 Alright, good afternoon everybody and thank you for coming, I wasn't expecting quite so many people so good to see people are interested in agriculture and food and the cap negotiations and their consequences in lots of other sectors as well because it's not just about food production it's also about a whole series of other sectors and interests that are linked to the food story in Ireland and indeed the food story across the European Union over the next seven years. When Ireland took the presidency in January I made it very clear at the time to the the Council of Ministers that I was taking the chair of that we had two goals from an Irish presidency perspective in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council and that was to essentially move from debating the CFP and CAP to actually making decisions on both of those dossiers and that we would work with the European Parliament to try and bring them to a conclusion. As those of you who know the detail of both of those reforms that's a significant task. For the CAP there are four different regulations or dossiers that need to be concluded. Some are more complex than others but all are quite difficult to find agreement on across 27 Member States soon to be 28 and the 28th has an input Croatia but also between three different European institutions the Parliament the Council and the Commission and we essentially have never had as complex a political negotiation before. In fact arguably the CAP negotiations are the most complex political argument or political conversation that the European institutions have ever had to deal with in terms of process. Because it involves so many more countries than ever before and involves the Parliament now in a way that was never the case in the past. So different countries that have very different agricultural systems, different average farm sizes, different types of farmers in terms of levels of development and levels of education and entirely different aspirations as regards what they want from agriculture and from the common agricultural policy collectively in Europe. Bringing them all together and hammering out a compromise proposal that builds in the flexibilities to deal with all of those individual concerns to allow countries to support that reform while at the same time keeping a coherent common policy across 27 Member States with a population of half a billion people is not easy. It's not easy and that's why we have been discussing and debating this for four years now and really in a very focused way for the last two years. But we have to set an end date to those discussions and put a process in place that can get us to a decision because we're running out of time. We're already behind time. And so what we did with the Commission in particular was we said look when do you need a decision to allow you to put the legal infrastructure in place that actually turns that decision into a reality on the ground and how much time do Member States or do countries have to actually implement that to ensure that it can be done in a seamless and sensible and pragmatic way. And so the time scale is we want a political conclusion to the cap discussions by the end of June. And the Commission then wants six months working with the two institutions to actually turn those political decisions into a legal framework by the end of the year. And then countries would have 12 months then to put the processes and systems in place to introduce a new and quite radically changed policy because they will need that full 12 months in terms of paying agencies, in terms of inspection systems, in terms of software packages and all of the other things that cap reform entails. From an Irish perspective we have 130,000 farmers, all getting payments, all involved in different schemes, all involved in different inspection regimes, all with significant responsibilities in terms of cross compliance, with other EU directives as regards biodiversity, environmental management, water quality, all of the other things. This is a complex implementation process. And countries need time to prepare for that and to actually decide on their rural development packages which is half of CIP if you like. So that is the time frame that we have agreed is necessary. So this is not just about Ireland wanting to be the country that finalizes the deal during our presidency and cap reform. We're doing this because it's needed. And arguably it would have been a lot better if it was done six months ago. So that we could have introduced a new cap reform from the 1st of January 2014 which is when the new budget kicks in. And so we are already, as I say, somewhat behind time although I think that is manageable. And what we will have to do for 2014, and the Commission has already proposed a draft document on this, we will essentially have a new budget round for 2014 but we will be extending the existing CAP policy and incorporating that new budget. So in other words, the cap budget is reduced somewhat for the next seven years from where it has been. But it's still about 38% of the total EU budget, significant. So what is needed in 2014 is a bridging year, if you like, where we essentially extend the current systems for 12 months but we incorporate a new budget reality which is a slight cut. Not a massive cut, it's a slight cut. It's a significant cut in terms of rural development funds but it's a very small cut in terms of direct payments. Pillar one money. So that's the process in terms of target dates for implementation and management of what needs to be done. But to actually make the decision, there's also an intensive process underway because any of you who are involved with the political system and most of you are will know that trying to get politicians to compromise