Denis Naughten
Ceist:4 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the action she is taking to prevent a reduction in the Irish sugar beet quota; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29499/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThursday, 18 November 2004
Ceisteanna (4)
Freagraí ó Béal (7 píosaí cainte)
The European Commission's proposals for reform of the sugar regime, which were outlined in a communication to the Council and the European Parliament in July, envisage a reduction in sugar quotas across all member states. I have already made it clear that the Commission's proposals in their current form are unacceptable because of the serious repercussions they would have for the sugar beet growing and processing industry here.
Reform of the sugar regime, which was not included in the main CAP reform process in 2003 and 2004, has now come high on the EU agenda because of developments at WTO level and other international pressures. The Commission's proposals will be discussed at the Council of Ministers agriculture meeting next week, but the legislative proposals will not emerge until next year. There will be a long and difficult negotiation process. My objective is to protect the viability of sugar beet growing and processing here and I will work vigorously in common with like-minded member states towards that end.
Under the current proposals, farmers plan to lose up to €26 million per annum, which would make sugar beet production completely uneconomical here. There are 8,000 jobs involved directly and indirectly. Ireland is self-sufficient in sugar and we do not have a difficulty with over-production as do other countries. Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure the viability of production in the medium to long term? Will she ensure that there will be no changes prior to mid-2006 when the current regime ceases? Will she also ensure that full compensation will be provided to farmers for the loss of either price or quota cuts that may be proposed? Has the Department looked at the issue of designating the sugar industry as commercially sensitive at EU level in the context of the WTO negotiations?
My colleague, Deputy Kehoe has raised a question and I hope the Minister will answer it. Who actually owns the quota? Is it Greencore, the State, or is it the farmers themselves? What is the Department's position on the possible transfer of quotas from this country to other EU countries?
There are a number of implications to the proposal, which is only an indication and not a directive. I have taken the opportunity of garnering some support from my other colleagues in the European Commission. We have created what is known as a blocking minority. The French, who would normally be very supportive of agriculture, are vehemently opposed to us on this issue and that creates difficulties. I want to see a vibrant sugar regime here for beet growers and processors. There are major implications involved in the issue of quotas and prices. The quota transfer is a high ball that everyone will go up for. My view is that it is a nonsensical proposal and we will not accept that. When we tried to look at a quota transfer within the EU on other issues, it was shot down as being illegal. The issue of compensation will be there. However, there are a number of core issues that will have to be addressed, especially those of quotas and prices. We can have all the quotas in the world, but if we do not get a price for our product, then it will be irrelevant and self-defeating. Compensation is nonetheless an issue and will be part of the package.
I have been asked to consider sugar as a commercially sensitive product for the WTO and it is being considered. Ownership of the quota is an issue I believe will become a distraction to the main issues. The Minister of State advised me that in Wexford, it has been part of the concerns expressed by farmers. We have never had a definitive decision on who actually owns the quota. It is not a beet quota, but rather a sugar quota. I have asked the Attorney General to examine that issue and to give me legal clarification on the issue. We have our own views within the Department, but I will be better qualified to give a definitive answer if it is legally given to me.
I hope the Minister will give it to me when she has it.
I will do that.
The regional allowance that is there at the moment is partially because we have a lower yield here. Will that be retained? What type of case is the Minister putting on that issue? What about merging the A and B quota, which would have a big impact here in comparison to other EU member states?
The regional allowance was raised by the farming organisations. One of the issues is that it has a cost implication as well. However, the priorities are prices and quotas. I said that we would look at the regional allowance, but I hope it will not detract from the base line. The A and B merger will have implications for us and we will fight strenuously on the permutations of that.
As far as I can ascertain, having listened to many people who have great experience of negotiating on issues of this nature, it seems likely that we will find it very tough. A great deal of work, such as the forming of alliances, and compromise will be required if we are to retain our sugar industry. I do not think we should throw our hat at it. It has been suggested that we could give it to the Brazilians and let them at it, but that is not the Government's preference. I will look for political assistance and the support of the farming organisations to ensure we are helped to achieve what we want to achieve. I will indicate strongly on Monday that Ireland is not in a position to accept any of the things on the list which has been proposed by the Commission.