No apologies have been received. I will go through the privilege notice. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of evidence they give to the committee. This means a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's discretion. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity.

Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside of the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee on any matter arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting where their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts and any attempt to do so will result in members having their online access removed. Everybody is present in the room and no one is online.

The agenda for our first session today is to discuss COM (2025) 553 and COM (2025) 554. These are related measures and both regulations stem from changes proposed under the new CAP post 2027. The committee will hear from officials from the Department of agriculture and food. Cuirim fáilte roimh Ms Maria Dunne, assistant secretary general, Mr. Ultan Waldron, principal officer in the meat and milk policy division, and Mr. Sean Connolly, principal officer in the food industry development division. Opening statements have been circulated and I will give the witnesses a couple of minutes to summarise them. We will then move into a questions and answers session.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the opportunity to discuss the European Commission's proposed amendments to the CMO regulation. I am the assistant secretary general in the Department with responsibility for agrifood sectoral policy and strategy development. The CMO regulation establishes a common market organisation of agriculture products. Its main purpose is to provide a safety net to agricultural markets through market support tools, exceptional measures and aid schemes, and greater co-operation through recognised producer organisations. The CMO regulation also sets specific rules on competition and marketing standards.

There are two sets of proposed amendments to the CMO. The committee will recall we were with it earlier in the year to discuss the amendments that are now at trilogue stage. Today we have been invited to provide detail on the second set of amendments, which are at an earlier stage of negotiation, specifically COM (2025) 553 and COM (2025) 554. The Commission’s proposals for the next multi-annual financial framework, published in July and September 2025, represent a significant change in how the future CAP will operate. My colleague, Mr. Paul Savage, was with the committee recently to discuss these proposals. These CMO proposals are necessary to make provision for the revised structures under the CAP and the national and regional partnership fund.

In broad terms the Commission has said that these amendments seek to improve market resilience, enhance sustainability, increase EU strategic autonomy, respond to food crises and promote healthier diets. We, along with other member states, are examining and discussing these amendments to determine the implications and ensure we have the flexibility to implement them in a way which suits our agrifood system.

I will outline the main amendments. The proposed amendment outlines how the EU school scheme should be programmed under the proposed national and regional partnership fund. This entails a move away from a ring-fenced budget and increased member state contributions. The proposal expands the menu of options for producer organisations operational programmes. The proposal also seeks to strengthen interventions in the protein crop sector by making recognition of producer organisations in this sector mandatory, with the aim of reducing the EU's reliance on the import of protein crops. The proposal also seeks to set a minimum national contribution of 30% for producer organisations operational programmes as compared with the current 100% EU funding.

The Commission proposal seeks to provide the possibility, in delegated and implementing acts, to set out marketing standards for protein crops, cheese, beef, pigmeat, sheep and goat meat to include detailed information on country of origin.

The Commission proposal seeks to introduce legislation to protect the use of meat-related terms. The Commission’s stated aim in this is to enhance transparency around nutritional value and ensure consumers can make well-informed decisions. It seeks to put the existing EU food security crisis preparedness and response mechanism on a legislative footing. The proposal also seeks to provide a set of harmonised rules for the regulation of hemp production within the EU.

Several other administrative and legal changes are provided to facilitate the proposed revised structures under CAP and the national regional partnership fund. A key change is that financing for measures such as the school milk scheme is no longer included in a ring-fenced CAP allocation and must be found within the national regional partnership fund allocation. Comparing the proposed allocations with the current multi-annual financial framework, MFF, is complicated by the structural changes, which is why ongoing detailed analysis is essential to understand the practical impacts for Ireland.

It is important to note that the Commission’s proposals are the starting point of a lengthy negotiation process which will ultimately involve negotiations with the European Council and Parliament. The Danish Presidency has just completed its first reading of the proposal across five separate meetings. The Cypriot Presidency will shortly outline its plans to progress the file in the first half of 2026 before Ireland takes over the Presidency in July 2026.

That is a brief summary and we are happy to take any questions on the details of the two proposals.

I have two people offering to speak - Deputies Aird and Kenny. Will we say eight minutes per speaker?

We will be going around again. Five minutes.

The Deputy is very tight in his time there.

The floor is Deputy Aird's.

I will not be long. First, I thank the speakers for coming in here today. It is an education process for us. If they do not mind me saying, under the market standards and the meat designations headings, it is funny the witnesses are coming in. I just read their opening statement and we are dealing with Mercosur then on the other hand. It is a sort of total contradiction at the moment because of the rules and standards. We are not getting into that because the meeting is not about that but I wanted to make that point first. We spent a lot of time yesterday talking about that and yet, we come in today and see two headings on marketing standards and meat designations. There is nothing wrong with what the witnesses are saying but I am making the point. From my point of view as a politician, it is hard to get your head around that and we will see what happens over the next few days with Mercosur.

How will the COM(2025)553 and COM(2025)554 affect farm competitiveness, especially for the smaller family farms? What measures are in place to reduce any extra costs or burdens on those people?

