Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak and thank the Whips for giving time to the very important issue of CAP reform. I welcome the work the Minister has done and the agreement by the Council of Ministers a couple of weeks ago. This is a very important development which gives some certainty in the final stage of the negotiations to the farmers of this country, because it has been a time of great concern for them. Some of the concern may have arisen from media reports and an element of lobbying by the IFA, which was representing the fear among farmers on the ground.

Points made to the effect that a flat-rate payment of approximately €196 indicated the Minister's position were very unsettling for farmers and were inaccurate. That was unfortunate and led to many heightened fears over the past couple of weeks. On foot of the agreement on the position of the Council of Ministers, we have given ourselves great flexibility as we enter the trilogue phase. That is very important.

Deputy John Browne referred to farmers from Wexford. Fianna Fáil did not necessarily represent the farmers from Wexford well in any way. It did not represent well the farmers of Cork, who were mentioned by Deputy Moynihan, or the farmers of Kildare or most parts of the country. There was flip-flopping by Fianna Fáil. At one stage, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív was proposing more flattening than Commissioner Cioloş was seeking. It would have decimated production levels in this country and it was most unfortunate. At a committee meeting, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív referred to a Leitrim farmer in the IFA who believed he was not well represented by the association. I asked whether the Deputy was representing Fianna Fáil's position or just that of his constituents, and he was adamant that, as Fianna Fáil spokesman, his position was that of Fianna Fáil. If his proposal had been accepted, it would have been extremely damaging for agriculture in this country.

This is not a matter of pitting east against west or big against small; it is about fairness. There is nothing fair about payments being based on activities of farmers in 2000, 2001 and 2002. We need to move away from this and there needs to be redistribution. It was recently said to me there are 15,000 tillage farmers receiving single farm payments, yet only 5,000 are in the grain assurance scheme. How many of the 10,000 farmers who are not in the scheme tilled ground in the reference years and do not do so now? The debate has been about the armchair farmer. We do not want to be rewarding a farmer who is not active. At present, there are farmers receiving payments who are not active but who were active in the reference years. Redistribution and updating are very important.

The reference year is crucial. This was a major issue for Ireland, in particular. Ireland was the only country for which it was an issue. Initially, when 2014 was the likely reference year, the Minister and his officials received a concession. It was stipulated some entitlements would have to be activated in 2011, but that in itself was not taking the sting away given that Ireland, uniquely, has a considerable amount of conacre. The price of conacre was driven sky-high in recent times. There was a change, however, albeit at the 11th hour. The Council of Ministers stipulated that a reference year of 2012 or 2013 could be used in addition to 2014. If that is to be final position, it would be most helpful for us in Ireland. Irrespective of the year that is finally chosen, having the possibility to opt for a different reference year would be beneficial. It is already taking the sting out of the market. Crazy prices were asked for land, and land was being taken back from farmers who continuously had conacre. They were unable to gain access to land in the year in question. This was not good for agriculture as a whole in the country. I acknowledge the work of the Minister in that regard.

Over the past year to 18 months, the position of the Minister has not changed. At public meetings around the country, he stated consistently that the position of the Commissioner was to seek a move towards flattening. Only 12 to 13 months ago, the Irish compromise proposal was singularly an Irish one. It received support in principle in January or early February from the Council of Ministers. This was confirmed at its recent meeting. The approximation model is very much on the table. It is a question of flexibility and giving us the opportunity to look after our own destiny in many respects. While we accept that there is a need for redistribution, a move to full flattening would be very damaging for agriculture in Ireland. The approximation model, if it is in the final mix, will be a great help.

Let us consider some of the elements that the IFA and others were including in the mix when talking about cuts. Some of these pertain to the 3% for the national reserve, the 2% for the young farmer and 1% for the crisis. We do not have enough young farmers. The age profile is frighteningly high. On the one hand, farming organisations could welcome and support the essential measure for young farmers but, on the other, they could say it is a direct cut for farmers. The latter was not the case. It is worth bearing in mind that if what is allocated is not drawn down fully, there will be a possibility of a top-up payment for farmers at the end of the year.

I want to touch on the subject of sugar. Considerable progress was made regarding the position of the Council of Ministers. When Ireland stopped engaging in sugar production, many of us knew it was a terrible mistake. We all know this with the benefit of hindsight. It was as much a mistake for the indigenous economy as for any other sector. The European Court of Auditors backed this up in its report in 2010, stating the withdrawal was based on flawed information. In bad years, it was the beet cheque that always paid the bill for tillage farmers. I know this from my uncle. I was a member of the beet association for years and snagged beet on cold January days around Athy. I remember that I frequently sat on lorries going to the factory in Carlow.

We lost the ability to enjoy the benefits of sugar beet as a rotation crop. Industry, the largest user of sugar in the country, does not like paying through the nose for sugar, as it has been doing for the past couple of years, and it cannot handle a lack of security of supply, which has also been an issue. I am aware of a business in Kildare that lost a contract for the provision of chocolates to an airline on the basis that it did not tick the box for provenance. The ingredients were not local. When one hears about such cases and the impact on jobs outside the agriculture sector, one realises it is crucial that we return to sugar production in Ireland.

There have been some very positive feasibility studies. I acknowledge the work of BEET Ireland, in particular. I was delighted to have the opportunity to travel to Brussels with Deputies Andrew Doyle and Tom Barry in November. We met senior officials and experts in sugar to make the case for Ireland's return to sugar production. The Commission stipulated a date of 2015. The Ministers have agreed on 2017. The Parliament’s position refers to 2020, with the derogation for Ireland. I accept that derogations can be very messy, be they for Ireland, Portugal or Slovenia. A cleaner cut is a better approach for us. It is in our interest to have the framework gone by 2015. We could possibly live with 2017. Who is to say that, in the trilogues, we will not be able to pare another year off this, if possible?

With regard to the recession and the economy in general, I have always said we do not need to reinvent the wheel. While the smart economy, IT and pharmaceuticals are important, we need to get back to basics. There is no better example of an indigenous industry lost during the boom than the sugar beet industry. It survived the great depression of the 1930s and recessions in the 1950s and 1970s, but, unfortunately, it did not survive the Celtic tiger. Ireland has the climate, soil type and grower expertise for sugar production. We need to return to sugar production and support all the measures in that regard.

With regard to greening, there has been considerable concern among farmers. The measures agreed by the Council of Ministers provide greater clarity on our position. The proposal is much better than the one that was initially on the table. Variable greening is crucial. There could have been flattening by the back door. I commend the Minister on the progress made in this regard.

With regard to crop diversification, farmers with between ten and 30 hectares of arable land must have two crops. That is an improvement on the original position. Farmers with over 30 hectares must have three crops, but when one allows for the fact that winter and spring barley are considered two different crops, one realises the measure will not be as onerous as originally feared.

On coupled support, the Minister’s position indicates a figure of 7%. Again, this gives us flexibility. Between coupling and the coefficient, the whole point is that when the process is finished - by the end of June, I hope - the Minister will have the maximum amount of flexibility for us to do what is best for us within Ireland. I wish the Minister well in the trilogues. It is interesting that we are now in a sufficiently strong position. The Minister has engineered a good negotiating position. We will be agreeing with the Commission on positions such as those on sugar while we may not necessarily be agreeing with it on subjects such as flattening, in respect of which we will be more likely to side with the Parliament. That is how the process will work. I wish the Minister well in the upcoming negotiations.

See this speech in context