Vol. 412 No. 6
8 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline the efforts he is making to reduce the impact on Irish agriculture and the Irish economy of the Commissioner MacSharry proposals on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
14 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food whether he proposes to visit each EC capital to meet his counterpart to put the Irish case in advance of any decisions on the MacSharry package on Common Agricultural Policy reforms.
22 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food whether, at the next meeting of the European Council the Taoiseach intends to put forward alternatives to the Commission's proposals on the review of the Common Agricultural Policy.
29 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has quantified the possible loss of employment in the agricultural and food industries and associated sectors in the event of the implementation of present proposals on the Common Agricultural Policy reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
36 Mr. M. Kitt asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has satisfied himself with developments to date on negotiations on the Commissioner MacSharry proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and if he will outline his main priorities in these negotiations.
53 Tomás Mac Giolla asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline the latest position regarding the proposals made by the EC Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr. MacSharry, for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
55 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will set up a national forum on agriculture which would include (a) his Department, (b) Teagasc, (c) An Bord Glas, (d) CBF, (e) the IDA, (f) Shannon Development, (g) the national farming organisations and (h) other interested parties, the function of which would be to draw up a ten year national development plan for agriculture in this country.
56 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food whether he has any plans to visit European capitals in the autumn with a view to making personal representations about the particular position of Ireland in regard to the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
61 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if his attention has been drawn to the fact that, if the proposals in the Commissioner MacSharry Common Agricultural Policy reform package concerning stocking rates per hectare were implemented, many small farmers in the disadvantaged areas would be debarred from cattle headage grants; and if he has presented an alternative package to Commissioner MacSharry to protect small farmers in Ireland.
84 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will be presenting any alternative proposals in respect of Common Agricultural Policy reform in view of the serious damage to the Irish economy that the MacSharry plan will impose if agreed in its present form; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 14, 22, 29, 36, 53, 55, 56, 61 and 84 together.
The Commission recently tabled the complete legal texts of all of its Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals. The Council is now, therefore, able to get down to a comprehensive and detailed examination of the various aspects of the reform plans. This phase of the negotiations may well take a number of months and, if so, it will be well into next year before we reach final conclusions.
Since the outset of the Common Agricultural Policy reform debate I have been outlining Ireland's position in the clearest and strongest possible terms both in the Council and in the many bilateral contacts which I have had with all my fellow Agriculture Ministers and with Commissioner MacSharry. This is in line with the Government's commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
These consultations will continue as the negotiations unfold and the Government are committed to availing of all opportunities to ensure that Ireland's vital concerns in the reform debate are taken on board.
I have repeatedly indicated the areas in the proposals which most concern me in the many discussions on Common Agricultural Policy reform in this House, most recently last week. I propose to circulate copies of my statement. I do not propose to go into all of them in this reply but it is, nonetheless, important to highlight some of the most crucial for Ireland. Any change must fully respect Treaty provisions; it must be moderate and gradual and responsive to the needs of an economy which is heavily dependent on agriculture; it must be backed by adequate and durable Community resources; it must ensure that market support arrangements continue to play a vital part in farm income formation; it must apply realistic stocking rates which reflect the economic basis of modern family farms and it must not discriminate against grass based livestock production. It must take particular account of economies such as Ireland's where agriculture represents a vital element in the overall national economy.
The position up to now has been that in the absence of detailed examination of the Commission texts, Ministers in the Council largely concentrated on outlining their general attitudes to the proposals. In this, all member states agreed on the need for reform and could accept the Commission proposals as the starting point of the negotiations. There were and are, however, widespread differences of view on the correct form of change needed.
As I have already said, the Council is now in a position to go on to debate the detail of the proposals. In these discussions I will, in common with most Ministers, be indicating alternatives to some of what is on the table. These will cover the maintenance of adequate Community preference controlling imports, gradual price adjustment, realistic production control, the levels of direct income support and the conditions under which it is paid and the putting in place of a secure Community financial framework for the Common Agricultural Policy.
An important element in the approach I will be proposing is the establishment of much more realistic stocking rate criteria especially but not exclusively in respect of the disadvantaged areas. The needs of intensive family run farms in all parts of the country will of course have to be met.
In developing a national strategy on the reform proposals the Department and I have, as provided for in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress maintained the closest possible contact with the farm and agricultural organisations. That contact will be maintained. The organisations and the Department have quantified the efforts of the proposals compared to the agricultural situation which obtained in 1990. While the results vary to some extent, all of these exercises indicate a significant loss in the value of agricultural output and, even after compensation, in aggregate farm income. It has to be accepted, however, that even if the policy remained unchanged, some losses would occur in any event because of the operation of the stabiliser system and likely changes in the market management arrangements. There is also the point that some benefits might accrue over time because of better market balance and there should also be some consumer gains. Nevertheless, the overall position remains that an outcome based on unchanged Commission proposals would lead to immediate national losses. This would affect employment levels which, on the basis of a recent ESRI study, would be expected to fall in the medium term, even if this trend might be reversed in the longer term due to improved competitiveness.
Such assessments as have been made are, of course, based on the proposals as they now stand. I would expect that the quantifiable effects would be significantly changed by progress in the negotiations. It is, therefore, impossible to be more definite about those effects until the shape of final conclusions is clearer. When the conclusions of the reform and GATT negotiations are known the Government will, as agreed under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, negotiate with the programme partners on a new national development plan for the agriculture and food sector. Preparatory work on this will begin shortly.
I have the utmost regard for Deputy Woods who will succeed Deputy O'Kennedy as Minister for Agriculture and Food, but it is certainly a most unwise and untimely decision to change Ministers at this stage of these most complex and important discussions.
That matter is more appropriate to the debate which is ongoing today.
I wonder whether the Taoiseach had the interests of agriculture and farmers at heart when he made that decision. However, that is another day's work. May I ask the Minister when he realistically expects a decision on the Common Agricultural Policy reforms?
First, I would like to thank the Deputy for the implications of what he said, but I would reassure him that Deputy Woods who has a professional qualification in this area and was an adviser to my party in Opposition some years ago, is particularly competent in this area. As far as a date is concerned, the Deputy will know from negotiations, even price negotiations which the Deputy attended, that one could not say when they would conclude. When the Deputy's party were in office negotiations concluded sometimes as late as June but sometimes they concluded in March. When considering such a major reform as this it would be foolish for me at this stage to put a time scale on the negotiations. However, the expectation is that they will be concluded at or about the beginning of the next marketing year. I am sure the Deputy will accept that it would be wrong to consider that as a timetable much less a deadline.
The conclusion of those talks generally coincides with the persistence or awkwardness of the Irish Minister and not the other 11 Ministers. In the context of the proposed reform, does the Minister agree by and large with the findings of the survey carried out by the ICOS, which, if they are factual, would mean that agriculture would be devastated in this country? Has the Minister seen the findings of that survey? It seems to be the most qualified and professional survey carried out and its ramifications are dreadful.
A number of surveys have been undertaken and I awaiting further surveys from very highly qualified and independent sources. The ICOS survey does not coincide exactly with the surveys undertaken so far by my Department. I acknowledge that there is not a great difference between them on the basis of the current proposals and for that reason that kind of analysis is a little unrealistic. Regardless of who is Minister, as we have already signalled, the proposals that will emerge will be very different from those tabled at the beginning of the negotiations. It has been signalled that there will be concessions — for example, the stocking rate will be changed and the compensation element will be advanced to our benefit. A number of other matters have been agreed generally but, as the Deputy knows, they are not definite until they are put into regulations. The outcome will be much better than that outlined in the survey to which the Deputy referred.
