|
Select Committee on European Legislation Tenth Report
BUTTER AT REDUCED PRICES |
8.1 When we first considered
this proposal to extend for a further two years the sale of subsidised
butter to persons receiving social assistance in the Republic
of Ireland we had not seen the Commission report, and the arguments
put forward in his Explanatory Memorandum by the Minister of State
at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Baldry)
did not cause us to change the view we expressed on the previous
renewal[16] that a case
for the continuation for the scheme had not been made. We have
now received the Commission report setting out the reasons why
it considers the scheme should continue.
8.2 The report indicates
that the criteria for the determination of entitlement includes
all recipients of assistance from the Irish Department of Social
Welfare and Department of Health. This includes those receiving
old age pensions, unemployment assistance, widows' and orphans'
pensions, deserted wives' allowance, lone parent allowance, prisoners
wives' allowance, carer's allowance, blind person's allowance,
social welfare (supplementary welfare) allowance, and pre-retirement
allowance. In view of the wide range of those entitled, it is
perhaps not surprising that 60% of the butter eaten in the Republic
of Ireland is subsidised, because the number of families containing
one of those likely to be entitled will be considerable. The
statistics on development of the butter and yellow fat market
in Ireland indicates that, while consumption of butter has stabilised,
that for fat mixtures has increased with an equivalent decrease
in margarine. The Commission considers that the maximum quantity
per beneficiary each month should be reduced from 1 kilogram to
0.5 kilogram, "due to the general tendency in the decline
in Irish butter consumption over the past decade".
8.3 In a letter of 16 December
1996 the Minister of State indicated that, despite the fact that
we had not cleared the proposal and had not, at that stage, seen
the Commission Report, he saw "no reason to oppose the proposed
extension for a further two years". He points out that,
contrary to the view which we had expressed in our Report, there
are still substantial stocks of butter in intervention in the
Community, three-quarters of which are in Ireland. Neither the
Minister's letter nor the Commission report sets out clear arguments
why subsidised butter is preferable to intervention and, if it
is, why the option of lower prices should not be made more generally
available throughout the Community.
8.4 In a further letter of
13 January, the Minister of State argues that the Commission's
report indicates that the scheme has been "consistently successful
in maintaining butter's sales on the domestic market in Ireland
despite the overall decline in butter consumption in the Community".
This statement is somewhat at odds with the Commission's reason
for the reduction in the maximum eligible quantity which we quoted
above.
8.5 We are surprised that
the Government raised no objection to the proposal being adopted
even though scrutiny had not been completed and our questions
were outstanding. The Government's reaction is disappointing.
We nevertheless observe that we do not believe the case to have
been made. When this scheme comes up for further renewal in two
years' time, we can see an argument for the Government's position
being explained in oral evidence. However, as the amount
of intervention butter that will be subsidised has been reduced
and the money involved should therefore also be reduced, we do
not recommend debate, and must perforce clear the document.
15 (17721) 12755/96; see HC 36-vii (1996-97), paragraph 6 (11 December 1996). Back 16 (12758) 10751/94; see HC 70-ii (1994-95), paragraph 21 (7 December 1994). Back |
| |
| © Parliamentary copyright 1997 | Prepared 31 January 1997 |