Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 169: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she has taken arising from the publication on 22 June 2005 of proposals from the EU Commission for reform of the EU sugar regime; if in view of her description of the proposals as unacceptable, the steps taken to date to have them modified; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26442/05]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have made it clear that the Commission's proposals for reform of the EU sugar regime, which were published on 22 June, are unacceptable in their present form. The key elements of the proposals are a 39% price cut in the institutional price for sugar, a corresponding reduction in the minimum price for sugar beet and 60% compensation to farmers for the price cut. A voluntary restructuring scheme is proposed to encourage factory closures and the renunciation of quota. While the need for reform of the EU sugar regime is acknowledged, I consider that the Commission's proposals are unbalanced, go beyond the principles of previous CAP reforms and could lead to drastic consequences for the sugar beet industry in a number of member states, including Ireland. This is an unprecedented situation in terms of CAP reform proposals presented by the Commission for any sector.

I expressed my serious concerns about the proposals when I met with Commissioner Fischer Boel on her visit to Ireland in June, and again at the Council of Agriculture Ministers in July. I emphasised that the price cuts proposed are too severe, the reforms should be based on a longer lead in time for the Everything But Arms agreement and it would be preferable to await the outcome of the WTO meeting in Hong Kong in December before seeking to conclude an agreement on sugar reform. I have also continued to remain in contact with like-minded colleague Ministers from other member states who are opposed to the reform proposals. My overall objective is to ensure a more balanced agreement, which will take Irish interests into account. The proposals will be considered again by the Council of Ministers on 24-25 October and, given their severity, it is clear that the negotiations will continue to be difficult.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 170: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she will give clarification of the ownership of the Irish manufactured sugar quota; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26452/05]

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Under the EU sugar regime, each member state has a quota for manufactured sugar. There is no quota for sugar beet. The EU regulations stipulate that the quota must be made available to the sugar manufacturing enterprises in the member state. Accordingly, in Ireland the entire sugar quota is processed by Irish Sugar Ltd. which is the only sugar manufacturer in this country. Irish Sugar Ltd. places annual contracts with farmers to grow a specific tonnage of sugar beet sufficient to manufacture the sugar quota. Ownership of the sugar quota had never been an issue in the past because the relevant EU regulations do not provide for the buying and selling of quotas. Speculations about quota ownership only arose when the Commission, in July 2004, raised the possibility of cross-border quota mobility, in the context of its initial thinking on reform of the EU sugar regime. Several member states, including Ireland, voiced strong opposition to the idea of cross-border mobility and I am pleased to say that it does not form part of the Commission's legislative reform proposals which were published in June. In any event, the EU Commission has confirmed that the quota is not an asset owned by the member state or other party but is simply a mechanism for regulating the market.