Seanad debates

Wednesday, 12 February 2003

Fischler Proposals for Agriculture: Motion.

 

10:30 am

Photo of Peter CallananPeter Callanan (Fianna Fail)

I move:

That Seanad Éireann recognises the huge importance of the Fischler proposals for Ireland, notes with approval the stated intention of the Minister for Agriculture and Food to defend Ireland's position vis-à-vis these proposals and requests him to lay out these proposals and his responses to them to the Seanad.

I wish to extend our congratulations to the Minister, Deputy Joe Walsh, on receiving the Grand Cross of the Order of Merit in Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from the King of Spain, Juan Carlos I. The agriculture order of merit was created by royal decree on 3 December 1905. The award is a grand cross and only four people from outside Spain have received it, which is the reason I mention it this evening. It was presented to the director general of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in 1996, to the German Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in 1993 and to the French Minister for Agriculture in 2001. I also congratulate the Minister on having been presented a few months ago with the Legion of Honour from the French Government. It was signed by the President of France.

That is recognition by two other member states of the quality of our Minister. I hope he will be appreciated in this country, but people sometimes do not get the recognition they deserve in their own homeland. Member states of the EU have accorded recognition to the Minister's unique qualities and we congratulate him on that.

I must express a degree of disappointment that Fine Gael has proposed an amendment to the motion, although it was to be expected. That is the party's prerogative. Social partnership is a must for farmers, who have been involved in it since its inception in 1987. No partnership pillar has benefited more from participation in that process than farming. It gives the farming bodies a unique opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in the democratic process. They have a formal partnership mechanism through which they can express their views and negotiate an agreed plan for the next two years. To withdraw from this process would be nothing short of folly on the part of the farm organisations.

There are two serious questions that farm leaders must address in the context of their participation in the social partnership agreement now on offer. First, is it in the best interests of their membership to reject the opportunity to participate in the formulation and implementation of policies which affect not only farmers but the general economy? Second, through what other forum will they have an opportunity to defend their rights and interests and protect the benefits they receive under the CAP and other wide-ranging international agreements under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.