The existing CMO regulation has the provisions for the market support measures, which are exceptional aid, intervention and aids to private storage, APS. Ireland has been able to avail of exceptional aid for a number of different schemes for sectors such as the milk, beef and pig sectors in recent years. They are already provided for in this.

With regard to the €10 million for protein in the grain sector and the straw chopping, was that part of that?

I am sorry; I am not sure whether they were exceptional aid measures or not but I will find that out and let the Deputy know but we have-----

No, that is grand. I just think they were aid measures.

In the livestock sectors, we have definitely availed of exceptional aid measures.

If we go to Mercosur we will be availing again. Will I ask the second question? Do these proposals align with Ireland's CAP plan and national priorities like sustainability and food security? Are any changes being sought to ensure consistency on this?

On the CAP regulations, the CMO sits alongside the CAP regulations. The new set of regulations will be negotiated in tandem with the CMO regulation. In regard to the last CAP, we would have looked at the three regulations - the two CAP ones and the CMO. They are aligned and done together.

What steps are being taken in the Department to keep compliance and paperwork manageable for farmers as these regulations are implemented?

I do not think these particular regulations will impact that but I know the policy in the Department is to try to do schemes that are simple for us to administer and also for farmers to comply with. The national livestock scheme and the beef and sheep meat schemes are good examples of how we have done that.

That is the best news I have heard for a long time as a farmer because we will not have any paperwork to deal with then. That is all I can say. Take note of that, please, everyone.

Could these regulations put EU farmers at a disadvantage in global markets? How will Ireland ensure imports meet the same standards?

I do not think there is anything in the original regulation or the amendments to it that will disadvantage farmers from a global perspective. When we are negotiating any amendments to it, it would always be to the forefront of our minds to ensure our competitiveness, given that we are primarily export-orientated, would not be damaged.

What systems will be used to monitor compliance, enforce the rules and keep farmers and the public fully informed throughout all this implementation?

The first stage of this is the negotiations, which we will do with the Commission. Then it will go to the Council and there will be a Council position. Then it will go to trilogue, where there will be discussions between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The outcomes of those discussions are generally published in papers. There will be a published Council position and a published Parliament position.

During the negotiations of this, which are going to be fierce important, when Ms Dunne is speaking to us will she be speaking to the officials and negotiating with them on what goes forward?

Yes. Mr. Ultan Waldron, who is here with me, will represent us on the working group for these proposals and he will also be chairing that working group when we take over the Presidency in the second half of next year.

Would Ms Dunne say to me, in regard to my next question, that we are very lucky from the point of view that our Presidency is coinciding with this? Does she think that will be a huge plus for us?

In regard to the Presidency, our role will be to hold the Presidency of the EU and to look to get agreement among all the member states. We will also have a delegate on the working group. It means we will be very much immersed in what is going on and our focus will be very much on it.

Has Ms Dunne anything to say to me or to young farmers out there, during these negotiations, that they will have a brighter future going forward?

Generational renewal is a real focus of the next CAP. We have an advantage in Ireland in that regard because we have already done a generational renewal process here. We have already had a commission that has examined it in great detail. That is a real advantage for us. We are ahead of that and already thinking of it.

Not alone in Ireland but throughout Europe there is a huge problem with trying to encourage young farmers into farming. In Ireland, we are at 4.1% or 4.2%, give or take. Will the witnesses be going with strong policies from Ireland to encourage and make sure that we grow that 4%?

Where we are at the moment is we have the recommendations from the generational renewal commission group, which was chaired by the former Secretary General of the Department, Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll. We have those proposals. We are setting up an implementation group within the Department which will now look at those proposals and decide how we want to approach it.

I have a last question, if Ms Dunne does not mind. When the Department goes to these proposals, does it single out the different compartments in agriculture, like dairy, milk, tillage and all that? The tillage sector, which is under the umbrella of the Department at the moment, is an area that needs to get supports, in my opinion. Does the Department look at things like that and make a special case when something like that goes forward?

Our overall strategy for the sector is Food Vision 2030, which, as the Deputy knows, is the sector's strategy rather than just the Department's strategy.

Yes.

Under the umbrella of that, there are various Food Vision groups that focus in specifically on the sector. They will focus on tillage, dairy or the various sectors and, because of that, we have a kind of cross-cutting focus and also a sector-specific focus.

There will be regard to specific sectors as well as cross-cutting issues.

Is this the area where they could be nominated for a special fund? Will it be an umbrella fund again? In all of those negotiations, do they single out something to say they want to make sure they get X number of millions into it?

The CMO will not give specific sectoral funding. There are things like producer organisations. There will be different producer organisations in different sectors, and they will be stronger in some sectors than others.

Before going to the next speaker, I want to clarify one or two things. Do meat designations mean that steak will always have to come from beef, or that a veggie burger will not be called a burger? What is meant by meat designations? What about the vegan sausage? Are all sausages going to have to come with pig meat or is it to identify beef that would be synthesised in a lab compared with beef that comes from cattle?

I will ask Mr. Waldron to take that but generally the purpose of this is to improve consumer transparency. It is where, for example, plant-based alternatives may have a nutritional content that is not comparable to animal-based products. However, there is some complexity in terms of products with meat content. It is an area we want to examine and look at further.

