Geographic balance of beef support
Doyle argues that beef support is concentrated in disadvantaged areas despite stronger natural production conditions elsewhere. O’Kennedy says the schemes balance economic aims with maintaining family-farm incomes nationwide.
As we all know, the Treaty of Rome espoused the aspiration that we should concentrate production in areas of greatest natural advantage. Given that fact, together with our excessive milk production and our under production of beef at present, would the Minister agree that the grants structure generally for the production of beef is imbalanced in that the grasslands are on the east coast——
Comment on this
——whereas the greatest concentration of grant supplement is in the disadvantaged areas where it is far more difficult to produce the beef we are trying to produce? Is there anything we can do to redress this imbalance and would the Minister agree that we should try to redress this imbalance?
Comment on this
The matter which the Deputy has addressed may be relevant having regard to the purposes of the Common Agricultural Policy which are both social and economic. I hope we are getting the balance right. It is clearly evident that if we were only to go for economic return we would not concentrate as much support in the disadvantaged areas but that is not the only purpose of Government in this area. We have to maintain a level of family farm income right throughout the country and that is why these schemes are so extensive.
Comment on this
Stores are more natural to that part of the world whereas beef is more natural to the grassland. It is a case of horses for courses.