asked the Taoiseach if he now feels it necessary to make extensive corrections to the assessment he gave to Dáil Éireann of the European Council at Stuttgart having regard to the Commission's proposals on the super levy which have been published since then.

I stand fully over what I said in this House on 22 June last when I indicated where we had been successful in getting agreement to certain specific matters to be taken into account in the review of the CAP. This has, for example, placed the Government in a much more favourable position to defend, on Community principles, the interests of this country and to express their fundamental opposition to the whole idea of a "super levy" applied to Irish milk supplies.

Is the Taoiseach aware that he claimed in the Dáil in his statement on 22 June that the outcome of the Stuttgart Summit was strikingly positive and that the Minister and he, with gratifying support from colleagues, were successful in preventing damage to Irish interests in the Common Agricultural Policy? Would he accept that he misjudged totally the situation and that Deputy Haughey was right when he said it was necessary only to read the list of questions which were to be examined under the heading of the CAP to realise that they constitute a major onslaught on the CAP? Did the Taoiseach not put his name to conclusions which invited the EEC Commission to bring forward revised super levy proposals?

I did not put my name to anything which invited the Commission to bring forward revised or unrevised super levy proposals. I am not sure where the Deputy got that information. At the Stuttgart meeting a number of proposals were made and prior to it a number of proposals had been made with regard to the criteria to be applied in reviewing the CAP. It was our concern to ensure that these criteria should be favourable to us in a positive sense and that we would avoid as far as possible unfavourable criteria. We had significant success in that respect, which has placed us in a much more favourable position in the negotiations now taking place, which are and were bound to be very difficult negotiations, but the criteria as finally agreed in Stuttgart have been extremely helpful to us in our viewing of our position by comparison with what they would have been had they not been adjusted before and at the Stuttgart meeting.

Is the Taoiseach aware that he positively invited the super levy proposals? He stressed explicitly on 22 June — I quote from his statement to this House as reported in the Official Report, column 2691, Volume 343:

—the acceptability of any proposals that would be directed towards freezing existing production levels in member states where these are well below the Community average. . . .

Far from inviting such proposals, I was putting down a marker that any such proposals would be unacceptable to the Irish Government, as was my duty at that time and remains my duty as Taoiseach now in the present negotiations.

6.

asked the Taoiseach if he will name the persons with whom he had discussions on the question of the super levy during his recent visit to Brussels; the extent of the discussions; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

During my recent visit to Belgium on 19 September last I had separate discussions with the Belgian Acting Prime Minister, Mr. J. Gol—the Prime Minister, Mr. W. Martens, was ill—the Belgian Foreign Minister, Mr. L. Tindemans and State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Agriculture, Mr. P. de Keersmaeker as well as with the Commission President, Mr. Gaston Thorn. The Deputy will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to disclose details of what were confidential discussions at a time of intensive and critical negotiations in the European Community. To clarify the point more precisely, I met Mr. Gol and Mr. de Keersmaeker together.

Would the Taoiseach say that during the course of these discussions he made it very clear to those whom he met and to the media afterwards that this country was prepared to use the veto?

I made it very clear in the discussions I had and in a public address at the college at Bruges that proposals involving quotas or super levies interfering with the natural growth of our dairy industry would be unacceptable to this country, and by so doing laid the groundwork for the negotiations now taking place in which our position is much more widely appreciated than previously.

Can the Taoiseach say whether during the course of the discussions he indicated clearly that this Government were prepared to use the veto to protect our national interests?

The Deputy, having been Minister for Foreign Affairs, knows enough about the "veto" to know how inappropriate the question he is posing is. The issue does not arise in that form. The issue that arises is that the proposal for a super levy applied to our dairy products would be unacceptable to this country because of its impact on our economy and because it would undermine the benefits of EEC membership in respect of which we have already paid a considerable price on the industrial side. Our job is to clarify with other member Governments the unacceptability of this proposal, so that in the negotiations it will be understood and accepted that it would not be appropriate to attempt to settle this issue by a majority voting procedure but that discussions would have to proceed until agreement is reached, which is a method by which the Community has proceeded, as the Deputy knows, for many years past.

Ceist 7.

Can the Taoiseach say whether as a result of reports at the time of these discussions he proposes now to go ahead with the proposed Taoiseach's tour of the capitals of member states of the EEC to make sure that our case is properly understood before the Athens meeting takes place in December?

I have made contacts with certain Heads of Government and will make other arrangements as and when they may be appropriate. Perhaps the Deputy will appreciate that the time scale of this negotiation is not totally certain. Certainly it is our hope that the matter will be resolved at Athens because very considerable problems will be created for the Community as a whole and for this country in particular if a solution is not reached there, and we are not totally certain that it will be reached at that time. The question, therefore, of the timing of the contacts with other Heads of Government will have to be considered in the light of that somewhat uncertain situation.

I shall be meeting by invitation the President of the European Council, the Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Papandreaou, in Athens shortly. During the month of November we shall be meeting the British Prime Minister and there will be, of course, the visit of the German Chancellor later in November. Those meetings are arranged, and the question of other meetings is for further consideration as the situation develops.

The Taoiseach has mentioned the unacceptability of the proposals for the super levy. Can he say whether these proposals are unacceptable or totally unacceptable to his Government?

That is a distinction——

I am sure there is one.

——which is lost on me.

That is the big problem.

The introduction of adverbs and qualifying adjectives weakens and does not strengthen the case.

They are not totally unacceptable as far as the Taoiseach is concerned. Is that the position?

I shall not introduce any adjectives, because the word "unacceptable" is perfectly clear.

This is an important adjective.

I am not going to weaken it by adding any adverb, even at the Deputy's request.

It is an important adverb in Europe as far as the Taoiseach is concerned.

Can the Taoiseach tell us if he will use the veto if this super levy is to be imposed upon us? I want a reply, yes or no.

I have already replied to that question in connection with Deputy Collins, who has a fuller understanding of the mechanism by which the Community work than possibly the Deputy has had an opportunity to acquire.

Could I ask for a yes or no answer to my question? Does he intend to use the veto in this event?

I have already explained this to the Deputy. Perhaps he would familiarise himself with the proceedings of the Community. He might thus realise that the question he is posing is one which——

Is the answer yes or no?

Ask Deputy Lenihan.

Order, please. I call Deputy O'Keeffe.

I am not in a position to give a yes or no answer to the Deputy's question. If the Deputy does not understand the answer, I cannot be attacked because of that.

The Taoiseach does not understand it.

The Deputy is perhaps too young to attend my seminar.

Would the Taoiseach outline, with regard to his opposition to the super levy, what concessions to Irish farmers he is prepared to trade to protect the dairy industry? I am asking specifically about the Irish meat industry aid to private storage and intervention.

I am not trading anything. My concern is to secure that out of this negotiation will come what is vital to this country — the survival of the Community, the expansion of own resources and the protection of our dairy industry from an attempt to limit its expansion through the unnaturally low limit at which it was held for decades, indeed more than a century of an inequitable commercial relationship between ourselves and our near neighbour.