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

I have no problem coming back on another day to debate these issues. It is simply a question of finding the time to do so. I will proceed, however, with addressing the points raised as best I can.

In regard to the trialogue, what happens there is that as we go through the process, the political issues are essentially parked. In other words, all the major issues, including capping, internal convergence, greening and young farmers, are assigned to the political process to deal with. Many of the technical measures are being agreed and the trialogue is wading through all the different issues. At the end of the process a four-column document is presented. In fact, it begins as a three-column document setting out the Commission view, the Council view and the Parliament view on each issue, such as active farmers, financial discipline, capping, payment entitlements, Article 21 and so on. As part of the trialogue process, we have to fill in a fourth column which sets out an agreed compromise between the three. That is the mechanics of the process.

The Deputy is correct that many countries will refuse to sign off on anything controversial until they see the full picture. In that sense, there is indeed an element of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The other issue is that I cannot sanction a compromise position without going back to the Council.