The Commission's stated intention is to look at meat designations as in meat derived from meat products. It does not mention the two items the Chair has mentioned. It does not mention any of those.

Does that mean the veggie burger will not be able to call itself a burger?

It does not cover that terminology in this proposal. There is however a separate proposal but that is with the European Parliament. The proposal we are discussing today is not covered in that proposal. It just seeks to state that you cannot use the terms meat or meat denominations unless they have come from an animal. That is listed in the annex to this proposal. It lists all of the different cuts and types of meats that can be included.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statement. My understanding is that this is basically setting out certain requirements or objectives for different products. The marketing of products is mentioned, as is looking at the protein and hemp sectors and developing those. One of the positive elements is that there will be more emphasis on producer organisations or producer groups and what power they may have or what greater effectiveness they may have in the marketplace to sell their product at a better price, or to maintain a better price. They are all positives if I am correct about the direction of travel. One of the issues we have had with producer groups in this country, where we have many of them, is that one of the main things they have been doing is where farmers come together to bulk buy fertiliser or inputs rather than to market their product. If there is going to be a greater emphasis on that or funding from the European Union to assist in that, it would be welcome. I would like to get the witnesses' comments with regard to where they envisage this particular proposal and what positive impacts it may have for producer groups.

That is the stated aim of the proposal. From the Commission's perspective, it is about strengthening the position of the farmer in the food chain. As regards the added bonus of coming together to buy products and stuff like that, it might be one of the side benefits of grouping together but the aim of the proposal is for them to group together in terms of marketing, advertising and so on of their products. That is the purpose of this proposal.

Where we have groups of farmers, for instance, you may have hill farmers who produce lamb who have come together in groups to market their product. There could be an opportunity for them to get assistance marketing that product and getting better markets whether in Ireland or across Europe. There would be assistance for them in marketing to get a higher price and a better share of the dividend that comes from the marketing of their produce.

That is the purpose of the producer organisations in coming together to market that produce and improve the market share or the volume they get onto the market, or the pricing, etc. In terms of guaranteeing an actual price return I am not sure that is part of the proposal if that is the question.

It will obviously be open to market volatility but it is to strengthen their hand in all of that.

It is and there are certain elements of this that will allow for what are called operational programmes. That will allow them to carry out certain measures within the sectors and they are specified in the regulations as well. It covers a number of different sectors.

Would that mean marketing groups or producer groups would be in a place where they could look to get contracts for their product? Farmers are always the ones who have to take the price they are offered. At the moment prices are good. In milk we sometimes see contracts but not in any other sector. Would it be envisaged as part of this, that farmers would come together and strengthen their hand to get contracts for their produce, particularly in the meat sector?

One of the advantages of recognised producer organisations is that this is not just about a group. You have to apply for that status and be a recognised producer organisation. One of the key advantages is that you are allowed to collectively seek prices. Generally, that would be seen as a distortion of trade rules but if you are a recognised producer organisation you can collectively bargain for prices.

This could potentially have a positive impact for farmers who will be in those producer groups. They would be able to set prices where if the farmer is buying lambs, they know that in nine months’ time they will get a particular price for them. They know that price will be guaranteed. It gives them that stability they have not had to date. If they did have it currently, they would be falling foul of legislation.

It gives them a structure within which to try to do that.

That is positive and is moving in a direction many of us would have liked to have seen for a long time. The other aspect of it is regarding a number of sectors that were mentioned. The protein sector was mentioned. I was in Denmark a couple of months ago and there was great talk of the protein sector across Europe. We import so much of our protein from outside Europe for food and for animal feed. There is volatility and a certain danger involved in that. We need to be producing more of that protein within the European Union. Is there an opportunity for farmers in Ireland to either produce new protein crops or support the cereal sector to produce protein crops and build on that. To date, they have had little success. The cereal sector has been in decline and is in serious trouble. A lot of work has been done to remedy that. Is there an opportunity in this to assist with it?

We support the ambition of increased protein production, which the EU is pushing heavily to reduce our dependence on imported protein. To do this, it wants to create a distinct protein crop sector to be mentioned in the CMO, which has not been there previously. It also wants to make it mandatory to have recognised producer organisations. That does not mean it is mandatory to go into it but it is mandatory for member states to set up a structure where you recognise producer organisations. We support the ambition. We see opportunities in animal feed and food ingredient extraction technology in this space. We need to look at the impact of adding protein crops as a distinct sector under the proposal. We have not gotten to that stage yet but we think it is broadly positive.

If there is a distinct sector set up in that, which is the objective, does that mean there would be a distinct budget they would be able to get assistance for?

There is no proposal in that regard outlined in the CMO.

It would be the logical next step.

Yes, and they would fall under the producer organisations, which you are required to bring into your national plan and the operational programmes there. There would be several elements that would fall into your national plan but there is not distinct funding associated with the current proposal.

