The Green Minister

Could you give me some idea of the ground you would like to cover in the interview before we start?

Well, just a little on the Brussels negotiations, the forthcoming Budget and the cheap livestock loans ...

 What cheap livestock loans?

The £100 million fund for livestock investment announced by Brian Lenihan in November before the election.

Well, I'm not too clear ...

Is the cheap livestock scheme going ahead, Minister?

Em ...

The hurried intervention of one of his officials saved the Minister for Agriculture, Austin Deasy, from further embarrassment. The new Minister for Agriculture, who was one month in office, did not know anything about the scheme. The journalist had his story: the much lauded scheme of cheap livestock loans for farmers had been dropped. Following considerable reaction and in answer to a Dail question from Brian Lenihan, Austin Deasy some days later was in a position to call into question the cost-effectiveness of such schemes, their doubtful value and, in any case, Fianna Fail had not allocated funds as they had claimed.  Austin Deasy is the weakest Minister for Agriculture since EEC entry changed the role of the office. Deasy fails to measure up to his immediate predecessors on three vital counts. His background knowledge of agriculture is no more than that of the average urban school-leaver. His political leverage with his own party and colleagues in government is by far the weakest of any agriculture minister in 10 years. Finally, he compares poorly with Mark Clinton, Jim Gibbons, Ray McSharry, Alan Dukes and Brian Lenihan when it comes to sheer presence and power of personality.  The job of Minister for Agriculture changed dramatically in 1973 on Ireland's entry to the EEC. Now the minister has to fight his battles at the Council of EEC Farm Ministers and then struggle to make sure that any gains he has made are not reduced by Cabinet decisions back in Dublin. The understandable tendency is for the government to let farming look to Brussels for its well-being.  The first four years of EEC membership were dominated by Mark Clinton as Minister for Agriculture. Clinton was a tough negotiator with an impeccable knowledge of the agriculture industry. He had campaigned hard for entry into the EEC and he knew what the country wanted out of it. He was one of the few ministers of that coalition government to emerge with any credit.  Jim Gibbons, who followed Clinton, also had knowledge of the agricultural industry. His major achievement, while in Agriculture House, was to re-vamp the animal disease eradication programme. Just as Mark Clinton had personal clout in Fine Gael, Gibbons had a mysterious power over Jack Lynch but rarely used it. He was, however, instrumental in forcing George Colley to back down on the 2 per cent levy on sales of agricultural produce. Gibbons also understood the Common Agricultural Policy. He managed to export Irish lamb to France which was at that time a considerable achievement.  The following three ministers are remembered with varying degrees of fondness in Agriculture House. Ray McSharry got a reputation for hard work and quick decision-making. His close association with Charles Haughey was considered very useful. Alan Dukes was the darling of the officials. His experience in the Burke Cabinet in Brussels and his years spent with the NFA and the IFA gave him a clear understanding of the economics of Irish farming. The announcement of Brian Lenihan's selection as Minister for Agriculture was greeted by jeers and guffaws in the Dail. He had no background in agriculture but his shrewd political judgment enabled him to identify some key aspects of his new portfolio. His standing in the Fianna Fail party and in the Haughey government at the time made him an effective minister. A major achievement in Brussels was his outspoken pressure at the Council of Farm Ministers for a settlement of the 1982 farm price increase despite Britain's solid opposition.  Austin Deasy was, by his own admission, surprised to be appointed to Agriculture. When Garret FitzGerald decided to demote John Bruton and promote Alan Dukes the agriculture job became a problem. Bruton didn't want it. It would be a straight swop with Dukes and if there was bad financial news around (as he knew there was) Agriculture was not the place to be. He had been Fine Gael spokesman on agriculture and he knew the tricky nature of the brief.  The other obvious candidate was Michael Darcy of Wexford. He had just delivered three out of five seats in a key marginal and had been junior minister for agriculture in the previous coalition. He had also drawn up the Fine Gael expansion programme for Agriculture. But he too did not want to be in Agriculture House if hard times were ahead. For him the quieter waters of Fisheries and Forestry.  The appointment of Austin Deasy killed more than two birds with one stone. It filled an awkward gap. It showed how magnanimous Garret FitzGerald could be in victory; FitzGerald had been openly attacked by Deasy at party meetings. It gave further Cabinet representation to Munster. If Deasy wanted a Cabinet post - and he said he did - he could have Agriculture. Alan Dukes would pull the purse strings anyway from the Department of Finance.  Austin Deasy went into his new job just before Christmas 1982 with only the slightest knowledge of the portfolio. He had been appointed to the Senate in 1973 by Liam Cosgrave, having been defeated in two previous general elections. Formerly a secondary school teacher, Deasy was a graduate of DCC. He was elected to the Dail in 1977 for Waterford.  Once in Agriculture House the former teacher turned out to be less than apt as a pupil. The top official of the Department found him something of a trial after the brilliance of Dukes and the ability of Lenihan. Specialist journalists in agriculture, on the other hand, thought Deasy's honesty was refreshing. He admitted that the journalists knew more than he did.  