Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

The stated objective of the run-in to the CAP was to provide for a mechanism to ensure we could produce as much food as possible within the European Community, do it sustainably and support viable rural communities. To that end, it succeeded within the Commission debate in keeping the fund, by and large, as it is. From Ireland's point of view, thanks to being able to persuade people to use eligible areas as opposed to used agricultural land areas, we have more or less secured what will amount to a very small drop in our envelope.

We must remember that the Commission's motivation is to see the three objectives being attained and it is quite clear that one of the key aims is to see a convergence - probably much quicker than we would like - of the single farm payment. The greening measure, particularly at the proposed percentage, effectively puts 30% of the fund into the flattening of the rate straight away. What we must ensure, if we are to have some convergence, is that we do this as slowly as possible. If we are to ensure that we can produce as much food as possible within the European Union, the last thing we should do is create volatility. For some people, the panacea is that everybody gets the same rate. This is seen as the primary tool for upping the wealth of people who receive less currently and it is also thought it will increase production. Both are a fallacy.

There are ten stated objectives in this, one of which is competitiveness. If we agree tomorrow to give the member states on far smaller single farm payments than us the same payment as us, what will happen is they will lose competitiveness. Their disposable income and standard of living would not increase, because those with money and cheque books would come in and buy up the land and rights. The result would be consolidation, with small farms being bought up and people exiting farming at a rapid rate.

Our job now is to unite behind our negotiators and our Ministers and persuade people of this reality. Many issues will be raised here, such as reference years, and whether 2011 is an adequate trigger mechanism to ensure we do not have speculation, particularly in the conacre sector, where we could have people who will farm "on paper" and hope they make a killing and hold the young active farmers we are trying to promote to ransom come 2014 and 2015. The greening measures are tailor made for us, particularly when, as Mr. Kiely said yesterday, we have a food security issue on the one hand and climate change issues on the other. Part of our selling of ourselves to ensure we are allowed to up our production game and not be part of a regime that will stymie that is that we can deal with both. We can produce food and do it in a way that is most beneficial to climate change mitigation.

We have a lot of work to do. I cannot disagree with some of the stated objectives, such as that research and innovation will be improved. All farmers, young and old, will welcome that. This is a positive aspect and is a result of the arguments put forward by Irish representatives and our previous and current Government. Nobody could argue with simplification or with the provision to look after people in fragile, designated or less-favoured areas. These provisions are all a recognition of the stated objective of creating viable rural communities. However, let us not fool ourselves. There is a long way to go. We need to build up alliances with other nations and to persuade people that the simple flattening of the rate, here and across member states, will not improve the lot of people who think it will.

See this speech in context