It also mentioned the hemp sector. There are very few farmers in Ireland who grow hemp. To do so, you have to get a licence. I understand nobody has been refused a licence so it is not an issue in that context. However, one of the problems there to try to develop that industry is that it requires a processing plant. It requires some level of investment to do that. To date, there is no one in the private sector is coming forward to do that. I assume it would come under the same regulations where producer groups would be established to do so. Would a producer group, in that context, be able to attract support to set up the type of processing and development it would require to, effectively, set up a new farming sector in the country?

We are perhaps a step back from that in this regulation. What this regulation is trying to do is provide for harmonised EU rules for the production that covers all parts of the hemp plant. It is about setting harmonised rules around the legal limits and the percentages. It is still at a very early stage of discussion, primarily because most member states are coming back and saying that the proposal as it currently stands has legal implications for most member states and they would have to change their legislation. Therefore, we are back at that stage of it, even of trying to set up harmonised rules-----

Is Ireland one of those countries that would have that difficulty?

Yes. It would have legal implications for our national legislation.

So this should assist in resolving those.

Yes, but it will take some discussion around that.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for the opening statement. I read in part of the opening statement that "The Commission’s proposals for the next multi-annual financial framework [ ... ] represent a significant change in how the future CAP will operate." Again, I presumed the CAP was working well as it was. How will the future CAP operate and what significant changes will there be going forward?

They relate specifically to the CAP regulations rather than the CMO regulations. The committee would have had Mr. Paul Savage, the relevant assistant secretary, in to talk about those a couple of weeks ago. We would really only be able to give evidence around the CMO regulation today. The CMO regulation will be negotiated in tandem with those but it is not a CAP regulation.

Would the witnesses not be able to outline what the main proposals and the main changes are in the CAP going forward in this meeting?

I understand the committee had Mr. Paul Savage in.

We did yes. It is a conversation we had with the other officials.

That is fine. I was only wondering what the main changes were.

The other thing is the school scheme. Will the witnesses elaborate on that? How will the EU school scheme be programmed under the proposed national regional partnership fund? What would the update be on that?

The school scheme, as it currently operates in Ireland, involves two elements. There is the fruit and vegetable scheme and then there is the school milk scheme. They both operate under this school scheme. Currently, it is voluntary but all member states have it in their system. Currently, it is part of the CAP funding but it is outside the CAP's strategic plan. It will now move to being mandatory and to being funded under the national plan. There is not a ring-fenced budget for it outside of the national plan. It will move into that national plan. Mr. Connolly may want to add to that.

At the moment, there is a fixed amount that is there for the six years of the programme. That is obviously going to change because the regulation is going to apply from 1 January 2028. However, when it moves to the other plan, negotiations will be required. It is not a guarantee. We will have to work to make sure, for the fruit and vegetable and the milk schemes, that there is funding there for it.

Very good. I thank the witnesses.

The next speaker is Senator Daly.

I thank the officials from the Department. I want to follow on about hemp as well. Deputy Kenny just mentioned it. In Ireland, hemp marketing rules come under the Misuse of Drugs Acts and the Department of Health. We are not on a level playing field. We will not allow hemp with greater than 0.2% THC whereas I think it is 0.3% on the Continent. When the witnesses are talking about hemp marketing rules, will we potentially be able to buy in stuff that we are not allowed to produce ourselves or will that be made a level playing field? Will it be aligned in these marketing rules? It is very hard to have a marketing rule for a product that is allowed to be produced in one member state and not in another. Will those rules be aligned for that? My second question is regarding the sugar sector contract changes. Is there potential for us to get back into growing a bit of sugar beet through these amendments to the CMO regulations that are being discussed?

On the first question, what the provision at the moment is, or the proposed amendment from the Commission, is to provide for harmonised EU rules for production that covers all parts of the hemp plant with a legal THC limit of 0.3%. It is aimed at flattening it.

If that was accepted at CMO, would that mean the Irish law would have to change to 0.3%? It is currently 0.2%.

Yes, and it would legal implications for a number of other states as well. As I understand it, there is a number of members states that are saying that it would have legal implications for their national legislation. Therefore, it is still being discussed. To be clear, these proposals are at a very early stage of discussion-----

So unless these are agreed at this level, nothing will change at member state level.

Nothing will change at the moment. There will have to be an agreement and then an agreed Commission position, a Council position, and it will go to Parliament and to trialogue. It is at a very early stage of the negotiation but that is what the Commission is proposing.

When does Ms Dunne imagine D-day will be on that? I am asking because I have an oven-ready Bill that we are going to introduce in the Seanad to bring us to European parity. If this is going to happen anyway, I may not need to jump the gun.

It is difficult to say when the regulation will be finalised. We think it will take the best part of this year in discussions. Then, we expect it will be aligned with CAP regulations and they would all be finalised together. We can definitely keep in contact with the Senator and can tell him the progress of it.

Would there be a possibility if it is agreed in this negotiation that a member state then may decide themselves? For example, could Ireland, or our Government or our Department of Health, decide it was sticking to what it was at? What obligation is on the member state to toe the line or to come into synch with what would be agreed in the CMO regulations?

What is currently being proposed would be mandatory so all members states would have to align with it. However, I caution that it is still at a really early stage in negotiations. I cannot predict which elements will make it right through to the final stage. However, we can absolutely commit to keep the Senator updated on it.