is not easy, particularly when they're under huge pressure at home to deliver. In my case I'm answerable to lots of non-governmental organisations, to farming bodies, to the public generally, to the Department of Finance and, you know, EROCTA's committees and so on. So whatever we sell and whatever we agree on has to match the aspirations for growth and expansion and sustainable management of our food industry. And my success in terms of representing Ireland will be judged on that. But I also have a responsibility as a Chairman and a President of the Council to agree a compromise package that every Minister can go home and sell as a success and that the European Parliament can vote for and support as a result of a policy that makes sense. And the politics of the European Parliament is very different to the politics of the Council. And having been in the European Parliament and in the Council now, that's very evident to me. And the difference, I think, even in the last few days that difference has been very evident in relation to the common fisheries policy because now that I've secured a final and second mandate from the Council of Ministers to negotiate with the Parliament, the difference is that in general in the Parliament you have the luxury of debating policy in a much purer sense because you never have to worry about implementing it. So you can see you debate things in theory based on research, based on policy development, based on lobbying. But in general you agree policies that somebody else implements. When you're a Minister in the Council of Ministers, the policy that you're developing, you will also have to implement. So when I agree a compromise with other Ministers in the fishing area on ending discarding of fish or ensuring that our fleets fish to what's called MSY, which is a sustainable management tool for fishing to set quotas and total allowable catches and so on. In other words, to fundamentally change the way we fish, I have to be able to come home and explain to a fisherman how he or she will do that over the next five years, what gear he will have to buy, who will help him pay for that, how we will measure it, and all of the other practical things that actually contribute to life on a trawler. That is not the kind of conversation that happens in the European Parliament in general, because they don't have to worry about those kind of things. And actually that's a good thing in some ways. Because when you have a co-decision process on something like a common fisheries policy reform and a common agricultural policy reform, you have this clash between Ministers who are representing their countries and who will have to implement what is agreed and they know that. So there needs to be a real practical edge to what's been agreed and you have a Parliament who are coming at it from a slightly different perspective, who are setting a very high bar from a policy point of view in terms of what makes sense in the medium to long term. Because actually MEPs generally only worry about getting elected about four years into their term, which again is a good thing. Because actually they are there to represent the European Union for Ireland, but they are there to develop and change policy that can benefit everybody without having to worry and watch their back about what's popular and what's not. Because they know that, so I mean I'm exaggerating slightly for effect here, but I think you know what I mean. So that is why it's not unexpected that you would see a Parliament and a Council of Ministers coming at these policy reform challenges from slightly different places. And that is why the trial process or the co-decision discussions can be quite fractious. Although actually we've developed a very good relationship with the Parliament I think now in both dossiers in particular on the CAP. I think a lot of trust has developed between the key decision makers which is very helpful. And we are slowly working out piece by piece how we're going to find compromise. So again for those of you who have worked in European institutions and will know how this works, you have what's called a four column document. So you have a column that represents the Parliament's position, you have a column that represents the Commission's position, I want to represent the Council position, and then you have an empty column and you need to fill in the gaps. Piece by piece, regulation by regulation, it is a tedious process believe me. But it's an important one. And for CAP reform we have planned 34 trilogues. I'm not sure there's anything else, any other policy that I can remember that had that number of trilogues. Mostly when you have co-decision, a fairly basic regulation could be in the co-decision process for 18 months. We've had to do it in less than 18 weeks. And considerably less than 18 weeks. So this is a process that's new. We've never had it before. It involves, it's only since the Lisbon Treaty that the Parliament has had a say in both the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy reform processes. So it's new to everybody and that means that we're feeling our way along. But we don't have the luxury of feeling our way along for 18 months or two years. We have to bring it to a head. And that's my job. And that's what I'm doing. And that's why I have sat down with colleagues in the Council and with the Parliament and with the Commission. And that's why I said at the start of the Irish Presidency, we are going to make this happen in six months. And we are going to design a trilogue process to make that happen in six months. And we then need to set targets within that to require the Council and the Parliament to set their positions that can be a basis for that trilogue. And it's worked. Almost everybody said to