Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Feb 2003

Vol. 561 No. 3

Other Questions. - Common Agricultural Policy.

Breeda Moynihan-Cronin

Question:

8 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his views on concerns expressed by the meat processing industry that 25% of jobs in the industry are at risk if the Fischler proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy are enforced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3863/03]

I have a range of concerns with regard to the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy, including the impact on employment in the meat processing industry. I made my views clear at the Agriculture Council meeting last month. While negotiations have only just begun on the overall mid-term review proposals, I made clear to the Commission and to the other member states my position on the various elements of the package. I have argued that the proposals as they stand are not necessary, are not in accordance with stated EU multifunctional policy on the EU model of agriculture, are internally contradictory, costly and strategically badly timed.

Following the publication last July of the Commission's proposals for the mid-term review of the CAP, I commissioned FAPRI Ireland to analyse the impact of the proposals on Irish agriculture. With regard to beef, FAPRI forecasts that Irish beef production, after de-coupling of premiums from production, would fall by 12% compared to an average EU decline of 3%. The disproportionate decline in Irish beef production is accounted for by the fact that a significant proportion of beef output comes from the suckler herd which is most dependent on the premium system. FAPRI has concluded that our suckler herd would fall by 30% after de-coupling. Such a reduction in the suckler herd would lead to a general reduction in the throughput in our factories and in our beef output.

With regard to sheepmeat, the forecast fall in production would also be more severe in Ireland than in the EU as a whole. Lamb production would decline by 12% compared to an average decline of 8% in the EU and this decline would come from a fall of some 12% in breeding ewe numbers.

What plans does the Minister have to alleviate the almost inevitable consequences of some of the Fischler proposals with regard to jobs in the general food industry but particularly in the meat industry? All understand that the cuts will come and that there will be inevitable fallout because of that but some account must be taken of the need to protect jobs in the food industry and to look at alternatives to see where those jobs could be generated.

I have vigorously opposed these proposals and emphasise that they are only pro posals at this stage. They are on the table and will be negotiated. All of the working groups and committees are starting to analyse the proposals next week. FAPRI has analysed them for the Department in Ireland and there is considerable analysis to do in Europe.

The proposals as they stand are stark. They would have an extremely detrimental impact upstream and downstream – not alone in the food processing industry but throughout rural Ireland. Supply co-operatives and others would be affected. There are ongoing talks with the meat and food industry generally and I met the relevant chief executives of the dairy co-operatives and the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society on Tuesday last to discuss these matters and to have a coherent response to the mid-term review. That is the best way to tackle this problem.

How many countries are on the Minister's side in opposition to this? Unless we can get a number of the countries to support us, it will be difficult to secure major changes. The Minister mentioned a 30% reduction in the suckler cow herd. We have a major problem in the marketing of our quality beef at present. How much effect would it have on employment in the meat industry if we lost this amount, and has any analysis been done on that?

With regard to the initial response of the various EU member states, Agri Europe, in monitoring the responses, indicated that nine member states were opposed to the proposals. Ireland was more aggressively hostile to them than any of the other countries.

Were the nine countries opposed to the proposals for the same reasons?

It was generally for the same reasons but the main opposition was to the de-coupling proposal. Ireland did not have as many supporters opposed to modulation because a lot of European countries feel it is a good thing to reduce direct payments, especially to larger farmers, and to put that funding into a pillar for rural development. Ireland does not go along with that because the threshold is far too low at only €5,000.

With three votes out of 87 in the Council of Ministers, we have to continue to forge alliances with other countries to ensure these exceptionally harsh measures will not come to fruition. They will disproportionately affect Ireland if they ever see the light of day.

Top
Share