Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Apr 2003

Vol. 564 No. 3

Priority Questions. - Social Partnership Agreement.

Billy Timmins

Question:

3 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the breakdown of the ?300 million on offer to farmers; the way in which the partnership talks are progressing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9264/03]

The partnership talks involve a series of complex discussions between the Government and four pillars comprising the voluntary and community pillar, the farming pillar, the employers pillar and the trade union pillar. The agreement that is reached is not simply on the basis of what each pillar has received but also encompasses a series of shared societal goals which involve an inter-linking of areas of economic activity, pay, taxation and social policy. The final result is an agreement which covers a number of areas, some of which impact on each pillar directly and others such as macro-economic goals which benefit all by improving the economic climate in areas such as reduced inflation, higher economic growth, etc.

To indicate the comprehensive approach taken in the discussions in relation to agriculture there are solid commitments on the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy, the WTO, the dairy sector, the beef sector, the food industry, improvement in REPS, improvement in the farm waste management scheme, commonage framework plans, SACs, disadvantaged areas, stamp duty for young farmers, stock relief and land annuities. The proposals on the table will bring significant advantages to the farming community.

Social partnership has been shown to be the major driver of Ireland's economic success and has delivered many benefits to the farming community as well as to all other sectors. The fact that other social partners, namely the union and employer pillars, have agreed to participate in the new agreement, notwithstanding current economic difficulties, makes it even more important for the agriculture sector to be represented in the process.

It is no secret that the current round of partnership talks have taken place in a difficult economic environment. However, social partners have overcome many difficulties since the instigation of the whole partnership process in 1987. It should be remembered that partnership has served farmers well and I applaud their contribution to the partnership process over the years and their input into the series of previous agreements. I, like my other colleagues in the Government, would like that input to continue.

Although the timeframe for completion of the new agreement, Sustaining Progress, is now short, I remain hopeful that the farming pillar will continue to be fully involved in partnership and I will make every effort to bring this about. To this end, certain contacts have and are taking place to establish if the farming pillar can enter this new agreement. In this context, it would not be appropriate at this stage to go into detail but to simply indicate that the area of major financial interest relates to REPS and the farm waste management programme.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I take it that he is saying that the €300 million is in the farm waste management programme and the REPS scheme. Can he confirm that?

The Minister mentioned the four pillars but would he agree that the treatment this Government has handed out to the agricultural pillar has merely made a Lot's wife of the farmer pillar and turned it into a pillar of salt? The Government has left the farming community with little option but to perhaps remain outside the partnership agreement. I would like to see them go into it but I can understand why they might not, having suffered one blow after another.

What is the final closing date for the farm organisation entry into the partnership agree ment? I am given to understand it may be today but I am not too sure. What is the cut-off date? What new issues has the farming community brought to the Minister in the past few days?

I sought to put down a couple of questions on the Minister's approval for the Teagasc recommendations. They were ruled out of order, incorrectly I believe because the Minister for Agriculture and Food has to approve those recommendations and in that regard has a responsibility. What is the position on the Teagasc proposals, recommending the closures, submitted to the Minister? I urge him to send them back and refuse to accept them. These closures are being put forward as a result of the €12 million cutback which was the result of the mishandling of public finances and the projected Exchequer returns at the end of the year were off the mark and were, in fact, better than expected. I ask the Minister to revisit the issue.

In a nutshell, does the Minister agree that the Government has made life difficult for the farming pillar? Can he confirm that what he is offering the farmers is the €300 million, in the context of farm waste management and REPS which were included in the national development plan going back to 2000 anyway and have been dramatically cut back, if memory serves me correctly?

We are at a critical stage now in the negotiations on the future of partnership. Now that a number of the pillars have accepted it, it is important that the farming pillar is also included. Contacts are continuing and constructive negotiations are still ongoing. There are solid commitments, particularly on REPS. That is important, not alone for REPS itself but for issues like the nitrates directive and a number of other areas including farm waste management, on-farm investment, stamp duty, stock relief and land annuities.

I do not want to go into any further detail in regard to the negotiations other than to say there are still a few days left. I hope that matters could be concluded this week in preparation for next week. I am hopeful that can be achieved.

Top
Share