Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the first time the European Parliament or the Council have ever done this. We have never agreed through co-decision or a trialogue process a Common Agricultural Policy or a Common Fisheries Policy. Therefore, it is new ground for everybody. There is an element of mistrust, although the personalities have a good relationship. Everybody is trying to get a final agreement as close to their institution's position as possible. We started the trialogue process in March for the CFP and have been working through it, but progress has been slow. Some weeks ago I went to Brussels and had a blunt discussion with the rapporteurs and the co-ordinators and said we wanted to speed up the process if this is to be done during the Irish Presidency. In my view the way to do it is to leave the technical experts to find technical solutions but to try to get political agreement on these four key issues. If we can solve those four issues, almost everything else will fall into place quite quickly. That is what we have been focusing on.

To be honest, I have tried to force the pace to a certain extent but at the same time I respect the mandate of the European Parliament, of which I was a member for three years. It has an equal say in the final outcome of reform of the Common Fisheries Policy but I cannot continue going back to the Council every time there is a minor change to get a new mandate to agree to that change. I have been in Brussels a number of times speaking to rapporteurs, the committee chair and other key personalities in the parliament. As I think I have a reasonable understanding at this stage of the compromises the parliament is seeking, I am going back to the Council to try to accommodate those concerns within reason. I will not get everything I want but I will have, at least, a final position on how far the Council is willing to go to compromise, I hope, by the middle of next week. I will then go back to Brussels to put that to the European Parliament and I am hopeful that it will accept it because, if not, the consequences are clear. If it does not accept it we have a stalemate because we do not have any more time during the Irish Presidency.

The Lithuanian Presidency, which follows Ireland, has made it clear it does not want this dossier. It already has much work to do in respect of the fisheries fund, the EMFF, and in preparing for tax and quotas negotiations in December. It has more than enough to do and it wants this done during the Irish Presidency. I want it done during the Irish Presidency. The Commission wants it done during the Irish Presidency because the consequences of not doing it during the Irish Presidency are that the Council may send our finalised document back to the European Parliament and ask it to undertake what is called a second reading of it. That means there would be a mandatory four-month period for consideration in the parliament and time required for translation into all the different languages. Even after the second reading it would have to come back to the Council for further consideration, which is probably a year away, which means that reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is not done during the mandate of this parliament and the Commission. That creates a huge uncertainty into the future. Given that I have been upfront and blunt about that some people think I am threatening them by saying they have to agree. I am not; I am simply outlining the reality of the timeframe available to us. There is a window of opportunity. There is a presidency that wants to do this deal and wants to find compromise. We are working night and day on the issue and are willing to take it across the line but we need partners in the other two institutions. I hope we have the trust that can allow that get over the line but, of course, I cannot speak for the Parliament.