Dáil debates

Thursday, 5 March 2020

European Council Meeting: Statements

 

5:50 pm

Photo of Marian HarkinMarian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is not my maiden speech but it is my first speech in the Thirty-third Dáil. I start by thanking the people of Sligo-Leitrim for electing me to this House and, like every other Deputy, I cannot wait to get stuck in.

When I looked to my right a few minutes ago, I saw Deputy Matt Carthy, and it was precisely the same in the European Parliament. It is interesting that both of us should be here. In that context, while he is not of my party, I take this opportunity to wish Chris MacManus, a fellow Sligo man who is replacing Deputy Carthy in the European Parliament, the very best. He represents all of us and I wish him well.

Another point which I find unusual is that I have ten whole minutes to speak. I am not sure I will fill that time because it was one or, at most, two minutes in the European Parliament.

As a former MEP, it is interesting that my first opportunity to speak in Dáil Éireann is on the European budget, but this time from the other side of the fence, as it were. One of the issues for discussion at the European Council was the MFF, or budget, which is approximately €1.9 trillion. It seems a lot of money but, in fact, it is about 1% of what member states spend. The whole idea of the budget is that by acting collectively, whether on CAP, the social fund, the regional fund or climate change, we add value.

One of my main concerns around the new EU budget is the proposed cut to CAP. The Taoiseach said earlier today that we cannot ask farmers to do more regarding climate action and pay them less. In this country, we operate farm to fork and we have strict regulations around pesticides, animal health and the delivery of public goods. The new green deal will impose significant further requirements on farmers and unless they are paid, they will go out of business. We heard earlier today about Mercosur and the possibility of significant tonnage of tariff-free beef entering the EU and, of course, the possibility of real market disturbance under Brexit. Therefore, it is easy to see that agriculture is in an extremely precarious position and, at the very least, the most basic safety net is an adequately funded CAP.

As I said, however, I am now on the other side of the fence. The share-out of moneys at national level is of crucial importance to farmers, particularly those who farm in that part of the country I represent. The current Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine said that convergence will pause during transition. That is unfair and unjust. Convergence is a process that must be ongoing. Many EU countries have full convergence and the Commission proposes up to 75%, whereas Ireland is still at 60%. Full convergence would deliver about €10 million per annum for farmers in Sligo and Leitrim and about €13 million for those in Donegal, so it is a hugely significant contribution to the local economy. We currently have what is known as the Irish model, which, of course, was put in place under the Irish Presidency. However, it is not serving parts of the country well because we are still using production levels from 2000 to determine current payments, which makes no sense.

An equally crucial issue is that of the eco-schemes within Pillar 1.

It is proposed that they will have 30% of the budget. Right now, we have farmers implementing precisely the same greening measures on grassland throughout the entire country but getting paid different amounts for doing the same work. For example, farmers can be paid as little as €50 per hectare or as much as €210 per hectare for doing precisely the same work and having the same requirements. This is completely unjust. A flat rate payment for all farmers would be approximately €80 per hectare. We must ensure this is part of the new CAP when we agree it in this House. This situation was unfair on day one and is still unfair. The new eco-schemes will impose significant requirements on all farmers. It is imperative that all farmers are paid equally for their equal work. It would be unthinkable that farmers in different parts of Ireland would be discriminated against on this basis.

On CAP, the last time out we did not fully co-fund Pillar 2. I understand there were economic reasons, etc., for this but that must be reversed this time.

Another area of real concern to the part of the country I represent is the fact that the Border, midlands and western, BMW, region has been downgraded from a developed European region to one that is in transition. This is because of a fall in our growth and wealth levels, etc. I can hardly believe it is nearly 25 years since I was involved in the Objective One campaign, which eventually resulted in the BMW region being on the same level as the south and east region. It has now been downgraded. A recent report by the northern and western regional assembly has shown the chronic, consistent under-investment in the region. That must be rebalanced in order that we can have regional development. This must be addressed by the next Government. From a European perspective, we must utilise fully any extra funding and whatever flexibility around state aid, etc., that is there to bridge the gap. We have to be proactive. It is fine that there is some flexibility on state aid, but we must use it proactively.

I am encouraged to see that the European Investment Bank has up to €2.5 trillion available for projects on climate action. The next Government must take full advantage of this facility to put in place climate action measures. Some of this will be for a just transition for workers in the midlands and elsewhere, and where appropriate, for creating new jobs in the green economy.

I have some real concerns around the €13 billion for security and defence. I hear the argument made from the other side of the House that it is not necessarily about arms, etc. This is very thin ice for Ireland and I have concerns. I also regret the cuts proposed to the European budget. I support what seems to be an all-party or many-party stance in this House that we would be open to increasing our contributions in order that the European budget can fulfil some of its objectives. At home, we have to take every opportunity afforded to us by the European budget, both in terms of flexibility offered and spending.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.