It is a CAP crop. It is a recognised CAP crop in the EU but we have hamstrung the farmers here that they cannot grow it.

We can commit to keeping the Senator updated on the progress of the regulation and on any changes that happen.

And on the sugar?

I will hand over to Mr. Waldron because I am not sure if there are any changes to the sugar piece.

The only changes are related specifically to France and it is the outermost regions so it would not be applicable elsewhere.

It is just changes to existing contractual circumstances and not that they were going to be-----

They are specific to France as well.

-----starting to reintroducing sugar contracts here.

Not according to this. It is not set out in the regulation on this amendment.

Is there an opportunity for us to put in an amendment or to try to look for that in the negotiations?

I am not sure. I will have to revert to the Senator on that one.

We can move on to the next speaker, Deputy Newsome Drennan.

On the school schemes, with the ring-fenced budget that is being proposed gone, what would the cost be to us for that? Do the witnesses have a rough guide on that? From speaking to other counties, do they do the school lunches? We have rolled out a lot more in Ireland. Are they in favour of trying to work together to try to bargain to keep that or to keep more of that funding?

In broader terms, the Commission has said that it wants all of this and then it was about promoting healthier diets. How exactly is it proposing to promote healthier diets? Do the witnesses have any idea about that?

I might explain what we do currently. We get about €2.7 million for the two schemes from the EU. We spend a roughly similar amount ourselves in Exchequer funding. With that €2.7 million we know what we are getting every year. We have certainty in that. Under the new proposals it will be part of our plan. The money is not ring-fenced. We have to find the money as part of our own national plan. We also have to provide 30% cofinancing. When we are negotiating on the CMO, we try to ensure we have as much flexibility as possible in implementing the scheme. I might ask Mr. Connolly to talk a little bit about what we do under the current one. Our aim would be to have as much flexibility as possible in order that we can align the scheme to suit our school system and our needs.

To answer one part of the question, as to what other countries do particularly on the fruit and vegetables, some do the bare minimum. They just spend the money that is in the envelope. We spend some national funds to ensure that schools that want to be in the scheme are in the scheme. At the minute, in four out of five of our schools in the milk scheme for example, the children in the schools do not have to pay anything. In the others there is a parental contribution for the milk scheme.

Is that just for the milk scheme?

While on the fruit and vegetable side, it is a free scheme. Not every school is in the scheme. They have to look to join the scheme that is administered by Bord Bia.

What Mr. Connolly is saying about four out of five schools indicates that one-fifth of parents are funding the milk scheme.

The four out of five situation came about from the fact that all DEIS schools and all schools that were on the historic urban scheme get a subvention from the local authorities or the Department of Social Protection.

In regard to the school lunches, are there conditions that come with that money at the moment such as it has to be Irish cheese and so on?

No. We have to divide our school lunches, the hot meals, as that is a different scheme in that it is administered wholly by the Department of Social Protection. With our dairy scheme, which I think is what the Deputy is aiming at here, it is purely milk that is in the scheme at the minute. In reality, all the milk that is produced in the scheme is subsidised by the Department. However, what actually happens is that the local authorities as I mentioned and the Department of Social Protection cover principally DEIS schools and also the other schools.

On promoting healthier diets, how do they propose to do that? I say that because with food that is imported maybe and using banned substances that we do not use here for growing, if we have our own scheme or are more involved in the school lunches, the fruit and vegetables and milk, obviously we would try to buy Irish or use Irish produce. We can design our own scheme.

Let us go back to the start as regards milk. All the milk is Irish and is certified Bord Bia milk. With fruit and vegetables the issue is that for reasons of variety and seasonality, it would be very difficult to have Irish produce so 75% of the fruit and vegetables come from within the EU. The proportion from Ireland is 18% but the rest comes from outside the EU.

In regard to promoting healthier diets, I say that because it is a bit like speaking out of both sides of its mouth when it comes to Europe promoting healthier diets when it expects us to have imported beef, which may be hormone beef. I know that is not necessarily to do with this. It is easy to put stuff on paper but in broad terms the Commission has said it wants to promote healthier diets. What I am getting at here is that importing beef that has hormones in it and then saying it wants to promote healthier diets, is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It is hard to believe a lot of what they say.

With the fruit and vegetables, the important thing is that the Food Dudes healthy eating programme, which predated the EU, is in place. The purpose of that is that every child where the schools applied - in junior infants, senior infants and first class - is exposed to multiple fruits and vegetables over a four-week period. There is retention in terms of maintenance. Children in the other classes are also exposed to vegetables. The model we have at the minute encourages healthy eating in terms of exposing children to different fruits and vegetables.

I just hope they are grown in the right way. On the marketing standards, it is promising to see that they want to have the country of origin on foods. That is welcome at least. As we obviously need better labelling in Ireland, that is definitely welcome. What issues do the witnesses perceive in this scheme or proposed changes? Are there any major hurdles?

