Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 30 May 2018
43. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the actions he is taking at EU level to ensure the proposed budget cuts for the 2021 to 2027 CAP programme are reversed in view of the publication of the recent MFF proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23925/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe European Commission recently published budget proposals for the next multi-annual financial framework, MFF. Will the Minister outline the actions he is taking at EU level to ensure the proposed cuts to the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, programme between 2021 and 2027 are reversed? He knows that the stakes are exceptionally high for the agriculture sector. It is crucial that he acts in the coming months to ensure the proposed cuts will not come into play.
The multi-annual financial framework, MFF, proposals for the period 2021 to 2027 were published by the budget Commissioner Gunther Oettinger on 2 May. The negotiation of the framework is a matter for Finance Ministers and the proposals will ultimately require the approval of the European Council and the European Parliament. In so far as funding for the Common Agricultural Policy is concerned, the proposal indicates a cut of around 5% in the next MFF period from 2021 to 2027. European agriculture policies have delivered for Irish farmers and consumers and it is important that support continue to be provided for these programmes. In the next few years farm families will be required to play a vital role in the protection and enhancement of the environment and the production of food to the highest standards in the world. These high standards and the family farm model are part of the fabric of European values. EU citizens have shown that they support this model.
We need farmers to take active steps to mitigate climate change, protect water quality and biodiversity and improve their competitiveness. A strong CAP is a prerequisite if these objectives, which are in the best interests of all citizens, are to be achieved. However, member states are facing into difficult negotiations and a number have already indicated that they are not willing to provide additional funding for the MFF. From Ireland's perspective, the Taoiseach has indicated that we are prepared to contribute additional funding but only if critical policies are supported. It should be noted that the proposal published by the European Commission is the initial MFF proposal. The final outcome will be determined in negotiations at EU level in the coming year. Achieving Ireland’s priorities in the negotiations will be a key issue for the Government. In that context, I have been meeting EU counterparts since January - most recently the German and French Ministers - with a view to building consensus among farm Ministers on the need for a strong CAP budget. I will continue to work on these matters with my colleagues across Europe, as will my officials.
The next stage of the CAP post-2020 process will be publication of the legislative proposals. They are due to be published in early June. I look forward to engaging constructively with the Presidency, my European counterparts and the European Commission to ensure the next CAP will continue to provide necessary support for the Irish and European agriculture sector. I reassure the Deputy, organisations and farmers throughout the country that I will continue to seek a strong budget for the CAP in the upcoming negotiations.
I thank the Minister for his answer. As he knows, farm incomes are under tremendous pressure. In general, CAP payments account for 75% of net income but for the beef and sheep sectors, they account for almost 100% of net income. Therefore, the stakes are immensely high for the farming sector and farm families. Unless we can ensure the budget is protected and that the proposed cuts are reversed, we will see farmers deciding to leave the sector as it will become unsustainable for some to make a living from agriculture. It is crucial that we see a massive effort not only by the Minister but also the Taoiseach to try to ensure other countries are brought on board as allies to ensure the budget will not be cut.
The Minister outlined it is 5% in Pillar I. Professor Alan Matthews has indicated that, when inflation is taken into account, it will amount to more than 15% over the course of the next budget. Of course, in regard to Pillar II payments, a 21% cut is proposed.
What is the Minister specifically going to do with regard to a strategy for engaging with those countries which are resisting additional budgets? Will he ensure the Taoiseach shows an increased interest in ensuring we protect the budget and that we liaise closely with France, in particular, to try to build a coalition and bring other countries around in order to ensure that budget is protected?
I assure the Deputy and all Members of the House that we share a common objective. What we are engaged in is a series of strategic alliance building efforts to try to bring about a situation where member states will agree to increase their contributions. It is important to be realistic about it. When the Commission published its proposals on CAP, there were a number of member states that criticised the proposals specifically on the basis that they did not go far enough in terms of cutting the budget. That is a significant challenge. Increasing the budget contribution of member states requires a unanimous decision so, politically, it is a very significant task to undertake.
As the Deputy knows, the Taoiseach clearly stated in the European Parliament that Ireland was prepared to increase its contribution. What is not widely understood is that we are a net contributor to the European Union since 2014 and, in fact, a net contributor at the higher level, perhaps in the top three or four for per capita contributions to the EU. We are prepared to pay more but we want to do so in the context of important projects that we believe should be funded adequately. It is important also to acknowledge that we get in the region of 70% of our receipts from Europe through the CAP and that the multiplier effect this has in rural communities is very significant.
Thank you. The time is up.
We are building alliances, making bilateral arrangements and having meetings with Ministers. I am going to Madrid tomorrow to meet a series of member states that share our analysis but there are many member states that do not.
We must stick to the time slots. I call Deputy McConalogue.
I accept there are many states that do not, which is a challenge. This means that, as a country, we have to leave no stone unturned to try to meet that challenge. The Taoiseach needs to be foursquare in regard to ensuring that is a top priority when he is engaging with other European leaders, as does the Minister when engaging with his counterparts.
With regard to Pillar II, on which I want to focus in particular, there have been indications it will be cut by up to 21%. Given that payments for the areas of natural constraint scheme, GLAS, TAMS and Leader come out of Pillar II, this poses a very real risk of undermining our rural economy and farm incomes.
With regard to the co-financing aspect of this, Commissioner Hogan has indicated the contribution from the EU will drop by 10%. At this remove, what is the attitude of the Government in regard to increasing the national contribution if it comes to the stage where that is required? We cannot have a scenario where Pillar II is undermined and where the funding of those very important schemes does not add up to what it currently does for farmers. Will the Minister clarify the Government position in regard to ensuring that, whatever the outcome, Pillar II is not cut?
I share the Deputy's analysis that Pillar II is very important because we have used it to be quite innovative in terms of the challenges we face. The Deputy mentioned GLAS and there is also beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, which is helping us meet the objectives of the environmental area and climate change, perhaps ahead of other member states. We have used Pillar II very significantly. It is co-funded and any cut there would be regressive in the context of our ambition to meet the new challenges, particularly around climate change.
I believe it would be strategically incorrect for us to now put our hand up and say that we will make up the shortfall when, in fact, our overwhelming objective is to secure an adequate budget from CAP funding, so we will have a properly funded Pillar II. I appreciate all the schemes that flow from it, including areas of natural constraint, Leader and so on. However, our objective now is to get the best possible outcome in terms of the CAP negotiations and look then at what our national obligations will be in terms of co-funding. I believe it would be strategically wrong now to let the Commission off the hook and say that whatever it decides to cut, we will make up anyway. That would be strategically incorrect.
