Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

Cuirim fáilte riomh an Aire Stáit, Deputy Cuffe. I believe it is my first opportunity to welcome him in his new capacity. On a separate issue I compliment him on the initiatives he has taken on planning and the hopeful elimination of ghost estates, with which my county has been blighted as the Acting Chairman, Senator Leyden, will testify, living as he does in that part of the world, but sin ceist eile.

When it comes to agriculture matters, colleagues on all sides of the House wear the green jersey, primarily because agriculture has been good for the country. Since 1973 it has been the driving force, particularly in the rural economy where the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy has filtered down to every town and village. This is sometimes forgotten in the argument about farmers gaining money for doing very little. The reality is that towns such as my own, Drumshanbo, and many others in the west and rural areas in general would not have been able to survive without having the farming hinterland, where in recent years, particularly since decoupling, minimum payments have ensured the viability and survival of rural families. If the political philosophy is that people should stay in so far as possible within the areas in which they have grown up, which is one of the objectives of the spatial strategy, why should it be any different in terms of agricultural supports?

As mentioned by other Members, leaked Commission proposals have raised quite a storm. For example, today's edition of the Farming Independent reports:

The IFA has called on the Government to "totally oppose" the CAP reform proposals contained in the leaked communication from the EU Commission.

IFA president John Bryan claimed the Commission proposals would be devastating for the single farm payment for productive farms across all enterprises.

"The proposals would seriously undermine agricultural production in Ireland, with damaging consequences for the rural economy, agricultural output, food exports, jobs and farm incomes. They must be rejected by the Government," he said.

From what I can glean, while it is very open in its generalities, it is short on details. I presume this is because the budget elements of the new CAP regime have yet to be worked out. While I understand the draft leaked documents have not received the formal approval of the Commission, they give an indication of its thinking.

Most people would be concerned about the abolition of market support and income support measures, phasing out direct payments, giving only limited payments for environmental public goods - the term now being used, although not yet defined - and for specific natural constraint payments. I agree with commentators that the agriculture committee in making its submission to the relevant DG seems to have one eye on the financial implications of the CAP in the current economic climate while on the other hand trying to provide some sort of reassurance that the money to be provided to farmers would have a public good element to it, with a more enhanced environmental programme. Be that as it may, it will obviously mean more cost impositions on the farming community, especially here. While on the face of it the sentiment behind the proposal, if it becomes effective, is to have a more equal distribution of the Common Agricultural Policy across European agriculture, one of the side aspects is of particular concern to me. Declan O'Brien, the farming editor of the Farming Independent, stated:

One proposal mooted is that member states would get a guaranteed percentage (possibly 75-80pc) of the current EU average SFP of €215/ha. This would be a major boost [if it were to be applied across eastern European countries].

That seems to be the thrust of much of what the leaked proposals suggest about equality of distribution income. He further stated that if that were to be the case and if it were to be implemented: "For a country such as Romania where farmers get an average payment of €31/ha, this would be a major boost." I share the view and obviously the IFA and a number of MEPs who have spoken share the view that "such a move would have to be financed by cutting payments to western EU members, and Ireland might not escape". There are worrying aspects to the leaked proposals. The fact that they have been leaked is a blessing in disguise because at least it gives all those involved in agriculture and those who represent them - the IFA and the MEPs - an opportunity to reflect on what is stated in the leaked proposals and how to debate them rather than be ambushed by them.

I refer to comments made by the Agriculture Commissioner on his recent visit to Ireland. He stated: "The visit is very useful as it gives me a chance to learn more about Irish agriculture just as we are drawing up our blueprint on the future of the Common Agriculture Policy." He said they hope to publish ideas in mid-November. I presume those are the ideas that have now been leaked to the media. He went on to state:

Agriculture is not only important for its considerable contribution to supplying European citizens with safe and sufficient food, but it also provides increasingly important environmental benefits to society, for example, in Ireland, through the grass-based, extensive livestock tradition. From a broader perspective, too, agriculture remains a major factor in maintaining the social fabric and landscape of rural areas.

The Commissioner further stated: "I believe these benefits give us good arguments to support a strong, forward-looking CAP after 2013."

I am especially pleased the Commissioner referred to the social fabric and landscape of rural areas. I cannot over-emphasise the importance of the Common Agricultural Policy and the continuance of the support systems for those who living in rural Ireland. I do not want to be the rural equivalent of my good friend and colleague, Deputy Charlie O'Connor from Tallaght, in that every time an opportunity arises I put County Leitrim on the map, although my late father, God be good to him, who sat in the Seanad at one time was admonished by the Chair, the late, great Patrick Lindsay, that he would rule him out of order if he was to refer to Drumshanbo yet again in another contribution.