Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Jan 1989

Vol. 386 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Agricultural Production Proposals.

14.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the implication for this country of the decisions taken at the most recent Council of Ministers, particularly in relation to (i) the beef regime (ii) New Zealand butter and (iii) the Mulder applicants.

107.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will make a statement on the present position of those farmers who will qualify for a milk quota following the Mulder case.

I propose to answer Questions Nos. 14 and 107 together.

The package which was proposed by the Commission to the Council of Ministers included proposals for a new permanent beef regime, New Zealand butter imports, Mulder applicants and other issues. A package containing six measures, but excluding New Zealand butter, was finally passed on a Presidency proposal adopted by the Commission by a qualified majority of the Council after lengthy negotiations over four months on the morning of 24 January. Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands voted against the proposals.

While I voted against the final proposals, a number of significant improvements on the original beef proposals had been introduced at my request because of the unique importance of the beef sector in our economy. These included:

1. The increase of the 200,000 tonnes general intervention ceiling to 220,000 tonnes at an extra Community cost of £37 million in the event of activation;

2. Two additional safety net clauses to take account of the price levels and trade patterns in Ireland. Together with the original general safety net proposal, the new regime will now operate on the basis of safety nets with specific safeguards where only one general provision existed previously. Purchases under these provisions will not reckon against the 220,000 tonnes ceiling;

3. Producer premium payments in Ireland will increase by £7.5 million to a total of £48 million;

4. A specific commitment by the EC Commission by way of formal declaration that the special dependence of Irish agriculture on beef production will be borne in mind in the various EC support arrangements in the beef sector;

5. A general undertaking by the EC Commission to operate the new system to maintain prices above the trigger levels and

6. A review of the new system after two years as distinct from the permanent régime originally proposed. Under an earlier agreement of the Council of Ministers the adoption of the beef proposals will automatically involve a Green Pound devaluation next month with the abolition of Irish MCA's and an increase of institutional prices by about 1.5 per cent.

Together with the premia increases this will involve an extra £25 million benefit per annum to Irish producers.

On New Zealand butter imports the Council did not consider this issue on 23/24 January in view of the decision taken at the Council in December 1988 to extend existing arrangements for imports of New Zealand butter for a three month period after 1 January 1989. The import arrangement to apply after 1 April 1989 will be considered further by the Council at a later stage.

On Mulder applicants the agreement in principle reached at the Council on 23/24 January 1989 for SLOM producers provided for the allocation of quotas of 60 per cent of the eligible amount to applicants from an increase in the Community reserve of 600,000 tonnes. This increase will be allocated through national reserves without any obligation from existing national reserves. The main elements of the agreement are as follows: —applicants' non-marketing period must have ended after 31 December 1983 generally but because of our particular pattern of milk production, I obtained Council agreement to a date of 1 October 1983 specifically for Ireland; applicants must have complied with all requirements of the non-marketing schemes and applications must be submitted within three months of publication of the regulation; any allocations under existing arrangements will be deducted from quotas granted; applicants must satisfy conditions that their holdings can produce the total quantities of milk allocated and allocations may be withdrawn if 80 per cent of the quota is not produced in the second year; quotas will be granted on an ad personam basis and while they may not be disposed of, they may be transferred by inheritance; producers will not be liable for super levy payments for quantities up to the level of quotas allocated and will be refunded such payments as they may have paid since 1984; the milk co-responsibility levy for producers who delivered less than 60,000 kilogrammes in 1987/88 will be reduced by 0.5 per cent and the intervention price for butter will be reduced by 2 per cent from the beginning of the next marketing year.

In my view, the agreement reached represents a reasonable compromise between the rights of SLOM producers and the protection of existing producers.

The House will also wish to know that the package agreed included an outline of income aid measures to assist Community producers to adopt to reforms of the CAP. Under the arrangements envisaged, a Community contribution of 70 per cent will be payable in Ireland in respect of part of the aid proposed. The devaluation of the green rate which I secured for the pigmeat sector will abolish MCAs from 30 January next.

I am sorry but I must advise Deputy Doyle that the time allocated for the taking of questions nominated for priority is now exhausted. However, I will allow one brief supplementary question from her even though I am obliged to go on to deal with ordinary questions forthwith.

With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, this is appalling treatment of the Opposition spokespersons on agriculture: we cannot even pursue the questions nominated for priority laid before us.

The Chair sought, very sincerely, to advise Members that they should co-operate with it in having questions dealt with.

We tried to tell you last term that this would happen but you would not listen.

Could I ask——

The Deputy had the opportunity to vote against the rules but she did not take it.

Order, please.

Let me ask one supplementary question on this most important matter. I am sure the Minister will agree with me when I say we will not do justice to this in the brief time remaining. Welcome though the small changes in the beef régime were, can the Minister tell us why, quite frankly, he capitulated and did not invoke the veto as he indicated last December he would? Let me put it to him that he was allowing his former colleague and the present farm Commissioner, Mr. Ray MacSharry, a honeymoon period and, therefore, did not pursue the veto as he indicated he would, that he was acting on the Taoiseach's instructions to go softly, softly and that in fact he has let down the beef industry which we are especially dependent on by taking this particular action in Europe.

I regret to say——

We must adhere to the Standing Order governing the taking of priority questions. I am sure the Minister accepts this.

I am sure, a Cheann Comhairle, you appreciate that I would wish to reply to that question given that the Deputy's comments indicate not only an abysmal ignorance of the negotiating process but also, I regret to say, an abysmal misunderstanding of the independence of the Commission. I want to repudiate entirely any suggestion that the Taoiseach or anyone else made any approach to me to go softly, softly on the Commissioner in question. That is an outrageous assertion to make.

No explanation has been given for the Minister's capitulation at the Council.

I am now proceeding to deal with ordinary questions. Question No. 17, please.

The Minister has let down the beef industry and the farmers.

As to the substance of the question, let me say that these negotiations went on longer than any other negotiations held at the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

The Minister was going to invoke the veto. We have a new farm Commissioner but no veto. Will the Minister please explain this?

Order, please. I have called the next question.

May I reply to the question?

I am sorry, Minister, but I have called Question No. 17. I must now insist on a reply being given to Question No. 17 in the name of Deputy Stagg.

Allegations that are not worthy of this House have been made and while I have to accept your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle, I am in a position to answer each and every one of those, unfounded and outrageous as they are.

We are still awaiting an explanation for the Minister not invoking the veto, despite his promise of December last.

Barr
Roinn