proposal will come up during the negotiations on Friday and Saturday next and will clearly have to be a factor in our negotiating strategy.

Mrs. Thatcher will have a word to say about that.

This is a very significant element in the negotiations, and we will be bearing in mind that New Zealand are getting a sizeable share of the Common Market's quota of butter despite the fact that they are not a member.

The Minister should say that when he is in Brussels.

We have consistently refused to allow any new long-term arrangement as has been proposed by the Commission. The previous agreement between the Community and New Zealand terminated on 31 December last, and the Commission proposed a new regime for a five year period, to which we did not agree until the negotiations on the super-levy have been concluded satisfactorily.

Obviously I cannot say too much at this stage about the overall negotiations. We are still seeking arrangements that will ensure that the Irish dairy industry continues to have the possibility of expansion. We have left our partners under no illusion as to our determination to ensure a satisfactory outcome. They are all very much aware of our position——

We will find that out when negotiations are concluded.

They know that the whole agricultural package could collapse unless we get the type of derogation which we are seeking. We have told them that our milk situation must be satisfactorily sorted out before any final agreement is reached. As well as securing the position of our dairy industry, a whole range of reforms and improvements depend on agreements. These will involve increased financial resources for the Community which at present is primarily financed by the proceeds of 1 per cent from VAT in each of the member states. Last July, the Commission suggested that the level of the VAT contribution from each country should be increased to 1.4 per cent. The Greek Presidency proposed about five months ago that that level should be increased to 1.8 per cent. More recently the Commission suggested that the level should be 2 per cent. It is essential that the resources of the Community should be boosted considerably, because they have run out of money. Unless the contribution is greatly increased we will have a recurring problem year after year, and it may be that the 1.4 per cent originally proposed will not be sufficient for many more years.

A more realistic figure would obviously be in excess of 1.4 per cent. The countries who mainly finance the Community, West Germany and Britain, have stated repeatedly that they will not agree to any increase until such time——

The Minister should direct his remarks to the French and the Dutch.

——as expenditure in the agricultural sector is brought under control. That is the basis of many discussions which have been taking place in recent times between Ministers for Finance and Ministers for Foreign Affairs.

Another problem which must be resolved is that of MCAs, and there has been considerable agreement on that matter. The Germans are willing to agree to a formula for getting rid of these MCAs, which considerably distort trade between countries. There are positive proposals regarding the possibility of stabilising imports of cereal substitutes which were one of the primary reasons why we have had over-production of milk in the Community in the past five or six years. The import of these cereal substitutes has increased from 6 million tonnes in the middle-seventies to something like 16 million tonnes in 1982, a huge increase. You could prove a direct relationship between the over-production of milk in the Community and the scale of the importation of these cereal substitutes into the Community. It is a pity action was not taken five or six years ago to at least stabilise imports of cereal substitutes.

What action is the Minister proposing?

At present, mainly at our instigation, the Commission is proposing that the imports of these cereal substitutes should be stabilised. That is the strongest move made against cereal substitutes since they first came into the Community. If action had been taken we would probably not be confronting our present problems regarding vast surpluses of milk and milk products. Another outcome of the discussions will be the adoption of price proposals which I hope will include a 3.4 green £ adjustment which will bring definite increases in prices to farmers in this country. These issues, either separately or collectively, do not justify settling the milk issue on an unsatisfactory basis, but they do underline the need for an overall early settlement.

I think that the main reason why I was asked to speak on this resolution is that I come from a predominantly dairying constituency. I had indicated to my party the anger of farmers regarding the way the super-levy has been handled. My telephone line was red with calls at the time the news came through that the Taoiseach had agreed to negotiate, mentioning an increase of 5 per cent for Irish dairy farmers. Young people who are involved in developing their dairy farms were absolutely appalled. One person indicated to me on the telephone that 1984 would mean for him a 14 per cent increase in his small dairy farm as compared with 1983. He had followed a development plan but now in the spring of 1984 he is told he is on the wrong lines. Does anyone in the Government realise there is a nine-month gestation period for a dairy cow? I do not believe they know anything about it. If a cow is put in calf in April 1984 we are then dealing with a 1985 calf. It is utterly stupid to talk about production levels in 1984 when the level of development in 1983 determines the production for 1984. Children would know more than this Minister for Agriculture and the Taoiseach, judging by their performance with regard to the dairy industry. There may be some theoretical knowledge there now but the Minister or the Taoiseach have no practical knowledge of dairy farming. If they had that knowledge we would not be in our present sorry state.

