Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 26 May 2010
30 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture; Fisheries and Food his views on the historic basis of direct payment; if he has formulated a view in relation to changing from the current historical model for determining single payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22118/10]
View answerMy starting point is that I see no compelling reason to change from the current historical model for determining single payments. That model has a distinct advantage in linking the payment with level of farming activity, albeit activity in 2000 to 2002. I have made my views on the benefits of the historic model clear at meetings of the Council of Ministers and in bilateral discussions with other member states and the Commission.
However, it seems Ireland is in a very small minority of member states that hold this view, with many of our partners in Europe now questioning the credibility of this system for determining direct payments. We must, therefore, be open to looking at alternative models that might command the support of a larger number of member states and also be beneficial to Ireland. While I am prepared to look at the alternatives, particularly if other countries move from the "historic camp", there is a need to find a basis that is acceptable and fair to all member states and that meets Irish objectives of improved competitiveness and sustainability.
There are no concrete proposals as yet on this matter but it is clear that most member states, including Ireland, are carrying out analysis to determine which system best suits their needs. From our analysis so far, we have concluded that Ireland would lose out under a simple European Union-wide flat rate by nearly 20%, based on current EU single payment scheme, SPS, funding levels. We also know that movement to a regional or national flat rate, based on our current national envelope, would broadly have the effect of shifting funding from farmers in the east to the west and from cattle fattening and tillage farms to cattle rearing and sheep farms with little change on dairy farms. It is clear there is a long way to go in this debate. I will be seeking to have the option to maintain our current system and, failing that, to ensure there is a fair and equitable division of funds that supports family farm incomes in Ireland and allows farmers to get on with the business of farming.
The Minister's reply is taken directly from a recent speech he gave to the Seanad. The own initiative report on this issue was authored by Mr. George Lyon, MEP, a Liberal Democrat representative for Scotland, whose party is a member of the same group within the European Parliament as Fianna Fáil. Mr. Lyon refers to the desire to go beyond 2020 for phasing in the move from historic to area-based payments and to significant differences in terms of the criteria to be used for the distribution of single farm payments to member states. As far as he is concerned, it is a foregone conclusion that the historical model will be no more. I acknowledge the Minister's point that there is increasing pressure for that to occur.
If it is a foregone conclusion that the majority of member states will seek to move away from the historical model of payments, then what is the current thinking within the Fianna Fáil group in the European Parliament as to what will be the replacement? Is Mr. Lyon speaking for all Fianna Fáil Members of the European Parliament when he speaks about a movement towards area-based payments?
The Minister answers questions on behalf of the Government, not on behalf of any group in the European Parliament.
I did not hear exactly what the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said but I wonder if I can ask——
By way of explanation, the Minister is answerable to this House on behalf of the Government for its actions; he is not answerable on behalf of his party, either the collective of this House or in any other House.
Appreciating the latitude the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has already allowed me, I was just about to state that at meetings of the agriculture committee of which Mr. Lyon is a member, Ireland's position would heretofore have been put forward by the Minister, but that is no longer necessarily the case because of the new structures in place following the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. It is on this basis that I give great credence to what he is saying because it could be reflective of the position of the group within the European Parliament to which he belongs.
Deputy Sherlock has made some interesting points. However, I can envisage that there are views expressed by the socialist group in the European Parliament which Deputy Sherlock would not propagate in Ireland and which his party would not support. We should all be careful in quoting fellow members of our group. I met Mr. Lyon when he visited Ireland along with Irish MEPs from that committee and we had a detailed discussion in which he indicated his agreement with our position on many of the issues contained in our submission. He also met the farming organisations during his visit and I found, when I met the presidents of those organisations that evening on other business, that they were relatively pleased with their discussions with him. In fairness, he was acting as rapporteur for the agriculture committee in drawing up the report to which the Deputy referred and not all of its contents would necessarily represent his own view point. We have been engaging in the co-decision making process, which is a whole new ball game for everybody involved in decision making. It is no longer down to the Council of Ministers on its own. As a Department we have been actively involved in briefing all our MEPs on these important issues.
With regard to the historic camp, more people have moved away from it. There are not many of us steadfastly in support of the historic model. We are doing analysis of the different models in terms of how they would affect us and how we would lose and benefit from different systems. I could offer a briefing to the party spokespersons, on a confidential basis for the moment, as we continue to do in terms of their work on the different models but there are so many variations and proposals put forward and there is huge pressure coming from the 12——
I want to call Deputy Sherlock for a brief supplementary.
I accept what the Minister is saying about the political considerations but I am sure he will acknowledge that George Lyon's position on this issue will be very influential in terms of the final outcome. I also acknowledge that there are approximately 700 amendments to that particular report currently before the European Parliament.
The key for us at this stage of the process is to try to nail down a more definitive Government position, that is, to ascertain whether the Minister has come to a conclusion regarding the new system for payments for farmers post 2013. If I understand him correctly the Minister is saying that is an ongoing process and if that is the case, I accept that answer.
I outlined our preferred option and I do not believe there will be any disagreement in this House. There was no disagreement in the committee on the occasions I attended. We want direct payments retained. We want adequate and improved market support measures. That reflects the important comment the Deputy made earlier about income stabilisation. We must have adequate anti-volatility measures which are not currently within the European Union. We also want to ensure that pillar 1 is the prime pillar. Pillar 2 is important from the point of view of the environment and the provision of public goods.
I see that in most of the public commentary Commissioner Keolas makes now, whether it is a presentation to the European Parliament or another country. An issue I discussed with him in his first week in office was the need at this time, in advance of the conclusions and the budgetary allocations, to get the message across that CAP is not about farming but is for the benefit of every citizen in the 27 member states. That message has not got out successfully in the past and we would hope that in advance of decisions being made by the Commission, there is a recognition and an awareness of the importance of an adequate and well-resourced CAP. If we do not get off to a good footing in that regard, we will have an even bigger hill to climb.
What about the breadwinner?
These are priority questions, as the Deputy well knows. I call Question No. 31 in the name of Deputy Andrew Doyle.
The Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, is taking that question.
Níl sé i láthair.
Can we move on and go back to it?
This is a priority question.
This is a bad show on his first opportunity——
Does the Minister have a copy of the answer?
We will then move on to other questions.
The bicycle must have broken down.
Ceist 32 in ainm an Teachta——
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I presume if the Minister graces us with his presence you will come back to the question.
Once we proceed beyond priority questions it will not be possible to come back to them. Ceist 32.
That is an insult to the Deputy who has tabled the question.
Can you do——
I will see if we can facilitate the Deputy.
