Deputy Noonan (Limerick West) has been granted permission to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of a Private Notice Question yesterday which he might perhaps read.
Adjournment Debate. - Milk Super-Levy.
(Limerick West): My Private Notice Question of yesterday to the Minister for Agriculture read as follows:
To ask the Minister for Agriculture if he will explain the source of the error in milk production estimates for last year used in the super-levy discussions; and the steps he proposes to take to ensure that 58,000 tonnes of milk are not lost from Ireland's quota entitlement.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for having allowed me permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The situation has worsened since yesterday in that the Minister — on account of a number of statements, inaccuracies, counterstatements and confused statements over the past 24 hours — has rendered the situation more complicated. The bungling and incompetence in the Government's handling of the whole of the super-levy negotiations can be more clearly seen now by the farming community and the public at large. It is all the more incredible, in view of what the Taoiseach described as the single most important negotiation since we joined the EEC, that our case was not prepared with the utmost professional care and thoroughness. The Minister personally presented our case on different occasions in Brussels. It is a gross insult that the minimum concessions we obtained have had to be reduced further because they had been based on inaccurate figures. The Minister misled the House yesterday when he attempted to suggest that our quota was based on revised figures, incidentally implying that the figures for other countries would need to be revised also, which manifestly is not the case. It appears now from the Commission's statements that the regulations based on the Council's decision contained a fixed quantity figure of milk and departmental officials admit this to be the case in The Irish Times today. Since Commission regulations had to be approved by the Council, the Minister himself must have approved the regulations without entering any proviso or reservations about the figures not being fixed. Therefore he is doubly responsible for the present situation. That being the case, it is very difficult to see how there can be any redress to be had at the European Court of Justice.
As a result of this blunder Irish farmers, indeed the economy generally, will have lost approximately £12 million which is absolutely unforgivable. I can well understand the fury of the farming organisations and their demand that the Government reimburse them this amount. It should be remembered that this has occurred at a time when the Exchequer and taxpayer can ill afford to expend an extra £10 million or £12 million because of the incompetence of the Minister and his Department.
Yesterday I asked the Minister to explain the source of the error in milk production estimates for last year used in the super-levy discussions and the steps he proposed taking to ensure that 58,000 tonnes of milk are not lost from Ireland's quota entitlement. In the course of his reply the Minister deliberately evaded the question, misled this House as to the source of the error, engaged in what I can describe only as a piece of waffle in order to prevent the facts of the situation being made known to the Dáil. Subsequently, by way of a series of supplementary questions——
Did I understand the Deputy to use the expression "deliberately misled"?
(Limerick West): Well, misled the Dáil.
That is better.
(Limerick West): Subsequently, by way of a series of supplementary questions I endeavoured to extract the information I sought from the Minister but without success. At the time the Minister was replying to my Private Notice Question I was not aware that he had earlier attended the Guild of Agricultural Journalists' lunch and in the course of a speech to the guild he is reported as having said that the key man in Irish agriculture is not the Minister but rather somebody in the Central Statistics Office. I should like to get my hands on him. My source of information is today's Irish Times.
It is interesting to recall the series of events that have occurred since this story first became public. First of all, an attempt was made by the Minister to place the blame on the Bailieboro Co-operative. Immediately the chief executive of that co-operative made it quite clear that no blame whatsoever attached to his organisation. Then there was an attempt made to shift all of the blame onto the Central Statistics Office. In what might be described as a most unusual procedure on the part of the Central Statistics Office, in a statement last evening that office made it clear that normal practice was followed in producing the 1983 figures for milk output. That statement specifically denied reports that the error was a result of a fault on the part of a single co-operative, maintaining that there was no question of any concern failing to furnish the returns requested by the Central Statistics Office.
Again in The Irish Times today the Minister is reported as saying that he thought the mistake emanated from the Central Statistics Office. In the same article the Minister is quoted as saying:
I am not going to blame the CSO at all. We used their figures in the negotiations. My Department should have spotted the discrepancy by cross-checking.
There are a number of questions I should like to pose to the Minister, the first of which is: at the commencement of these milk super-levy negotiations did the Minister not realise the enormous importance of ensuring that the figure on which our negotiating case was based be accurate? I would suggest that, in the course of his reply to my Private Notice Question yesterday, the Minister tried to defend himself by resorting to the stratagem that the figures were provisional only. That is not the point at issue. The point is were the provisional figures accurate or not? It transpires now that they were not accurate, that they were seriously inaccurate.
