Vol. 564 No. 3
2 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his assessment of the ongoing mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy in view of the fact that crucial negotiations on the Fischler proposals are about to commence. [9265/03]
Commissioner Fischler published the European Commission's detailed proposals for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy on 22 January 2003. At the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 27 January, Ministers gave their initial reaction to the proposals. In that discussion I clearly set out the Irish position. Elements of the proposals have been discussed at meetings of the Council in February and March and a further discussion is planned for the April meeting. Since the proposals were published, they have been undergoing detailed examination at official level in various committees in Brussels on which all member states and the Commission are represented.
The Greek Presidency has indicated its intention to reach agreement on the Commission's proposals in June this year. Given the complexity and importance of the proposals, this objective will be difficult to achieve. It is not possible for me to speculate on the final outcome while the negotiations are in progress.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire for the response and the material on Henshaws he provided yesterday.
What is his response to Commissioner Fischler's recent statement that his proposals are not set in stone and that is up to member states to make counter proposals? Is there something the Minister has done or will do. Will he elaborate on this? Would he feel that somehow the debate has already moved on to the extent that other states have ensured that their concerns have been placed at the centre of the debate and have possibly already secured concessions on issues which, if part of the final agreement, will have harmful effects on the Irish farming industry?
I was glad to be able to resolve the Henshaw matter which was particular to reactor cattle. I was able to get a bonding system in place which hopefully will obviate this type of difficulty in the future.
In regard to the mid-term review, since January detailed meetings have been taking place in Brussels at workshop and special committee level. Of course, the mid-term review is discussed at each of the Council meetings. We have made it clear that we had a review of the Common Agricultural Policy in 1999 which was termed Agenda 2000 and was to continue up to the end of 2006. We see no reason, market or otherwise, why there should be a fundamental reform of Agenda 2000 at this stage when a number of years have yet to run in that scheme. We think it is unfair to farmers to change mid-stream. They are entitled to a degree of stability into the future and fundamental reforms like decoupling, modulation and depressivity should not be thrown at them at this stage of the game.
I know the Minister is not going to tell us that we have missed the boat on this but has he actually commenced a process of stating our position firmly to other countries and trying to garner support on that? Fischler said that it is not set in stone and it is up to the member states to make their own concrete proposals. The Minister is sticking with Agenda 2000. Is it the case that he has no additional proposals to make at this stage?
The position is that at least ten of the 15 member states were quite negative and hostile to the proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Ireland was included in those countries. Since then, I have had a number of bilateral meetings with a number of like-minded countries. What we want to get out of these negotiations is a situation where we protect the gains and advantages of Agenda 2000 and leave the European Union in a good positive position going into the WTO world trade talks.
I did not want to interrupt Deputy Morgan while he was speaking but before we move on to Question No. 3, I wish to inform him that there is a long-standing precedent in the House that when speaking about Ministers or Commissioners, we refer to them by their title and not by their surname only. I would like all Members, not just the Deputy, to get back into that practice in the House.
There are many farming people around Ireland who have other names for him.
I understand that but in the House we would like to get back into the practice of recognising the officer and the office, both in our own Government, the European Commission and elsewhere.
