Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 May 2003

Vol. 567 No. 3

Ceisteanna - Questions. Priority Questions. - Common Agricultural Policy.

Billy Timmins

Question:

1 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his position regarding the Fischler proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14072/03]

I indicated my overall opposition to the Commission's proposals for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy at the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 27-28 January 2003. The proposals would constitute a significant reorientation of the CAP and, therefore, require detailed and comprehensive analysis. My objective in the negotiations, which are ongoing, is to preserve the benefits to Irish agriculture and to rural communities achieved under the Agenda 2000 agreement to ensure the best possible ongoing level of support and protection for our production base. It is envisaged that the pace of the discussions will intensify over the coming weeks.

Where does the Minister believe the Fischler proposals will end up? When does he believe agreement will be reached and when will the next meeting of the Council of Ministers be held? He stated that the Government is opposed to the Fischler proposals as, indeed, is Fine Gael. Will he outline the main reasons it is opposed to them? Does he believe there will be a detrimental knock-on effect on businesses in small towns and on the food processing industry, notwithstanding the fact that the most important component is that we have a viable agriculture industry, the foundation of which is the farmers and the producers? Is the Minister concerned that if we move to this new system, which is not production based, there may be a dramatic fall in production and that in the future it may be a little easier for the Commission to cease, or to dramatically reduce, payments or subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy?

In relation to the negotiations and the pace of them, as I mentioned, the detailed proposals were put before the Council of Ministers in January of this year. Last year, of course, there was an intimation and a leaking of those proposals but the formal proposal were put on the table in January. Since then much healthy debate has taken place among the social partners. The Department has held a number of seminars and public meetings. We also got economists in Teagasc and FAPRI to look at the likely implications.

Negotiations have accelerated in recent weeks and a determined effort is being made by the Commission and the Greek Presidency to bring finality to them by the end of the Greek Presidency which is the end of June. I cannot say whether that will be achieved. All I can say is that there seems to be a greater urgency in the past couple of weeks. Having deliberated for a numbers of months, at least one of the main farming organisations, the Irish Farmers Association, has come out on one of the main issues, decoupling.

The proposals are profound and have extreme implications for Irish agriculture because they signal a change in direction. The difficulty about the negotiations in relation to decoupling, for example, is that if full, comprehensive decoupling was to come in, it would be almost irreversible because if farmers cease production, it would be very difficult to get a new generation of farmers back into production in the next decade. The mid-term proposals, if adopted, would change the nature of agriculture and will have profound implications, both upstream and downstream, for supply to farmers and the inputs to farming and, on the other side, for the processing of farm products in the processing industry.

The debate which has taken and is taking place is very helpful. I want to go into the final serious part of these negotiations with a unified position. I am pleased Fine Gael and parties in the Dáil generally are supportive of the national position in relation to these negotiations. The farming organisations and the industry generally are supportive as well. It is important in critical international negotiations to speak with one voice because one is then in a much stronger position. The next Council of Ministers meeting is next week and I do not expect to have any radical new proposals for that meeting. I believe the June meeting will be the critical one.

I urge the Minister to fight for the best deal possible for this country. There are people who find certain aspects of the Fischler proposals attractive but I believe if the Fischler proposals come in in their entirety, particularly the one on break from production, we will see an acceleration in the flight of farmers from the land and a drop in prices in the next couple of years. Farmers may think the removal of red tape will solve all their woes, but the increased emphasis on farm compliance will cause a lot of difficulties for them.

The Minister was right to speak about a system being put in place to take away the incentive from production. Unlike other industries, which can be cranked up very quickly, it will take a little longer in agriculture. If that link is broken, it will be very difficult. It may be said we are overproducing and we have to find markets but no matter what industry one is involved in, one must go out and find a market. That is part and parcel of production. If the proposals come in, what will be the impact on other agriculture related industries, including the processing industry and small businesses in rural areas?

Both studies, including the FAPRI one, indicated that there would be a substantial drop in our suckler herd and in the ewe flock. That would lead to a drop in the volume of sheepmeat and beef going through our factories which would have a very serious effect on jobs, on throughput and on the critical mass of product going through the plants. It would certainly lead to uneconomic plants in certain areas. Co-operatives and supply firms in towns and villages supplying farms would also be badly affected. It is important to retain our production base.

The new system should be simple and not as complex as the present one – in other words, there should not be as much bureaucracy. Some of the proposals put forward in relation to partial decoupling, for example, would be neither here nor there. There would be some decoupling, but we would have properly more complex type schemes. I want a simple practical outcome which would retain the benefits of Agenda 2000 to Ireland and ensure that in any rejigging of the finances, Ireland, as a member state, will not lose out.

Top
Share