me, that sounds great in theory, Simon, but you will never make that happen. The wheels of Europe just do not move at that pace. We said that we would conclude a Council position on the CFP in February and we did. And the Parliament did too to their credit. We said that we would agree a full Council position on all four regulations for CAP in March and we did. And the Parliament did too to their credit. Nobody thought that was possible. We then set up a trilogue process that everyone said, look, you know, once you start this process, you'll realize you can't get it done in the timeframe that you've set. And they were right actually. In the fisheries side, we had up until about three weeks ago, we had to get through about 64 articles and we were only through about five of them. And we were halfway through the trilogue process. And so I went to Brussels and I met the key people and I said, this isn't working. We need to change it. And they agreed. And I said, we need to meet politically and informally and we need to make some decisions on compromise. And once we agree those big political decisions, then everything else will fall into place quite quickly in terms of the technical aspects of making those big political decisions a reality in the policy. And that's what we've been doing. And I've had to take some liberties in terms of what those compromises might look like, because I couldn't get agreement in the timeframe that I was hoping for. But I think the Parliament understand that. And so that is why this week it was so important for me to get a final negotiating mandate from the Council, which was difficult, I have to say. And it was a usual sort of quarter past six in the morning job when everyone was exhausted and they kind of surrendered in the end to a compromise that I hoped, I still hope I can sell to the European Parliament because I think it's genuinely progressive. And then I went to the Parliament with that and got an initial reaction to it. And we'll get a much more detailed reaction now in the next week or so. So the same is happening in Nag. We are planning for two significant meetings. And then in between those meetings, the trial process continues. We've had 12 trilogues of the 34. Those two significant events, one will be in Dublin at the end of next week. That'll be the informal Council that I've also invited the key decision makers from the Parliament, and obviously the Commission too. And we will try to progress informally some of the difficult political decisions that we have to find compromise on. And then it will all come to a head in Luxembourg in the June Council of the Irish, sorry, of the Ag Council. And we have invited, and they're going to come, the key European Parliament decision makers in terms of the Comagry and Group Coordinators and so on. And we're going to have a trilogue process going on in tandem with the Council meeting. And the Commission will be going from one to the other and we will have multiple meetings happening. It will be an incredibly complex management exercise that has the potential to go all wrong. But we think it's worth taking that risk and we think we can get it done. And that's exciting politically, but I think it's also necessary. So the important thing is that the three institutions have all bought into that. And they've bought into trying to make it work as well. So both fisheries and agriculture are coming to a head. And if we can get one agreed, I think we will have surprised a lot of people. If we can get both agreed, I think the Irish presidency certainly in these areas will have been seen to have been an extraordinary success. And ironically actually in Luxembourg, we are meeting on Monday, Tuesday and possibly Wednesday in that Council meeting. And that is immediately followed then by a full European Council meeting where heads of state will be meeting for the final time under the Irish presidency. So wouldn't it be fantastic to have concluded cap politically just before that and to have that recognised by by heads of state as a big priority for Ireland in terms of our presidency, because that's what it is. This is a big priority for Ireland. This is about negotiating the nearly two billion euros that we spend each year on agriculture in Ireland. A large part of that being European taxpayers' money and ensuring that it's spent properly in a progressive, sustainable, ambitious way. And of course ensuring that similar budgets are spent in that way across the rest of the European Union. So look, I could start talking to you about the detail of cap. I don't want to do that because I'd rather invite questions. Likewise, if you want to ask questions on the on the CFP, please feel free to do that. And I'd much rather get questions so I can answer what you're curious about rather than giving you a prolonged lecture on on cap reform. But I think most of you will know what the key issues are. They're around things like how we spend direct payments, internal convergence, they're around greening, they're around how and if we're going to be able to support young farmers to promote generational change. They're about protecting the environment while at the same time growing a food sector. They're about protecting biodiversity and recognizing climate change while we grow a food sector. And in the in terms of the common fisheries policy, they're about how do we spend money to encourage and facilitate the radical policy changes that are being made in fishing. I mean, the CFP is much more radical in terms of the policy change that's coming than the CAP. The CAP is much more about how we spend money. But both of them are equally challenging in terms of finding a final compromise and a final agreement. So hopefully I've given you a few things to think about there.