Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

237. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the outcome of discussions at the 13-14 May meeting of the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council regarding the Common Agricultural Policy as part of the trilogue with the European Parliament and European Commission on CAP Reform during the Irish Presidency; when he expects that co-decision on this matter will be complete; if he expects it will be concluded during the Irish Presidency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23544/13]

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I used the opportunity of this week’s Council of EU Agriculture Ministers to bring Member State colleagues up to date with the progress of trilogue discussions with the Commission and the European Parliament on reform of the CAP. I outlined the positive and constructive nature of the negotiations between the three institutions, with good progress made on a number of issues across all four CAP reform dossiers. However, I drew Ministers’ attention to the fact that, notwithstanding this forward movement, the three institutions hold quite different views in a number of areas. These will require political input to resolve if the reform package is to be agreed by the end of June.

We had a discussion on some of the issues that have already presented themselves as politically sensitive in the course of the trilogue discussions. The first of these relates to the definition of ‘active farmer’, and particularly the concept of a ‘negative list’ of entities which would not be considered active farmers and would therefore not receive direct payments under the reformed CAP. Member States want such a negative list to be a voluntary provision, while the European Parliament would prefer it to be mandatory.

The second issue relates to the proposed young farmers’ scheme. Again, the discussion focused on the question of whether this scheme should be mandatory or voluntary for Member States. The Council’s view is that the scheme should be voluntary, while the Parliament prefers a mandatory approach. Similarly, on the small farmers’ scheme, although the Council and Parliament agree that the scheme should be voluntary for Member States, the discussion focused on whether a change proposed by the Commission would allow it to become a mandatory scheme for all Member States, which the Commission would strongly prefer.

I was pleased with the exchanges on all three issues. Member States had been asked to consider how an agreement with the Parliament and Commission might be achieved and I noted a broad sense of flexibility and openness from Member States.

The exchanges at Council represent the beginning of the final phase of negotiations and we are all conscious of the need for reasonable compromise if we are to get a deal agreed by the end of June. That requires movement from all three institutions and not just from the Council. I do not underestimate the efforts that will be required by all three institutions if we are to achieve our target but I am satisfied, based on progress to date, that we are on track to achieve political agreement between the three institutions on reform of the CAP by the end of June.