This approach persisted for months. Deasy's personality is one of self-effacing shyness and is put forward as explanation for his lack of impact on public occasions. His personality may also have been partly responsible for his major setback at the hands of Peter Walker last spring in Brussels when Walker was British Minister for Agriculture.  The Irish meat plants were upset over the use of an EEC subsidy on British beef to assist British exports. The subsidy was intended for the home market only. The Irish plants had lost some business and Deasy took up their cause. When he raised the issue at the Farm Council Walker told Deasy that he had a "bloody cheek". The incident got wide coverage in the Irish media; Walker's side of the story was carried rather than Deasy's. Deasy had failed to communicate with the Irish press corps at the Brussels talks. At all public outings since then he has been accompanied by officials from his press office.  Even his proudest achievement as minister has more than a touch of chance. The eventual Brussels agreement on farm prices this year was more than double the earliest expectations. At 9.5 per cent the agreed increase for Ireland was made up of 4.5 per cent price increase itself and two changes in "green" currencies (the way in which EEC intervention prices are translated into each member state's national currency). The Irish Pound was devalued in March when it had soared over 90p sterling. This gave scope for a 3.8 per cent increase in Irish intervention prices. When the pound fell back and some other currencies in the EMS shifted another devaluation of 1.2 per cent was made effective in June. Thus Deasy's 9.5 per cent was due in a major way to the fickle movements of international currencies. What should have seemed like a victory for him became something of a defeat when the newspapers carried exaggerated stories of the effect of the Brussels increase on food prices.  The Ministers of State at the Department of Agriculture are Paddy Hegarty of East Cork and Paul Connaughton of Galway East. Whereas Paddy Hegarty has struggled to establish himself Connaughton has impressed many people with his ability. With a delicate situation in the shape of the Tuam sugar factory on his doorstep Connaughton has made significant moves toward achieving better use of farmland. Many commentators have drawn unfavourable comparisons between the performances of Deasy and Connaughton.  And perhaps not surprisingly the others named for the Agriculture job, Bruton and Darcy, have on occasion nipped in to make comments about aspects of Deasy's portfolio. Bruton has waxed eloquent on the potential of agriculture. Darcy attacked the banks in general, and the Bank of Ireland in particular, over the farmers in financial trouble. Much to Deasy's annoyance.  But a much greater threat to Deasy's turf and indeed to the power of office he holds is a proposal from the EEC Commission that the Council of Farm Ministers be made subordinate to the Council of EEC Finance Ministers. This would mean that Farm Ministers whose political tendency is to push up prices would not have the last say in deciding prices. This issue will be decided by the Heads of Government.  Already this principle is creeping in. At the first meeting to discuss the adaptation of the EEC Common Agricultural Policy, the Finance and Foreign Ministers will be meeting jointly and the Farm Ministers may or may not be asked to take part.  The latest Commission adaptation proposals represent a major shift in the policy. The proposals would change the CAP from a policy of expansion to one of maintaining status quo at or about self-sufficiency in food, which Europe has reached.  The freezing of production levels could mean that the 'untapped potential' of Irish agriculture would become un-tappable. The proposals, including the 'superlevy' on milk, which penalises excess production, have been denounced by the minister and the government as 'unfair and unacceptable '. But the current set of proposals is a finely balanced package. There is something that each member state has sought and something also that each will not want to accept.  The most delicate and shrewd negotiations are called for between now and the end of the year when the Heads of Government are targeted to wrap up the deal. Concerted action by the key ministers, Dukes and Deasy, will be necessary. Not helping such action will be Dukes's demand to Deasy (and the other Cabinet Ministers) that he cut his department's spending by 6 per cent. This amounts to close on £20m out of Deasy's budget for next year.  This cut follows a 10 per cent cut contained in last February's budget, which saw farm development grants and some subsidies cut. Deasy had to accept these cuts and preach the doctrines of financial rectitude to farmers. This message did not go down well with farmers who see themselves as the victims of high inflation. Austin Deasy has topped the poll in Waterford and in a largely rural constituency would not like to upset farmer-voters. He has endeavoured to reduce the impact of cutbacks on larger farmers who traditionally vote Fine Gael. (Indeed Deasy has his own rule of thumb on the farmer-vote in Waterford — the Fine Gael vote varies inversely with height above sea-level.)  The country is perhaps unfortunate that it has the least well-fitted agriculture minister since EEC entry to handle the most crucial talks on the future of the CAP since its establishment over 20 years ago. On the good side as indicated earlier a number of other Ministers including the Taoiseach will be involved.  Dukes and FitzGerald are acknowledged EEC experts. In addition the Department of Agriculture itself has a large complement of experienced and talented officials. However, the toughest talking is done with all officials kicked out and then it's to be hoped that Austin Deasy confounds his form.