asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will justify the increased co-responsibility levy when the Agricultural Commisioner, Mr. Andriessen, announced a saving of one billion ECUs on EAGGF expenditure largely due to the higher world market prices for cereals.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Co-Responsibility Levy.
45.
The additional co-responsibility levy is one of a number of measures decided by the EC Council, namely the heads of Governments which are aimed primarily at discouraging surplus production in the Community and in the process to create budget savings. The indications are that cereals production in the Community has continued to increase this year, so that the problem of surpluses has still not been fully resolved. Any current savings may, therefore, be of a temporary nature. The Community regulation contains provisions for a refund, in whole or in part, of the additional levy in the event of Community cereals production not exceeding 164.8 million tonnes in a market year. The level of production for the current year has not yet been determined by the EC Commission.
I would expect that the arrangements regarding the additional levy in future market years will be the subject of discussions when the Council of Ministers undertake the annual price-fixing negotiations in the early part of 1989.
I should also point out that in order to offset the effects of the levies on the incomes of small producers a scheme of aid is in place whereby they can apply for refunds of part of both the basic and additional levies.
We are talking here about an additional tax of £30 per acre. I understand the purpose of the extra levy was to compensate the budget for overproduction. I do not understand what the Council of Ministers is doing to curtail the importation of cereal substitutes into the EC which is on the increase. I believe now it is 27 million tonnes. Those cereal substitutes have no co-responsibility levy and are subject to no quota.
That is a very separate matter. Although it is linked, it is not part of the question asked of me. To get into that is a major issue. I support and sympathise very much with the views expressed by the Deputy, I have expressed those views very strongly outside. I hope they will be reflected in policy changes in the next few years. Every cereal producer in Ireland, by virtue of the exemption for small producers — we got the Council to define a small producer as those under 247 acres — has aid available by way of repayment of the portion of the co-responsibility levy.
This excessive taxation is forcing our cereal producers out of business.
I am not an enthusiast for this and I have argued vigorously against it but I must say that we have diminished what would otherwise have been the penal impact of it, first in reference to the ceiling that was proposed which we had increased and, secondly, in reference to aid for small producers. If the ceiling is not breached — we have requested that this be determined early in the year rather than later, as the Commission originally proposed, — then those who have paid will be repaid.
How long does it take to establish whether we have arrived at the ceiling or not? When we arrive at the ceiling how accurate can that assumption be?
There is not the same standard of calculation throughout the Community. Some countries seem to have different ways of counting than others.
They forget to count what comes in through Rotterdam.
Could we not change our method of counting?
Originally the Commission proposed that the determination of the ceiling would be as late as April or May of next year but we have convinced them that that is very late to be determining the amount of cereal production in 1988 and of the need to bring forward the date. We hope to have the adjustment made much earlier.