Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 12 March 2013
80. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government his views on co-financing of rural development under CAP Pillar Two; the impact of Multi Annual Framework budget cuts to Pillar Two on rural development schemes here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12689/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe European Council agreement on the new multi-annual financial framework, MFF, is a good deal for Ireland and for Europe. The overall amount for the last MFF for 2007 to 2013 was €994 billion. The amount agreed for the 2014 to 2020 MFF is approximately €960 billion. Although this is slightly less than the previous financial period it is, nonetheless, a positive development in the context of the financial situation that prevails across Europe currently and particularly in relation to the significant budget available for the Common Agricultural Policy.
The agreement provides some €373 billion funding for sustainable growth - natural resources, largely agriculture and fisheries - and it supports a continuing strong CAP. It will deliver some €1.2 billion per year in direct payments to farmers under Pillar I and €313 million per year under Pillar II, including a specific allocation of €100 million for rural development under Pillar II. It will give vital support to our agrifood industry which is growing and continuing to create employment. Ireland also secured a further €100 million for the BMW region from the ERDF. All of this combined means that Ireland will be in a strong position for the next programming period of 2014 to 2020.
The next stage is for the European Parliament to agree to the deal. In parallel with these discussions, the negotiation processes for the large range of regulatory instruments required to implement the various parts of the MFF will continue. The MFF provides for flexibility regarding the co-financing rates for various areas of rural development including Leader, for which my Department has responsibility. Final decisions on the specific nature of the co-financing arrangements for the Leader elements of the rural development programme remained to be negotiated and in this context, my Department and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, will be taking forward the discussions with a view to obtaining the best outcome for Ireland.
This is similar to what happened with septic tank registration. The Minister wanted people to register before the grant was available. It would seem reasonable to make the grant available first. The Minister owes those involved €45 each.
That matter relates to a different question.
Deputy Ó Cuív got caught out.
The Minister owes them all €45.
We are on Question No. 80.
Deputy Ó Cuív was caught out.
If the Minister had announced the grant first, people could have registered for €5. If his conscience is picking at him now, it should be, because it was he who cost those people money.
What about that Minister?
What a hypocrite. Deputy Ó Cuív travelled around the country and told people not to pay.
This is typical of the Minister's scattergun approach.
What a hypocrite.
Sometimes it seems the Minister does not read. Sometimes I worry that he is not able to read.
The Deputy read a lot when he was in government.
I did an awful lot.
What did the Deputy do?
The Minister is absolutely right, and I thank him for the compliment.
The Deputy certainly read a lot but he achieved very little.
I was very assiduous about reading. However, the Minister never reads.
The Deputy will have to take my word for it that I do read.
If the Minister does read, he does not take the information in.
I see.
He certainly never pays any heed to what is on paper.
The Deputy should pay €45 back to the people he advised not to pay.
That is typical of the arrogance of this Government.
The Deputy has taken €45 out of the pockets of those in Connacht-Ulster. Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan's people were involved in that as well.
No; it was the Minister. If it is on his conscience, he should pay up.
The Deputy-----
I ask those on all sides to please desist. Deputy Ó Cuív should ask a question.
He robbed them of €45 each.
The second thing the Government has managed to do is to be involved in bringing about, for the first time ever, a decrease in the money available under the CAP. Will the Minister explain how what his party, in opposition, described as a purely Irish financial crisis has suddenly become a European one? Does he agree that the level of Leader funding that will be available on the next occasion will be much less than we achieved during the previous round? Will he indicate the negotiations he has had with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding the breakdown of the €313 million available from Europe in respect of outside-the-farm-gate mechanisms such as Leader and inside-the-farm-gate schemes such as the installation aid, farm retirement, disadvantaged areas and agri-environment options schemes?
I regularly discuss these matters with my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney. The negotiations between us on how the moneys agreed under the multi-annual financial framework some weeks ago will be divided are just starting. A stakeholder consultation was undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and interested parties were invited to make submissions. More than 80 submissions are currently under consideration. I expect that, arising from these, both Departments will be engaging in negotiations in the coming weeks and months in order to obtain the best possible deal for the rural development programme. I acknowledge that there will be less money available in the next round.
Can we take it that the amount available will be at least 11% lower than previously? Could the reduction be as high as 20%? Will the Minister confirm that when inflation is taken into account, the MFF allocation for rural development will actually be 18% lower than was the case previously?
Countries other than Ireland have a difficulty in agreeing on the funding. The British Government-----
There will be 18% less money available.
-----wants to pull out of the European Union because it is of the view that too much money is being spent on the programmes involved. It is going to hold a referendum on whether the county should remain in the EU. The British Prime Minister has a say at the negotiating table and he obtained some of what he was seeking in respect of these matters. A significant amount of money remains available and it is not that much less than was available under the previous programme.
It is much less. It will be 18% less.
No; it is not that much.
There will be 18% less money available.
Let us see what will be the outcome of the negotiations. The overall budget will be reduced from €960 billion to €930 billion.
Inflation must be taken into account.
The person in possession should be allowed to continue.
I am providing the Deputy with the global figures, in volume terms, that have been agreed under the MFF.
What about inflation?
Inflation was not taken into account on the previous occasion either.
It was taken into account.
We are comparing like with like in the context of what Deputy Ó Cuív and the Government of which he was a member negotiated-----
The reduction is almost 20%. What about inflation?
Only the Deputy is interested in inflation. I am using the same figure that has been used for the past seven years and comparing it with the figure his Government negotiated. We are comparing like with like.
The Minister would do as well to compare it with the position that obtained in 1931. The amount involved would appear to be very good if he did so.
I am comparing like with like.
The Minister is not doing so, because money does not have the same value.
The Minister must conclude. We are almost out of time.
Obviously, the Minister does not understand inflation-----
May I answer the question? The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and I will be in discussions and we will let the Deputy know the outcome in due course.
