Thank you for the opportunity to raise the on-going concerns of the Milk Rights Group. This group was established in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Duff and others versus the Minister for Agriculture and Others. Judgment in this case was delivered on 4 March 1997.
The group seeks full compensation for all losses arising from the failure of the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Deasy, to recognise their quota rights in line with their farm modernisation plans. That is their case in a nutshell. It now comprises 1,200 paid up members from every county. The members of the group were encouraged, indeed induced, by the State through the auspices of the relevant development authority, ACOT, under EU Council Directive 72/159 to participate in the farm modernisation scheme. They were encouraged to modernise their dairy farms in the interest of better efficiency through increasing milk output to a level projected under their "development plans". This was to achieve the desired policy objective of giving them an income from dairy farming comparable with the income achievable at the time from industrial activity. All members of the group actively pursued their development plans and took all reasonable steps to meet their projected targets under such plans, including making substantial financial and personal investments which could only have been economically justified were the targets achieved. The output of milk targeted under the development plans would at least have had to be substantially achieved if the investment were to be justified.
With the introduction of milk quotas in 1984 the milk output projected under the relevant development plans was never realised. This was primarily because it was frustrated by a mistake of law on the part of the Minister of the day as held by the Supreme Court in the Duff case. In essence, the Supreme Court held that the Minister chose the wrong method to provide for development plan farmers under Article 3(1) of Council Regulation EEC No. 857/89. The Minister chose to provide for such farmers under the "flexi-milk" system rather than creating a "national reserve" from which special reference quantities could have been allocated to them as required by a proper and true construction of Article 3(1).
It is important to recall that, at the time of the introduction of quotas, Ireland sought and was granted an increase of 4.16 per cent on the gallons produced in the base year 1983. This advantage was granted to Ireland on foot of the case it made to the EU institutions to have special recognition accorded to the productive capacity of its development plan dairy farmers.
Ironically, development plan farmers did not become the beneficiaries of this increased milk quota allocation to Ireland as intended. A subsequent agreement was reached between the Minister, his officials and farming interests, including the farm organisations and the co-operatives, to the effect that it was in the national interest that a national reserve should not be created. This decision was contrary to law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the Duff case.
A wrongful decision was made to allocate an additional 3.6 per cent milk quota to established dairy farmers, regardless of the size of the dairy enterprise, through the relevant co-operatives without taking into account the special merits of the development plan farmers for the allocation of milk quota having regard to their targeted output.
The Milk Rights Group's members suffered a grave injustice resulting from the wrongful decision and the mistake in law of the then Minister in 1984 in the matter of implementing the milk quota register. The primary objective of the group is to seek compensation from the State for its aggrieved members in respect of proven loss and damages occasioned by the State's servant and agents. It is a legal imperative that the group's members receive such monetary compensation for proven loss because they find themselves in precisely similar circumstances to the successful plaintiffs in the Duff case. It must follow that equals should be treated equally.
Farming organisations which have in the past represented the great majority of the group members' interests, other than the special interests represented by the group, must ensure that the State pays compensation to the group's members in respect of proven loss and damage and ensure that the Minister does not exercise his discretion to rely on a legal technicality to obstruct justice being done.
We must support the demands being made for Ireland to get equal treatment with such EU member states as Finland and Austria in seeking the 8 per cent increase in milk quota under the Santer proposals. It is respectfully and reasonably contended by those involved in the Milk Rights Group that, in contemplation of Ireland's application being successful, a national reserve should be created by the Minister out of which additional reference quantities could be made available to development plan farmers, among others, having regard to their targeted output under their original plans. Justice must be done, albeit belatedly.
In principle, development farmers are entitled to damages in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Duff case. The Minister is entitled to rely on the statue of limitations and if it is applicable on the facts of a given case it would amount to a complete defence. That point is not argued. However, an action may be maintained even if otherwise out of time so that, all things being equal, a court could and would proceed to give judgment against the Minister unless he elected to raise the statute of limitations defence by means of a positive plea in his defence. As a strict matter of law the Minister need not plead the statute of limitations and in that case the action would proceed in the ordinary way.
Having regard to the undeniable merits of the development farmers' cases and from the viewpoint of fairness and morality, the Minister ought not to plead the statute of limitations. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, to pass my request to the Minister, Deputy Walsh, not to plead the statute of limitations and to allow this case to proceed so that the farmers will receive equal treatment to those in the Duff case. It is a decision solely for the Minister. The development farmers have been treated unfairly by having their ambitions to increase milk output thwarted by the introduction of quotas and the lack of provision for them from a national reserve and it is up to the Minister to ensure that they are treated fairly and are recompensed for State interference in their development plans — plans initiated at the State's behest.
Will the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, confirm to the House that the Minister will not plead the statute of limitations and so allow the Milk Rights Group's case to proceed in the same way as the Duff case? The case concerns 1,200 farmers and their families drawn from every county. They should get a just reward of compensation for their unfair treatment by the State.
