Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

If a country goes back to the Commission, this essentially means it is going back to the European Parliament and Council, which means it can appeal to all the other Ministers. If something unreasonable is being imposed, other countries can get involved which would not otherwise have participated in the debate. Thus, there is a certain level of protection there. One of the fundamental tenets of the functioning of the European Union is that the Commission is supposed to protect small member states so that debates are not dominated by large countries. That is the whole idea. We saw a pretty good example of that last night, when the concerns of some smaller member states were listened to.

A number of countries do not like the idea of eco-labelling, which the Commission is pushing for - and Ireland strongly supports - because they import large volumes of raw fish, grade them, process them and sell them on as European-produced fish. We would like to be able to label fish that are caught in Irish waters - including in the Celtic Sea, the Irish Sea and the North Sea, as well as off the west coast of Ireland - as Irish-caught fish, because we think we could build a strong and sustainable brand around that, just as we are doing for Irish beef and also for dairy products, including infant formula. The Commission introduced an amendment to at least keep the door open for some kind of area-based eco-labelling, which would be a powerful tool for marketing Irish fish products in the future. I would like to see that implemented, but there will be many concerns among other member states. Getting this through will be one of the challenges for our Presidency.

A number of people asked about the role of the European Parliament. This is the first time the Common Fisheries Policy has required co-decision following the implementation of the Lisbon treaty. It is the same for the Common Agricultural Policy. It will be our job during the Irish Presidency to achieve a compromise agreement between the position of the European Parliament on the CAP and the CFP, which will be voted on in the autumn, and that of the Council, which now has a common position on the CFP but will not have one on the CAP until we are into the Irish Presidency. This will make it difficult to achieve in terms of a timeline. However, at least the Council now has a common negotiating position on the CFP. When the Parliament votes, which it will do by the end of October or November, we will need to work with the Commission, which is supposed to act as an honest broker between the two institutions, to achieve a compromise that both sides can live with, on which we will have to vote in the Council and the MEPs will have to vote in the Parliament. What the MEPs can do, potentially, is to produce a position which is not actually voted on in the full Parliament, and then wait for our common position, so that only one vote is required in the Parliament. They would vote on a compromise position. Those are the two options they have. If they form a position that they vote on in the full Parliament, which is probably what will happen in terms of the CFP, we will then need to reach a new compromise agreement that is voted on and agreed by both Parliament and Council. This will have to happen in the first six months of next year if a new CFP is to be in place by 2014, which is the aspiration.

See this speech in context