Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Ba bhreá liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire. I welcome the Minister and thank him for his good work in the negotiations. The good news for Ireland is that our portion of the budget or our national allocation will remain broadly the same under the reformed CAP. The key changes relate to how the money is distributed and it is on this issue that much of the debate here will focus.

The Commission has promised us a more efficient CAP by simplifying administrative mechanisms without losing efficiency. All farmers will welcome simplification of the processes involved and less red tape. However, the new CAP makes significant changes to the distribution of single farm payments, affecting thousands of Irish families over the next seven years. Like others, I broadly welcome the changes that are being made. I come from a small farm background and see the need to protect life on the land and rural communities, but there is also a need to protect sustainable productivity.

Under the new system, support will be calculated on a per hectare basis, rather than linked to past productivity. The new CAP will see a number of countries, including eastern countries such as Romania and the Baltic states receive an increase in their entitlements as countries are brought towards a minimum payment. Now, for the first time, the greater part of EU money will flow eastwards as opposed to going to the traditional recipients. However, it is welcome that most of our allocation has been protected.

Individual member states will have to change the way they distribute payments. The report states that through the process called internal new convergence, farmers will be entitled to a minimum level of payment. I note what the Minister said in his speech, although I was not present to hear him.

It is the case that approximately half of Irish farmers who are currently on higher payments will see a dip while a slightly larger number, 60,000 farmers who are currently below the average, will see their payments increase. We await further details on how member states will manage the various rural development schemes, the Pillar 2 aspects which, of course, also form part of the Common Agricultural Policy. I join the call made by the IFA that the Government should commit to 50:50 co-financing of Pillar 2 schemes so that there can be a comprehensive package of rural development measures put in place for vulnerable sectors and regions and to encourage investment in agriculture.

I note that member states or regions may grant additional payments for areas with natural constraints, as defined under rural development rules, of up to 5% of the national allocation. This is optional and it does not affect the options available under rural development, but I hope the Minister can confirm that the Government will commit the maximum possible to assist farmers in marginal areas.

I take this opportunity to raise the issue of the recent EU Commission deal with the Government of Canada on a common free trade agreement. On 18 October, the EU and Canada reached a political agreement on the key elements of a trade agreement called the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA. We are told that this agreement will remove over 99% of tariffs between the two economies and create sizeable new market access opportunities in services and investment. It should be noted that until the agreement is approved by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, it will not come into effect.

The concern I would have is that perhaps the EU traded away some of its and, by extension, Ireland's agricultural interests in order to protect other interests of the EU. In 2012, Canada was the EU's 12th most important trading partner accounting for 1.8% of the EU's total external trade. In the same year, the EU was Canada's second most important trading partner, after the United States, with approximately 9.5% of Canada's total external trade. Unsurprisingly, Canada is more reliant on the EU than vice versa. Thus, it would have appeared to any observer that the EU would have held the senior position in the negotiations.

If we look at the deal that was done, the pact would eliminate tariffs on almost all goods and services, set larger quotas for EU dairy exports and make it easier for EU car makers to export vehicles to Canada and for European companies to invest in Canada's uranium sector. I can certainly see the benefit, for example, as quotas are removed in dairy, for export of dairy products from the EU and from Ireland but, for Canada, pork and beef farmers would appear to be the biggest winners. Such Canadian farmers, once they change production and processing to meet EU rules, have gained a bigger share of a significant market. As far as Canada is concerned, we can say that a powerful food producer is gaining powerful access to EU markets. The EU will eliminate duties on a range of Canadian agricultural products from wheat to maple syrup. Canada will be able to export 80,000 tonnes of pork and 50,000 tonnes free of duties to the EU.

Canadian cattle ranchers are gearing up to export an additional €426 million of beef annually into the EU from 2015. Significantly, there is no limit on the value of the cuts that are exported. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Canadian exporters will target the higher end of the market with select cuts and steaks. This fear was articulated by the Meat Industry Ireland group which stated that allowed the Canadians to cherry-pick the EU beef and pigmeat market by targeting higher value segments. Those producers are rightly concerned that the European Commission seemed to use access to the EU meat market as a bargaining chip, thus sacrificing EU agriculture in trade negotiations for gains in other sectors of the economy. If Canadian beef processors target the lucrative EU steak cuts market, could this deal undermine European beef prices? I agree with the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, beef chairman, Mr. Edmond Phelan, that the likelihood in this deal was that there would be more pain than gain for Irish farmers. In contrast, the Canadian beef farmers are describing it as a really good outcome for Canada's 80,000 cattle farmers.

CETA is the first trade deal that the EU has done with a G8 country and it is widely regarded as a scene setter for trade talks under way between the EU and the US. That is what I want to ask the Minister about. Is there a danger - if there is, it must not happen - that the Commission might repeat the agriculture market access concessions to Canada in its forthcoming negotiations with the USA? I would welcome the Minister's response on that. We cannot know what negotiations are ongoing with the USA. Like all free trade negotiations conducted by the Commission, the EU-Canada negotiations were held in secret and, arguably, were driven by Canadian and European big business that want market access rather than the concerns of maintaining rural communities or our interests in the beef markets.

I agree with the IFA that the Government must be a strong voice in Europe to resist pressure to liberalise trade for sensitive products such as beef and pigmeat. The Wikileaks cables showed the enormous pressure that the US diplomatic service is exerting to compel one-sided deals in which large volumes of beef and pigmeat, and other agricultural products of dubious quality, are imported into the EU while they offer modest market access for EU exports. The Government must insist that any imports from Canada fully meet EU standards on production, food safety and the environment which, as one must bear in mind, put significant costs on Irish farmers.

Finally, I would ask what assurances the Minister can give the House as part of the implementation of this agreement that those farmers who are affected will be able to avail of supports at either EU or local level. In Canada, the economic development Minister stated that they had commitments from the federal Government to address the potential negative cost and economic impacts to the dairy sector, specifically, to cheese producers. Are there similar commitments and will there be similar protections for Irish farmers?