We have fairly extensive country of origin labelling already, which is prescribed under the CMO and under legislation. This is an attempt or a proposal to introduce more detailed country of origin labelling. We are in support of country of origin labelling but we would like some flexibility that it would not be so detailed that it would cause us difficulties where there are shortages or supply chain issues and there will be difficulties in sourcing things. We want to make sure that the legislation is proportionate. We have country of origin labelling already in place and this will probably bring some additional products into it.

Why do you mean that though? It-----

We must move on. I will let the Deputy in again.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for coming. The more days I spend here, the more I realise that CAP is not really 100% to help farmers to produce food. Food security is very important. This has been compromised by Europe using some of the CAP funding, I do not really know how much we get, for environmental schemes. When we joined the EU it was to help us to market and produce our food and to find a market for our milk and dairy, beef and grain and so on. Now, the process is in conflict by paying farmers for not producing. Good luck to those who can get it, I have no gripe at all about that but it should come out of a different fund. It should not come out of the CAP fund. If Europe wants to operate such schemes, it should come out of a totally different fund than the CAP fund, which was set up to give us help to market and better ourselves as producers.

What have the officials to say about that?

The CMO regulation we are talking about today and the amendments to it are not about the single payment or various schemes that are set up under CAP. It provides a safety net for agricultural markets. It has market support tools like intervention, and aids to private storage, APS. It provides for exceptional measures in times of crisis. It provides for a European crisis reporting mechanism. It provides for producer organisations, labelling and elements like that, rather than having schemes that directly provide finances to farmers.

Will Ms Dunne agree with me that Europe wants these schemes but they are not connected with producing food and as such, should not be paid out of the CAP fund? That is the gripe that I have. This is environmental. In fact, we should not be discussing environmental schemes here where we are supposed to be talking about ways and means to help farmers. That is what I want to make clear. Let Europe provide another fund, an environmental fund, if that is what they want them to do. I am thinking about the smaller schemes that take an awful lot of red tape, writing and following through and we do not know, after going to an awful lot of trouble, whether these fellows will be able to draw down those schemes after the next five or six years. I saw something there, I cannot see it now, where the officials were saying the Commission was funding the producer groups to 100% up until now and now it is asking the national Government to pay for it up to 30%. Does that mean the CAP is going to pay the remaining 70%?

As the producer organisations currently stand, there is a provision in Ireland's CSP for certain producer organisations in certain sectors to have operational programmes, and this would have been funded 100% previously. The proposal introduced a new 30% national mandatory contribution.

Will the 70% come from where it came from up until now?

It will be under Ireland's national plan.

Sure that is 100%. Europe is going to pay nothing now, so.

Under the national plan, the same as the current CAP strategic plan, it is co-financed, so there is Exchequer funding going in there as well as EU funding.

Who is paying the 30%? Who is asked to pay the 30%?

The Exchequer.

The national Exchequer is supposed to pay 100% now as opposed to CAP.

No, 30% is the proposal in the CMO regulations.

Who will pay the 70%?

The 70% will be EU. It will be cofunded within the national plan.

It will be from the EU. Right. The way it was written it was confusing but I cannot find it. On the school milk scheme, they are withdrawing from that.

There is a change in the way it is funded. Currently it is funded under----

They are withdrawing from it, is that right?

Currently it is funded under the CAP but it is not part of our CAP strategic plan. Now the proposal is that it moves from separate ring-fenced funding into the national plan, which is co-financed by the EU and the Exchequer.

Where are the two funds going to go if they are not going to the producer groups or the schools? Where is someone going with that money?

They are not going to spend it, they are going to leave it in the bank.

Has some other fella got in for it?

The contradiction here is to do with the fact that the scheme is now mandatory. It was not mandatory previously. When we switch over in 2028, we have to have a scheme. As a result of that, it is just coming from a different envelope and we have to negotiate within that envelope with the EU funds where the money is coming from. On top of that, we have to put in our own supplement of 30%. Nothing really changes unless a policy decision is made to change it. As far as we are concerned, it is just switching from one envelope to another.

The fellows that have charge of the other envelope, the Minister for Finance, says the envelope is empty. That is the trouble that we have. We read headlines yesterday that the price of milk is going to reduce by 42%. Is anyone going to help the likes of my neighbour here beside me or the other milk producers? What are they supposed to do if milk is going to go down by 42%? Who is marketing this or what is happening all of a sudden? Fellows were very satisfied up until July or August with the way they were working and all of a sudden, there is no market for the milk.

That may not be a question about this COM but Ms Dunne might respond briefly. I need to move on to Deputy Fitzmaurice.

Within the meat and milk policy division, we monitor prices, production and various other elements throughout the year. We are aware of the current fall in milk prices. We are aware of Teagasc's outlooks for next year and we advise the Minister accordingly as it goes along. He will be keeping a close eye on developments across all the sectors.

For the record, down our way everyone is cleaned out with TB and we are told the farmers are going to be helped. Surely one of the ways will not be that when the fellow gets clear, he can only sell his beef or cow to the factory and no longer go to a mart with them for two or three years after getting clear. Surely that will not be one of the ways to get rid of TB?

How much of the budget are we talking about there in this COM?

There is not a specific budget associated-----

I know there is not a budget but if we go back on the money that was coming in, how much money of the budget was being used? I see we referred to the school milk budget and that 100% of producers' groups were being funded. What is that budget that you are talking about?

