Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. I enjoyed the debate very much. I would call it a discussion rather than a debate because of the minimal difference between the Fine Gael motion and the Fianna Fáil amendment.

It is fair to say that from an agricultural perspective the Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil Party have always worked closely to ensure the enhancement and advancement of rural Ireland, particularly since our accession to the European Union. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Ministers have represented Irish agriculture on the European stage and they have always worked with a sense of unity and purpose. That may be a vision of things to come in other fields but that is a debate for another day.

The Common Agricultural Policy is of fundamental importance not just to Ireland but to Europe, and Senator Susan O'Keeffe was correct when she said it is a wonder there is not more of a national reflection or debate on the concept of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is fair to say that of all the European policies put in place by the European Union and the former EEC, the Common Agricultural Policy has not just stood the test of time but is the one European policy that has done what it says on the tin. We should stop apologising and in fairness, since the Minister, Deputy Coveney, took office, apologising for the Common Agricultural Policy has disappeared from the agenda. The Common Agricultural Policy has fed the Continent of Europe and taken starvation off the agenda. It has supported and maintained farming families and rural communities and enhanced the European environment. It has been a very successful programme which we should continue to defend. I appreciate it takes up a significant proportion of the European budget but it is paying for itself time and again, and will continue to do so.

I wish the Minister and the other Ministers who represent the country well on the European stage in the coming months when they put together the funding package. Once that is done - I hope it will be done before Christmas to allow the Minister take charge and finalise the agricultural negotiations - his job will become more difficult because he will have to start squaring circles. We have debated the options and the Minister has presented to the House an interesting picture of where we are heading.

In the previous Government the agricultural committee struggled to be realistic in regard to the future funding of the agriculture budget. The consensus, and it was an unrealistic consensus on the part of all of us, and our official policy was that we did not want any change. It got us off the political hook but we all knew there would be some degree of change. However, realism has set in and we know there will be change. The Minister is trying to ensure that change will be managed and balanced and that we will achieve a reasonable compromise.

In terms of the success of everything European, in the politics of Europe for the past 50 years compromise has always won out. We are now heading towards a compromise on this issue. The Minister stated that there will be a rebalancing in that some at the very top will lose a little or, in some cases, more than a little and those at the bottom will benefit. That is a reasonable overall approach of which I would be generally supportive. It is difficult to be specific in three or four minutes but that may be the proper direction in which to head.

An issue I want to take up with the Minister is the phrase that we must ensure the most productive farmers do not suffer an undue rebalancing. I agree with him to some extent but many people are not classified as the most productive farmers because the opportunity for them to be the most productive farmers has not arisen. I want to ensure that we do not permanently categorise a group of farmers as people who cannot be most productive. I appreciate that is a difficult balance to strike because we are trying to support the commercial farmers who are at the heart of production, and that must be maintained, supported and developed, but we must also look at the tranche of people who may not be producing in the desired quantities to see how we can help them move on to a new phase. We cannot afford to pull up the drawbridge and leave a certain grouping behind. Previously, certain policies were designed in that regard but I hope the Minister will try to take that into account.

The Minister has invested a good deal of time on the export market, and he has been in China. In the past 40 or 50 years China had its great leap-forward economic programmes. Irish agriculture has had a number of similar leap-forward programmes including James Dillon and the era of "one more cow, one more sow, one more acre under plough". That was probably the first time there was a planned development of Irish agriculture. We then moved on to our accession to the European Economic Community. We also had the milk quota regime which, for all its faults, produced certain benefits. We had Agenda 2000 and the single farm payments. We are now beginning what is probably the fourth leap forward for which the Minister has responsibility and in which he has a deep personal interest. I wish the Minister well because he recognises the importance of the decisions he will take.

We must try to be fair. The first objective is securing the budget followed by the distribution of the budget allocations, which we must approach with realism and a spirit of compromise. We have to ensure that there will be a future in farming not just for what we describe as the most productive sector, which must be protected, but that the farm gate and the farming profession will remain open to new generations. I regret I do not have more time. I thank the Minister for his presentation, which was very interesting. I hope he will be back in the Seanad as the debate continues because we have calm, reflective debates in this House and there are issues we will take up with the Minister again. I wish him well in the negotiations.