Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I formally second the amendment. I previously wished the Minister, a fellow Corkman, well in his job. I have always been positive in respect of and supported what he has set out to achieve. He is involved in one of the most important negotiations - those relating to the new CAP proposals - that has occurred since Ireland joined the then EEC in 1973. We all want to wear the green jersey but I urge the Minister to be steadfast and strong and ensure that the existing arrangements will not be diluted to the detriment of Irish farming. In particular, there must be a fully funded CAP budget in respect of pillar 1 and pillar 2. Senator Ó Domhnaill referred to an annual figure of ¤1.2 billion for Ireland in this regard.

Furthermore, the demands of the farming organisations, particularly the IFA, to the effect that the impact of total redistribution be minimised or at least limited in respect of active and productive farmers must be met. The position with regard to the agrifood sector is extremely encouraging, particularly in light of the fact that it is responsible for exports with a value in the region of ¤9 billion. If, however, the outcome from the negotiations does not come close to meeting the expectations of farmers and organisations which represent them, then this will have serious knock-on effects for that sector. Am I correct in stating that the Minister will be in a position to finalise the CAP negotiations during Ireland's Presidency of the EU in the first half of next year? The period of our Presidency is going to be important because we will have some control in respect of the negotiations. Will the CAP negotiating process be concluded by the end of June next or will it fall to another member state to bring it to finality?

I echo Senator Ó Domhnaill's comments in respect of the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS. It is not long since there were significant numbers of farmers on the REP scheme. REPS 3 and 4 are to conclude shortly but many farmers are still involved with them. The Minister is very familiar with the area I represent and he knows that there are many less well-off farmers there who are dependent on schemes of this nature. The current proposal relating to the AEO scheme is that there will be a maximum payment of ¤4,000 to each individual applicant. That is a long way short of what people were paid ten or 12 years ago. I accept that the economic climate has changed. However, if small farmers throughout the country - be they involved in rearing cattle or sheep or engaged in dairy farming - are not supported by means of these schemes and other measures, they will lose their competitiveness and some of them will go out of business.

I understand that the Government proposes to make cutbacks across various Departments. I also understand that the average cutback in respect of each Department will be in the region of 3.4%. There have been reports to the effect that the cutback relating to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine could be as high as 6.5% to 6.6%. This is a matter of some concern to me and perhaps the Minister will comment on it when he makes his contribution. As Senator Ó Domhnaill indicated, it is not our intention to be divisive. We all have the interests of those involved in the agriculture industry and farming at heart. It is critical, however, that the cutback relating to the Minister's Department should not be any greater than those which will apply in respect of other Departments. I hope the reports I have heard are mere rumours and that nothing has been written in stone.

European Union co-financing, on a 50:50 basis, in respect of rural development measures is vitally important. I hope the Minister will take that fact into account.

I accept that this matter may not relate directly to the Minister but I am aware, from conversations with my constituents, that there is a concern among those in farming communities regarding the proposal from the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, that capital assets should form part of the assessment relating to the sons and daughters of farmers who wish to attend college. This would have a massive impact. There is a myth that people who own some land and a few out-buildings and sheds are in possession of wonderful assets and that these should be taken into consideration when deciding who should receive third level grants. It must be borne in mind that there is clear evidence available with regard to what farmers earn, particularly as 98% of them make the relevant returns. Those returns and information relating to their farm management programmes and accounts are what should be assessed when they are applying for third level grants in respect of their children. It should not be the case that notional values should be attached to 300 acres of mountain land a farmer might own on the Sheep's Head Peninsula or a similar amount of poor farmland he or she might own in the Borlin Valley.

At meetings of the Cabinet, the Minister should use his height advantage in order to exert pressure on the Minister for Education and Skills in respect of this matter. The idea that has been put forward is nothing short of mad and it will do huge damage to farming families. Our agricultural colleges are now full to the brim with young people who want to make a future for themselves in farming or farm-related activities. That is extremely encouraging but it also gives rise to concern because one is obliged to wonder whether there will be a future for them when they have obtained their diplomas and degrees.

There is much more I could say but in view of the time constraints involved, I must conclude. I wish the Minister well with the CAP negotiations, which are critical. I urge him to stand firm and not flinch when the negotiations are being finalised. The outcome of those negotiations will signal what is in store for farming during the next decade.