John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I agree largely with the previous speaker and commend the Minister for the work done thus far. I agree with Deputy Paul Connaughton that there is a good deal more to be done in the negotiations on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. If this had taken place in the old days, we would have an agreement now, but because of the new system in place and the involvement of the European Parliament, there are more hurdles to be jumped.

The initial proposals from the Commission would have been remarkably detrimental to the productive agriculture sector in this country. Almost single-handedly among his colleagues in Europe, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine decided to propose an alternative which would be to the advantage of the productive agriculture sector in Ireland. He has managed to secure agreement from the other Agricultural Ministers to support his position, which is no mean feat. As Deputy Mattie McGrath pointed out, in the middle of all of this he managed to see a new arrival in his family also. I hope he will get to see her at some stage in the coming weeks. I imagine he will do so over the long weekend ahead.

I agree fully with Deputy Paul Connaughton on the argument falsely made in many quarters that it is a case of east versus west. There are many farmers in my part of the world, County Kilkenny, who, for whatever reason, in the reference years in the early part of this century were not in a position to be as productive as they would have liked. As a result, they have relatively small single farm payments. They are now producing a good deal more and will benefit as a result. Even if there was no flattening or redistribution or the existing system was simply to have a different reference year, the farmers who are productive will benefit, regardless of the part of the country in which they are farming. We should be cognisant of the fact that a system based on the position ten or 12 years ago would never be sustainable into the future. The Minister has managed to secure a significant concession in terms of the new reference year. The possibility that the only option was to use next year, as initially outlined by the Commissioner, was having a distorting effect on the land rental market in this country; perhaps it was more distorted in this jurisdiction than anywhere elsewhere in the Union. However, the Minister has managed to ensure flexibility with regard to the reference year, which is a significant achievement in the first set of the negotiations.

The farming organisations, farmers and everyone else accept and know that there will be redistribution. I often find myself in agreement with Deputy Brian Stanley, but not this time. I was listening to his comments earlier in my office. He said, unbelievably, that there was the perception that it would not lead to a better deal for smaller and medium-sized farmers. There is not that perception anywhere. Perhaps if one was to repeat it often enough, such a perception could be created, but any redistribution will have benefits for smaller and medium-sized farmers in any part of the country. The Deputy is completely erroneous in that regard. Everyone agrees that the current system is in need of reform and updating and redistribution has to be introduced. That will be the final outcome when the negotiations are completed. It is simply a question of what the level of redistribution will be.

I agree with Deputy Paul Connaughton on the need to support active producers, those who are actively farming. The targets to which Deputy Mattie McGrath referred in respect of the Harvest 2020 strategy cannot be reached and the knock-on benefits for the economy, especially the rural economy, cannot be gained if we do not support the productive sector, regardless of whether it is based in County Galway, Mayo, Kilkenny or Carlow. That is the cornerstone of how the Minister has approached the negotiations and I fully support him.

Many of the people who have sought a larger redistribution and flattening of payments throughout the country ignore the fact that under the existing system, those with Pillar 1 payments which are made proportionately to those involved in the productive sector are compensated effectively, while Pillar 2 payments are made, rightly, to farmers who perhaps face more difficulties, whether it is because they are involved in a sector that is more challenging or because they are farming in a part of the country where the available land cannot support the level of production achieved in others.

That is why the Pillar 2 benefits have disproportionately favoured farmers with poorer ground in particular sectors. This has brought about a levelling of payments over the past number of years, but that seems to go unrecognised by many of those who are looking for greater flattening and redistribution under the reform of the CAP.

The first significant negotiation success the Minister had related to the overall budget, but I have not heard anybody make much of a reference to that. However, in light of opposition from a number of the larger countries, it was significant that the budget for the CAP was so well protected. It was the Minister who chaired many of the negotiations and his success in that regard should be on the record.

I fully support the importance of Pillar 2. The proposals go some way further towards disproving the theory some people have that this is an east-of-the-country versus west-of-the-country argument. Significant portions of my part of the world - south County Kilkenny - are part of a disadvantaged area, as the Minister will be aware from listening to me over the past number of years. I agree with Deputy Connaughton with regard to the need to protect producers on marginal land and the disadvantaged area scheme and I have spoken on this issue on many occasions. Pillar 2 also proposes the introduction of a new, more user-friendly and supportive environmental scheme, an updated suckler cow welfare scheme and possibly schemes for the sheep sector. There is scope under the Pillar 2 funding for such schemes to be included.

I also want to commend the Minister on his efforts in regard to the sugar sector. The decision taken by a previous Minister to turn our back on that sector was incredible. It is important that we position ourselves to re-enter that business, and the Minister has had significant success in that regard in negotiation so far. I wish him every success in the upcoming difficult negotiations.

See this speech in context