Vol. 470 No. 5
12 Mr. Cowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and forestry the number of gallons of milk which will be made available to small producers in 1996 as a result of the changes he recently announced to the milk leasing regime. [19586/96]
The overall objective of the clawback recently put in place is to bias the operation of the quota system in favour of active milk producers. It will achieve this by promoting temporary leasing as an alternative to land-quota leasing as well as quota restructuring, both of which schemes make quota available to producers in priority categories. It is not possible at this stage to estimate how much quota will be transferred to these schemes or to the national reserve as a result of this measure.
As the arrangements announced by the Minister will apply to new leases only, will he confirm that the number of gallons of milk which will be made available for small producers this year is practically nil?
I do not have a figure. Milk quotas are being purchased or leased by cheque book purchasers in the private sector who can afford to give more than the 30p offered by co-operatives. I am not saying this claw back will provide an instantaneous answer for those who are desperate to acquire a quota this year. We are facing a super levy liability of £40 million. It is however an important sea change which will be reviewed. The arrangements may be used to a greater extent in the future to try to have milk transferred to the temporary leasing scheme. If the present trend continues producers will soon disappear. Flexi-milk quotas have virtually evaporated. This has caused problems this year given that the number of farmers who have applied under the scheme has risen from 2,500 to 8,000.
When the announcement was made it was suggested it would alleviate current problems. The Minister has now said it will not. I agree with him. Why will the arrangements apply to new leases only? How many dairy producers with quotas of less than 15,000 gallons will benefit or is the drift set to continue?
The question as framed is essentially statistical.
It was felt it would be unfair if the new arrangements applied to existing leases, many of which are held by small farmers who would be penalised excessively. It was also felt that, because it was such a fundamental change which may be subject to a legal challenge, it would be better if the new arrangements came into operation from 12 October. I am not saying I received legal advice to that effect but that was deemed to be fairer. Existing leases will not be affected. If more milk is transferred to the temporary leasing scheme — there are three tranches — as the Deputy knows, priority will be given to smaller producers. In the second and third tranches almost all of the milk available will be offered to producers with quotas of less than 30,000 gallons.
The Minister said that the new arrangements will apply only to new leases from 12 October. Does he agree that the answer to my question is that the number of gallons which will be made available to producers this year is infinitesimal?
I have been accused by as many people of interfering outrageously in what is a free market activity as I have by those who say I have not gone far enough. This is a fairly drastic option. People believe it is interfering with assets of farmers and the right to sell land, and I have taken all that flak. I am not sure whether the Deputy is saying I should go further but my priority is that the milk of inactive milk producers, of which there are approximately 9,000, should go to priority categories which are set out under the temporary leasing scheme. That is the best avenue to follow and the way I intend to proceed.