The Deputy should remember 1980 and 1982 when the problems were there.

The Minister who made such a pig's dinner of these negotiations should resign from the job at once. That is the attitude of the farmers in my area. The Minister and the Taoiseach were dealing with an area that is extremely important for the economic development of the country. Day and night we talk about employment. I have here in an ESRI report an account of employment in the dairying industry. There is direct employment, there are processing jobs and as our spokesman, Deputy Noonan said, there is a strong link between the dairying and the beef industries. There are also jobs with regard to supplying the materials used on dairy farms. The report stated that in 1983 some 9,300 were involved in milk processing. That includes employment in the assembly, pasteurisation and delivery of liquid milk as well as the other areas. A similar number is involved directly in employment in the slaughtering and preserving of beef.

The way the negotiations were conducted one would think that the employment content and the development of employment in this area was of no concern to the Government. We had a pathetic performance tonight from the Minister for Agriculture, who appears to have assumed the role of defender of the people in Europe who are trying to impose a super-levy on us. One could not dispute many of the arguments made here by the Minister, but I think he should have addressed himself to a different situation. He should not have been addressing himself to the problems of the agricultural policy of the EEC, but he should have been devoting himself to the specific problems of Irish agriculture. The Minister spent his time making excuses and making an apologia for the EEC and their attitude towards dairy farming.

(Interruptions.)

Will Deputy O'Keeffe and Deputy Sheehan please cease the Cork exchanges?

In the report of the ESRI to which I referred there is a section on milk processing and on employment policy. I would read the entire paragraph but I have not the time. Therefore, I shall confine myself to a few relevant sentences in the paragraph.

Our main milk products are butter, butter oil, dried whole milk, cheese and skimmed milk powder, the first four of which account for over 90 per cent of whole milk utilisation. Despite increased capitalisation, the numbers employed in the industry rose until 1979 in line with increased milk supplies but they have been declining.

They have been declining in a situation where we are producing more milk, but what will happen if the super-levy is imposed? The report continues:

The IDA estimates that growth in the supply of milk with current processing patterns could result in about six to eight extra jobs for each additional million gallons of milk available. Thus, an increase of 180 million gallons projected by Bord Bainne for 1986 could result in a further 1,300 jobs. This projection depends, however, on a satisfactory outcome to the super-levy negotiations.

Listening to the Minister tonight we fear there may not be a satisfactory outcome to the negotiations, particularly in view of the Taoiseach allowing 5 per cent to be thrown on the table at the recent summit.

What is happening now to all the grand plans for agriculture in the past few years? We were talking about increasing production of milk per cow, about regularising the system of land tenure, about leasing land and about a bright future for agriculture. All of this has been blighted by the talk of a super-levy and by acceptance of that levy, in effect, by the Taoiseach and his Minister. When the Prime Minister of Greece, Mr. Papandreou, spoke about an increase of 10 per cent the Taoiseach would have nothing to do with it. Yet, in the recent negotiations he threw half that percentage increase on the table for negotiation.

Let us recall what happened at the Stuttgart meeting. Fianna Fáil and the thinking members of Fine Gael are convinced that the Taoiseach was fooled at the Stuttgart conference. He accepted that future financing and budgetary imbalances were to be put on the table as were adaptation of the CAP, a review of the structural funds and the development of new policies. The job was to be completed at the meeting of the European Council in December 1983 but that was a total disaster. We had the suggestion of 10 per cent from Papandreou which was rejected. A figure of 5 per cent was thrown on the table, which put the farmers of this country into a flurry when it was announced on radio and television.

(Interruptions.)

Without a doubt it has shaken people. The people I am talking about had plans and they had borrowed money. Judging by the attitude of financial institutions to farmers over the last few years, as soon as they have to cut production they will be told by their local bank managers, acting on orders from their overlords, that they made the plans and borrowed the money on the basis of so much production year by year for a certain number of years and that the pay back would come over that period. They are scared. The people responsible for this are the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Wilson without interruption.

