Vol. 545 No. 3
28 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if he will report on the discussions he held in Brussels recently on the reform of the EU sheep sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30146/01]
38 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if he will support the Irish Farmers Association campaign on the reform of the European sheep policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25971/01]
41 Mr. M. Kitt asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the improvements which can be secured on the most recent compromise proposals for sheepmeat; his views on whether the reform of the European Union sheepmeat regime can be agreed before the end of 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30049/01]
52 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason the outcome of the last Council of Ministers meeting was so negative as far as sheep farmers were concerned; the negotiations he conducted with other EU Agriculture Ministers prior to the meeting on the matter of an increased fixed ewe premium; his position on the subject at this stage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30120/01]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 28, 38, 41 and 52 together.
The European Union Commission's proposal to replace the existing variable ewe premium with a fixed premium of 21 per head was rejected by the Council at the meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers last week. The final Presidency compromise provided for the basic premium of 21 to be supplemented by the equivalent of 1 per head in the form of a national envelope. This compromise was rejected by some member states, including Ireland, as being insufficient and by other member states because it was too generous and too costly. There were also a number of other member states who had indicated that they would vote against any further increase in the sheepmeat budget which would have been fixed at approximately 1.9 billion per annum if the Presidency compromise had been adopted.
The six member states who voted against the Commission's proposal constitutes 27 votes. A blocking minority is 26 votes. It takes only one member state to change its vote for the present proposal to go through. This demonstrates the difficulties facing us in securing any significant improvement at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in December.
I saw the proposed reform as giving us an opportunity both to redress some of the problems which we have had with the sheepmeat regime over the years and to place the industry on a sound footing for the future. Sheep production is the closest we have to the European model of agriculture and I made a strong case in the negotiations for the premium to be fixed at a level which ensures that sheepmeat remains a viable farm enterprise. I also sought the introduction of an extensification premium for sheep to redress the unequal treatment of sheep producers within the cattle extensification system.
In pursuit of these objectives, I have sought to convince Commissioner Fischler and my colleagues in the Council of the validity of Ireland's case both at the formal meetings of the Agriculture Council and in discussions with other Ministers. I have also discussed the reform of the sheepmeat regime in bilateral meetings with the Swedish, Spanish, Belgian and UK Ministers for Agriculture. My officials have also had ongoing discussions on the issue with their EU counterparts.
