Ceist a sé.

(Limerick West): A Cheann Comhairle, we are taking two or three questions together here and one is a priority question. I want to ask two further suplementary questions, one with regard to the proposal to introduce a coresponsibility levy for cereals. That is serious enough, but quality control is far more serious as far as this country is concerned because of our climatic conditions. Surely the Minister is aware that this can have a disastrous effect so far as our farmers are concerned. I support the Minister in his opposition to these proposals, but his opposition should be more positive in so far as our crop farmers are concerned.

Secondly, with regard to the other proposal to interfere with the intervention system for beef, has the Minister any forecast as to how it would affect our beef prices if it were implemented in its present form or even in a watered down form?

The answer to the first question is that the proposal with regard to cereals is most serious. I do not know what the Deputy means about not taking a positive approach. I have said outright that I am not accepting that proposal and I cannot do any more than that at this stage. There are two areas in the cereals proposal which would be damaging for us, one which we could wear and the other which we could not. The one which we could wear is a 3 per cent co-responsibility levy on cereals. That would be tough enough in itself, but the other element of quality control could mean a price reduction on cereals in this country in the range of 9 per cent to 12 per cent. That is the range of the penalty clause and it is totally unacceptable. I do not know if I should go into the background of this, but there are some countries which, like Ireland, cannot accept these proposals because of the penalisation clause — West Germany, in particular, and the British also. The French feel that they can sell cereals on the world market more cheaply than the Americans and the Canadians if the Community bring down the price. They think that they can produce so much extra grain that it would compensate for the price reduction by increased output, better quality and more efficient methods of production. Therein lies the background to the difficulty, that the Commission are backing up the French in this exercise. It creates enormous difficulties for us, or would if it went through as a proposal, but there is a long way to go yet.

On the second question about the beef proposals, the curtailment of beef intervention as proposed by the Commission would probably have the most serious effect of all on the Irish economy because of the magnitude of the beef output here. If the cattle trade is going badly, agriculture generally is going badly and the country is going badly. Curtailment of beef intervention would have very serious repercussions. We put 17 per cent of our beef into intervention, amounting to 80,000 to 90,000 tonnes a year. We would have to find markets for that quantity, otherwise we could not sell it. If we could not sell it, the price would drop dramatically. Again, it is a proposal. A number of countries other than ourselves do not like it and there will be much discussion before any final decision is taken.