The Minister talked about the reform of tariffs. We hope that the removal of the MCAs——

(Interruptions.)

Will Deputies please allow Deputy Wilson to continue?

The Federal Republic of Germany have gained very substantially from the working of the MCAs. A recent report in The Economist indicated that it had risen to the fifth largest agricultural producer in the world, if my memory serves me correctly, as a result of the working of the MCAs, so it will be advantageous if the MCAs are abolished.

The termination of the UK variable premium is a desirable objective of reform. The whole area of Cavan, Monaghan, Leitrim, Sligo and Donegal has been distorted because of the pressures of the variable premium. The idea of imposing a fine of 70p per gallon on farmers, who, a few short years ago, were being encouraged and practically dragooned to develop five year plans, to invest money in buildings and the improvement of their land and to increase production, cannot be tolerated. These are the people who have now been asked to pay a fine of 70p a gallon for doing what they were encouraged to do by every agricultural economist and non-agricultural economist in the country a short time ago. It is a disgraceful situation, and it will damage some of the best young people in our community over the next few years.

(Interruptions.)

I have a lot of wisdom to put before the Minister and I would like to be allowed to do so. This matter was considered by the Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation of the European Communities in a report on the adaptation of the CAP. One of the points made —I am making it again now — was:

We should insist that expenditure in other sectors, which is in fact growing more rapidly than in the milk sector, is also dealt with in regard to the milk sector. We must insist that whatever action is eventually taken is fair, that it takes account——

This is incorporated in our motion.

——of the level of development of the dairy industry in the different regions of the Community and that it takes account especially of the special importance of milk to the Irish economy.

The people who now find themselves in 1984 involved directly in the possibility of a loss should have been warned about this some time ago.

What has the Minister been doing since this was first mooted? We only had a very low key approach, as if the seriousness of it was not realised in Merrion Street or in Aras Talmhaíochta. This is the only impression one can get, and the lackadaisical laissez faire approach to the negotiations indicates that that is the truth. This is a savage approach to these people who were encouraged to develop. The young farmer I mentioned a few minutes ago is on an average of 1,200 gallons per cow. That is out of land he had to drain and develop. It was poor quality land. He also had to breed selectively to reach that stage. He is producing 500 gallons more per cow than the average for this country. He is about the European average of 1,100 to 1,200 gallons. As a result of doing what he was advised to do he may be fined 70p per gallon on his excess production.

I cannot see how anybody could sit in this House, or face any person, and justify yielding on that. His production will be 14 per cent up on 1983. What good is 5 per cent to him when he goes into his bank manager with one arm as long as the other and says: "The EEC are cutting me down"? They do not want to hear him and do not know him. They will say simply: "Sell off your cows and give us the money." That has happened already.

The Minister said there was a serious problem and it was a pity it was not attended to some time ago. When precisely did he want it attended to? When we were producing 300, 400 or 500 gallons per cow? We are now on an average of 700 gallons. We were told the thing to do was increase productivity in Irish agriculture. In fairness to our farmers, they increased productivity more than was done in any other sector of the Community. The thanks they are getting for it now is that they are being let down by the man who should be standing four square in their defence in the Council of Europe.

(Interruptions.)

The diplomacy mentioned by the Minister, which went on around Europe, nobody took seriously, it seems to be the case now, judging by the result. The Minister said the Community subsidy is high, and he outlined some of the reasons why productivity increased in some of the countries, including the importation of cereals. It is high, but we have not reached the European average and we have not reached our potential at all. As it accounts for 9 per cent of our GNP — the point was made by our spokesman, Deputy Noonan — we have an unanswerable case for special treatment and a special exemption from the super-levy.

(Interruptions.)

There can be nothing more postitive than backing people who listen to the best advice of the applied scientists in the agricultural field, who applied the principles they taught to their own farms, who increased production to the extent they have done and who were told their potential was up to 1,200 gallons. In my area where there was a competition held for the best dairy cow in the country last year we had a 2,100-gallon cow on display, and in Collon on the Louth-Meath border there is a whole herd of cows with that kind of production——

Would the Deputy please move the Adjournment?

The incentive to increase production has been taken from us by incompetent diplomacy and incompetent negotiation on the part of the Minister for Agriculture.

Barr
Roinn