Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 26 May 2010
32 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Minister for Agriculture; Fisheries and Food the discussions he has had at EU level regarding reform of the Common Agricultural Policy reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22027/10]
View answerI apologise to Deputy Doyle on that particular issue but if there is any mix-up I will meet Deputy Doyle following Question Time and give him the exact details.
Does the Minister have any control over his junior Ministers? Is the tail wagging the dog——
No.
Since the first policy debate took place under the French Presidency in September 2008 on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy, I have been fully engaged with the EU Commission and my colleagues in other member states to present the Irish position. I have participated in all policy debates under subsequent Presidencies and I have had informal discussions with a number of my colleagues from other member states. I met the Agriculture Commissioner, Dacian Ciolos, in February last shortly after his appointment and I will have further discussions with him when he visits Ireland later in the year. At official level too, we have had contacts and discussions with our colleagues in other member states and with the Commission and I will have further discussions next Monday and Tuesday also.
Ireland was one of a group of 22 like-minded member states that signed up to a declaration in Paris in December last on the importance of a strong and properly resourced CAP in future. This is my over-arching view and one for which there is good support in the Council.
Although the legal proposals for the future of the Common Agricultural Policy will not be published until mid-2011, I will continue to participate fully in the upcoming discussions. It is at this point in the negotiations that the broad direction of future policy will be set and I intend to be actively involved. I will travel to Spain next week for the meeting of Agriculture Ministers under the Spanish Presidency where the topic for discussion will be the future of EU agricultural policy in the context of the EU2020 strategy. It was at the insistence of Ireland and some other member states that the European Council included a reference in the conclusions on its spring meeting on the need for all common policies, including the CAP, to support the strategy. The conclusions went on to state that "a sustainable, productive and competitive agricultural sector will make an important contribution to the new strategy, considering the growth and employment potential of rural areas while ensuring fair competition".
The proposed strategy was subsequently discussed by EU Agriculture Ministers and there was unanimous agreement that agriculture had a crucial contribution to make to the strategy in terms of sustainable growth, rural employment, territorial cohesion, mitigating climate change, economic growth, increasing exports and social inclusion.
In the context of the overall debate what significance does the Minister attach to the Commissioner's repeated assertion that the historical model for payment is indefensible?
It would be well known that the 12 most recently acceded countries to the European Union have voiced strong opposition to the current system of payments. They regard the current system as being unfair to them. That is their strong view and they have been very vocal in that regard. Some of the member states that would have been supportive of the historic model in the past are not propagating its value at this time either. As I said to Deputy Sherlock earlier, the number of member states that are strong in their support of the historic model is small, unfortunately.
In the context of this debate will the Minister agree there is a danger that we might slip back into a "one size will fit all 27 member states" approach? While the eastern European and new accession states may have a point, that does not necessarily mean their favoured option of a flat rate payment must be imposed on us. If we have to tweak our historical model, the single farm payment, the Minister might cast some light on his view of a rolling reference period of years for payment, for example, rather than the historical model which is based on 2000, 2001 and 2002. Has the Department given some thought to a rolling reference period?
I would have mentioned it previously both in this House and earlier during Question Time that the Department has been doing a great deal of work on different models. Our work is not complete. I can give the spokespersons some access to the particular data on a confidential basis if they can understand where we are coming from in that particular respect.
I have made the point continually and strongly, and I made it directly to the Ministers from the former eastern European countries, that they have a different cost base than us. If they were using our currency a euro would go much further in one of those countries from the point of view of production and income than it would in western European countries. They are not comparing like with like in that particular instance. We are opposed to the flat rate model but we must ensure we have different models in place and that we apprise ourselves of the best systems that can be put to use for our own farmers.
If we take the three fundamental pillars that will underpin CAP, namely, water management, biodiversity and climate change, an issue will arise regarding the whole pillar of rural development and whether income will be taken from direct payments to farmers and housed in a rural development pillar, which could see it going into an administrative function through various local bodies and development organisations. Does the Minister have a view on that at this stage? Has a clear Government position evolved on that aspect? Would the Minister acknowledge that there are reservations by farm organisations on the matter on the basis that they would not wish to see income being diversified into that area at the risk that it could go down the so-called administrative black hole?
I accept the point Deputy Sherlock made. It is one I have made consistently, that those resources must stay within the farm gate and they are not for rural development. I am very much of the opinion that resources voted to agriculture must remain, in whatever systems are finalised — we know what are our preferences — within the farm gate and not be broadened out into the wider rural economy.