It is not good enough for the Minister responsible for his Department and for the actions of all of that Department's servants, to come into this House and apportion blame to the senior officials of his Department for the mess which has occurred, shrugging off his responsibility in the whole of this scandalous affair. Perhaps the Minister should tell us whether at any time during his briefing before these important negotiations he asked his officials if they were absolutely certain that the figures were accurate. The issue was not whether they were provisional or otherwise but whether the provisional figures were accurate. Did he ask his officials whether the figures had been doubly checked with the CSO? It is clear that the Minister took no such precaution and the sole responsibility for what has occurred rests with the Minister himself. He must bear the consequences and the only honourable thing for him to do is to tender his resignation as Minister for Agriculture. Before this scandalous story came to light the confidence of the agricultural community in this Minister had been shattered. That confidence has now been totally eroded and can be restored only when a new Minister takes over the running of that most important Department.
It is now clear that the Minister was aware of the refusal of the Commission to sanction the amendment sought by him at the time he was replying to my Private Notice Question yesterday, yet he withheld that vital information from the House and a very short time afterwards went on television to give a fairly comprehensive version of the story he had refused to give in the Dáil. It is scandalous that an important Minister avoids the Dáil and gives essential information outside. Members can reach only one conclusion — that the Minister has treated Dáil Éireann with total contempt. Even earlier at lunch time yesterday he was prepared to give his views as to where the blame lay in regard to this most important error, something he was not prepared to do when replying to my questions on this issue in the House. The Minister has proved himself on this super-levy issue and on other issues, but especially in regard to this latest scandalous episode, to be the most incompetent Minister for Agriculture since the foundation of the State.
The miscalculation of our milk output which was to be used as a base for our milk quota must be regarded as the biggest political cock-up of modern times. A national school pupil often wore the dunce's hat for a lesser mistake. There are 4,530 people in the Department of Agriculture, yet this issue of the most vital importance was messed up. The Minister for Agriculture, as boss, must accept full responsibility for this disastrous mistake and I would like to associate myself with everything Deputy Noonan has said.
When the pressure of the mistake started to strike, the Minister ran for cover and took the coward's way out. The blame was put first of all on the co-ops, then on the CSO and then on his Department's officials. Last night he claimed that his officials were at fault. I wonder will he find a scapegoat among the 4,530 people. The blame must be accepted by the Minister for Agriculture. As a farmer and speaking for farmers, I can say clearly that they feel let down, misled, cheated and short-changed. Earlier this year they had to accept reluctantly a quota of 4.6 per cent increase in milk output. The farmers had to rearrange and re-adjust to this new situation where for the first time in our history milk production was limited. Now, having made many sacrifices including cow slaughterings, changes in fertiliser usage, changes in feeding, grassland management and calving patterns, they do not know where they stand. Must they readjust further? Is the new quota 3.5 per cent, 4.64 per cent for 13 million gallons less than anticipated? What exactly is the situation?
The Minister on his return from negotiating this year was met at Dublin Airport by a bevy of Ministers. He was much heralded on his success in having achieved a quota of 4.64 per cent while, he claimed, no other country succeeded in getting an increase. Our average output per cow was 700 gallons while the European average was 1,000 gallons. By the imposition of a quota the Irish were penalised for a crime they did not commit. The punishment should have been meted out only to those who caused the problem. The British who import part of the butter mountain from New Zealand and the Germans and Dutch who import cereal substitutes and consequently produce cheap milk make up the major part of that mountain. The Minister made a mistake. Had it been the British who found themselves in our position, would they have given in to the soft stance adopted by our Minister?
The result of the latest mistake must surely damage our credibility and damage our negotiating power in the future. Good decisions for us in the EEC are of paramount importance. We need good strong men with conviction and, above all, with facts if we are to make an impression. In my opinion our Minister for Agriculture does not qualify on either score and for these reasons he must now do the honourable thing and resign his position.
I set out yesterday the circumstances in which this problem occurred.
Milk delivery figures are supplied to the Commission of the European Communities monthly on a provisional basis by the Central Statistics Office and similar figures are supplied quarterly by the Department of Agriculture. These figures are normally revised towards the middle of the following year in the light of the final figures then available.