The producer organisations would have been funded under our capital-----

It was 100% supported from Europe.

Yes but it would have been funded under our CSP. In terms of the school schemes, €2.7 million per annum came from the EU-----

What I am asking is how much, when you add all those bits together, what is that budget?

I do not think we have those figures.

Would that not be a fair thing to know before we start making decisions with Europe?

I just do not have those figures for the Deputy at the moment.

You might get that budget for us so the committee will know. In the line of producers' groups, it is not talking about whether a producers' group is successful or not. It is that the funding that Europe paid out of the CAP budget is now going to be 30% on this proposal, funded by national Government. Is that fair to say?

It is where you have operational programmes for your producer organisation under your national plan.

Would that not tell us straight away that Europe is trying to duck out of giving out money? In our budget under the Department of agriculture in the last budget gone by, we have not got a red rex. Other Departments have got money. TB got money. TB is a problem; it is not extra money going down other farmers' pockets. My point is this is Europe trying to push this 30% over the national Government. I am thinking about school milk and hemp and I see there is no help for hemp farmers at the moment.

In the context of the various aspects of food safety, is it fair to say that we are talking about trying to pull money out of a different pot and fighting with every other Department that gets money from Europe in doing so? Mr. Connolly touched on that earlier.

No. To take it back a step, some of these changes are about aligning the CMO and the provisions it contains with the Commission’s proposal for the new multi-annual financial framework. These changes are a by-product of the broader structural changes.

I presume the Department is not supporting what Europe is trying to do with the multi-annual framework, whereby it is cutting 24% in the first proposal. I know it is not the final proposal. There will be a fight in respect of what we can get from another pot of money. If we look at what happened in agriculture in the past year and what we out of the budget, however, it would not give you a lot of hope in the context of fighting to get money from the Department of public expenditure.

The multi-annual financial framework is not part of the CMO regulations. It is part of separate regulations that other officials discussed with the committee a couple of weeks ago.

Ms Dunne stated earlier that Europe has said it wants more autonomy. What does that mean?

That relates to our concern about the reliance on imports of protein crops.

In the context of better diets and whatever, Europe also wants autonomy in that regard as well. Is that correct? I refer to what Ms Dunne said earlier about better quality diets.

The Commission has said that the amendments seek to improve market resilience, enhance sustainability, increase EU strategic autonomy - that relates to protein crops and the importation thereof - respond to food crises and promote healthier diets. In terms of the school schemes, previously they were voluntary and optional for member states. They are now going to be mandatory. In Ireland, we had the school schemes for milk and for fruit and vegetables. The fruit and vegetable scheme was about incentivising healthier diets. The Commission is now requiring all member states to do those.

How will that be paid for? The Commission is saying it will not be the CAP budget and that it is going to be the other one.

It will be part of the national plan rather than a separate, ring-fenced-----

What the Commission is doing, in a slippery way, is trying to offset money and justify the cut to the CAP. It is saying that there is another purse available and that national governments are going to have to do this whether they get the money out of their own pockets or out of that purse. As a result, everyone is fighting for money. We are going to be in a dogfight to retain some of those schemes. The Commission is going to make the schemes mandatory, but national governments are going to be obliged to do operate them, regardless of where the money comes from. It will not come from the CAP; it will come from this other fund. Unless I am reading it wrong, Europe is basically shoving more stuff across to be paid for it by the national governments rather than by means of what was in the original budgets.

It is a structural change. Currently, in the context of our school milk schemes, we get €2.7 million per annum from Europe. We spend broadly the same amount ourselves. In a national context, we were already funding it significantly. The change is that we will now have to provide 30% co-funding. We were already providing, on an optional basis, a significant level of funding.

In the context of meat and labelling - Ms Dunne referred to origin, etc. - the Department states that there is lot of Brazilian meat coming into this country. My understanding is that if you want to check the meat for hormones, you have to use the eyes, the kidneys or the lungs of the animal in order to do so. If we are getting cuts that do not include any of the three, there is no hope of knowing whether there are hormones in the meat or not.

The Deputy would need to talk to one of the vets on our import side for details like that.

What aspect of meat labelling is the Department responsible for?

We are here to talk about the CMO regulations and the two amendments-----

Briefly. I need to move to Senator Lynch.

If we were talking about beef containing hormones, I would be stepping outside of my competencies..

Was Ms Dunne talking about labelling when I came in?

There is a proposal around country-of-origin labelling. Within the-----

My understanding on such labelling is that every type of hoodwinking going on with foreign imports coming in and being labelled as being packed in Ireland, etc. There is no clear sign that the meat involved is-----

Briefly, Deputy. Senator Lynch has to go.

------produced, reared and delivered out of Ireland.

I call Senator Lynch.

I thank our witnesses for their presentation. I have a few questions in relation to the school scheme and the fact that it will no longer be directly covered by CAP funding. In terms of the increased contribution from member states, how much are we looking at in terms of the cost of that? From what Department will the money that be coming? I assume it will be the Department of agriculture, but I ask for confirmation on that. How will it work, given that not every school avails of it. Will that be reviewed in light of the proposal before us?