In the negotiations on the super-levy we had always been looking for an exemption for Ireland, whereas all other member states were negotiating on the basis of 1981 delivery levels. Towards the end of the discussion it became clear that the Irish exemption would be framed in the context of a specific reference quantity. In those circumstances the Council decided that the basic Irish quota should equal our 1983 deliveries. The actual figure used in the Council regulation to give effect to that decision was based on the latest provisional figure available for 1983 deliveries, that is 5.28 million tonnes. Any attempt to have the decision framed in a way which specifically recognised the provisional nature of the figures and attempted to emphasise the possibility of subsequent adjustment would undoubtedly have led to moves to exclude that possibility by copperfastening the provisional figures. It is normal practice in the Community to adjust provisional figures.
Immediately after the Council decision, the Department sought precise details of 1983 deliveries from all milk purchasers in the country. The returns from these purchasers were not finalised until early June. It was then seen that the actual quantity delivered exceeded the provisionally estimated figure by some 58,000 tonnes. I immediately raised the problem at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 18 June and formally applied to the Commission on 3 July for a correction to be made in the regulation to take account of the final figures.
There were subsequently contacts at official level on the matter and we also raised it at the Council meeting in September. I myself discussed it further with Commissioner Dalsager on Monday last. As Deputies know, the Commission considered our request yesterday in conjunction with requests from other member states for adjustments to the system. No formal statement has been issued by them as to any decision taken — I will repeat that because it is the essence of the mischievous, slanderous statements that were made in this House this morning and this afternoon.
Is the Minister saying no decision was taken?
The Minister must be allowed to reply.
No formal statement has been issued——
We have been misled long enough.
No formal decision has been issued by the Commission——
What was the decision?
——as to any decision taken at yesterday's meeting; neither has any decision been conveyed to me.
I am not surprised.
No formal statement has been issued, hence the erroneous statements made here this morning and this afternoon. It is completely wrong, therefore, to suggest that I misled the House or gave wrong information here yesterday. The information that we subsequently received informally late yesterday, several hours after the discussion here in the House — as had been reported by the media — would indicate that the Commission at this stage are opposed to making proposals to adjust the Council regulations to meet the request of any member states.
Has the Minister double-checked that question?
Order, please.
I said the information that we have subsequently received would indicate ——
Honest answers.
There should be some decency in the House. There was not one word of interruption when serious charges were being made against the Minister and he should be allowed to reply.
He has the opportunity but he is not answering.
The only information available is informal. I would indicate that the Commission at this stage are opposed to making proposals to adjust the Council regulations to meet the request of any member states. We have no official confirmation of this.
Is the Minister saying that is not true?
The first report I heard was an unofficial informal statement on the 6.30 p.m. RTE radio news last night. We have received no communication from the Commission or a result of the Commission's meeting yesterday. I want to emphasise that.
Are they ignoring the Minister completely?
Scandalous, erroneous and deliberately mischievous statements are being made.
(Limerick West): Is the Minister telling us ——
Does the Deputy question my statement that no statement has been issued by the Commission? If he does he can check this minute ——
(Limerick West): We will be checking.
The Deputies should have checked before they made those statements.
The Minister should have checked his figures.
Deputy Byrne should restrain himself.
No reply has yet been received to our letter of early July or any formal indication of the Commission's attitude to our request. I can assure the House, however, that I will be taking all necessary steps to ensure that the agreement in the Council of Ministers last March is honoured.
There are no inaccuracies in statements I made inside or outside this House relating to this matter. I have been perfectly candid at every opportunity. There were no inaccuracies. In his contribution, Deputy Noonan said that the concession has been further reduced. The matter has not been decided. This only exemplifies the attitude we have had from Deputy Noonan, Deputy Byrne and other Fianna Fáil Deputies all along. They are hoping we would not get any concessions in these talks.
(Limerick West): We have been proved right along the way.
We are farmers and we know how it affects us.
Today, Deputy Noonan said I blamed Bailieboro Co-op.
(Limerick West): Of course he did.
I have never mentioned Bailieboro Co-op or any other co-op in any statement I made publicly on this matter ——
(Limerick West): The Minister blamed his officials.
——inside or outside this House. I challenge Deputy Noonan ——
(Limerick West): Hide behind the officials.
——to point out when or where I made such statements. This is indicative of the general tone he adopted here this morning and this afternoon. He had no basis for the statements he made because there has been no Commission statement as a result of yesterday's meeting.
Rubbish. The Minister made a mistake.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 October 1984.