In terms of the sectoral interventions – this has been covered by colleagues, but some aspects may have been missed - in the context of protein crops, what kinds of interventions are we looking at? Various grain and cereal producers have come before the committee. In that context, sectoral interventions to protect and improve protein crops are to be welcomed. In terms of the minimal national contribution of 30% for producer organisations, that has to come from the member state where previously it was 100% EU funding. How much funding are we looking at and under what kind of scheme will that be dealt with?

In the context of school milk, I cannot tell the Senator how much it will cost because it will depend on the scheme that we devise. We will be devising a scheme under the national plan, so we do not yet have an idea regarding the funding for it. Previously, we received €2.7 million per annum from the EU and we paid out a similar amount in national funding. The difference now is that it will be mandatory and there is 30% co-financing. However, we were already financing it in excess of that. We hope that the new regulations will give us flexibility to build a scheme to align with the needs of our schools. The Commission is not prescribing a scheme; it will be for us to work out how the scheme will work in our national plan. The funding will be dependent on how we decide to allocate it within our national plan.

In relation to the producer organisation, people normally associate the term "interventions" with CAP interventions and schemes. These are not the same; they are operational programmes. There are a number of headings, and it is outlined in the regulation as to what can be carried out by the producer organisations. We encourage producer organisations to come together for some of the reasons outlined earlier, and that is with a view to collectively carrying out those actions. There is a call run by the Department and early-stage producer organisations where we do provide some seed funding for facilitators to come together to see if it is practical or viable for a producer organisation to form.

The Commission is placing a strong emphasis on the protein sector because of the over-reliance on imports that has been highlighted over the past number of years. It is not a case of the Commission saying, "Here is a big scheme for the protein sector." The idea is to get producer organisations to come in order to improve the supply or marketing of the products. The regulations list the types of schemes that can be put in place in respect of marketing or certain investments in infrastructure. However, it depends on what the producer organisation decides it wants to do.

The Senator asked about funding. It is very difficult to say what the level of funding will be.

It is voluntary and demand-led at the moment, but, obviously, the Commission is looking to make it mandatory in this one for certain sectors, protein being one of them and apiculture being the other.

I thank Mr. Waldron very much. I did have queries in relation to the marketing standards point, but I think they have been largely covered by my colleagues. More generally, in terms of the proposal in relation to this COM, as it is largely facilitating the CAP post 2027, and this is very much a working and moving document in terms of the funding allocation due to the nature of the MFF and the very early stage of the negotiations we in, will this also subsequently be a working and live document depending on what happens with the CAP? I know it is with the Commission. I think the EU school scheme is only one that has an official date and the rest are just one year post their adoption. I assume that will be at some point post the finalisation of the new CAP. Why is there so much emphasis on this when it has to be a moving document and if the very changes it is bringing about are in light of CAP? The new CAP itself is not finalised and is nowhere near being finalised.

Generally, what happens is that the regulations are all negotiated at the same time. They are done as a package, as such. My experience from the last time with the CAP is that the two CAP regulations and the CMO will all be signed off at the same time. We can get agreement on the various parts of the text, or whatever, but the Senator is correct to say it will be a living document until they are all signed off.

I thank Ms Dunne very much.

I call Deputy Kenny.

Regarding the issue with the mandatory side of it with regard to the producer organisations, when we say mandatory, what exactly does this mean or what would the outworkings be? I know it is only a proposal and is not set in stone, but what is this envisaged as meaning for farmers?

With producer organisations, in some sectors it is up to the member state if it wants to introduce a system of recognised producer organisations. For other sectors, it is mandatory. Therefore, the member state has to put in place a system of recognising the producer organisation, and that is what is referred to in this regard.

It is not insisting they exist. It is just recognising them if they come into existence.

It is a process to allow them to be recognised. We would have to introduce a statutory instrument to allow the recognition of them in certain sectors.

In whatever sector it might be - I will use the example of lamb that I used earlier - if lamb producers, for instance, set up five or six different producer organisations in different parts of the country, the State would be obliged to recognise them and to have a system to do that. However, if those producer organisations were not set up, the State would have no obligation to insist that they be set up.

Yes, that is currently the situation. We have a process now for recognising producer organisations in the sheep sector. It is a process for recognising them. There is no obligation on groups to set one up, but there are advantages to such organisations being a recognised producer organisation. We have some funding available under the current CAP for that, but it also allows for collective bargaining.

Will it be mandatory that they will be set up in the protein sector and in the sectors mentioned if this comes into play? Is that what it would mean?

No, it will be mandatory for the member state to put in a process to allow them to be recognised.

It will not be mandatory for them to have one.

It will not be mandatory for groups of farmers to do it.

That is confusing people.

It is absolutely not mandatory.

We have a decision to make on whether we dispose of these COMs or defer such a decision for consideration at our private meeting next week. I suggest that given only a handful of us are here now, we will not dispose of it. We will put together a response next week. We will defer this until next week's private meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed. I thank all the witnesses for participating and for the wide-ranging discussion on it.