We have received no apologies.

Before I begin, I draw the attention of witnesses to the following. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue on the Chair's direction. 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 the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that 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 the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters 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 any charges against any person outside of 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 this committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in public meetings from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in members having their online access removed. All members are in the room and no members are online at this stage.

On the agenda today is the resumption of discussion of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, post 2027. The committee is due to hear from the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Martin Heydon. Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. The Minister is accompanied by Mr. Paul Savage, assistant secretary general; Ms Corina Roe, principal officer; and Ms Edwina Love, principal officer.

Members should note that the Minister is the witness today and questions should be directed to him. Officials may assist him in responding to questions. The Minister provided an opening statement, which is a comprehensive document, and we will allow him the opportunity to read over it before going to a questions and answers session with the members.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before it for engagement on the Commission's proposals for the Common Agricultural Policy post 2027. This is pivotal and consequential for everything that will happen in the farming sector in the years ahead. I thank the committee for the extensive scrutiny it has already given to the proposals, including through hearings with stakeholders and the detailed political contribution that has come from this work. It is very valuable and much appreciated.

CAP remains one of the European Union's most important common policies. For Ireland, it is fundamental to food production, food security, farm incomes, rural development and the delivery of environmental and climate objectives. As the committee has clearly set out in its opinion, CAP payments are not supplementary for Irish farming. They are central to viability, particularly in the beef, sheep, suckler and tillage sectors, and in more marginal regions. It is also important to take account of the fact that approximately 75% of Ireland's total EU funding derives from the CAP. As a result, any change to the structure or scale of CAP has a disproportionate impact on Ireland.

The Commission's proposals for the next multi-annual financial framework and the CAP regulations, published in July 2025, represent a profound shift in how CAP would be funded, governed and delivered. The most significant change is the proposed move away from the long-established two-pillar CAP structure towards a single integrated framework under national and regional partnership plans, NRPPs. Under this model, CAP would sit alongside a wide range of other EU policy areas, including cohesion, migration, climate and fisheries, within one overarching national plan.

While the Commission has presented this as a simplification exercise, Ireland has been clear that embedding CAP within the NRPP framework raises serious challenges. These include increased governance and audit complexity, risks to legal certainty, and the potential dilution of CAP's status as a genuinely common policy with clear rules and accountability for farmers. These concerns are shared by a large number of member states and by the European Parliament, and they are strongly echoed in the committee's opinion.

Turning to funding, the proposed CAP envelope of approximately €294 billion at EU level represents a reduction of around 20% in nominal terms compared with the current period, and a significantly larger reduction in real terms once inflation is taken into account. For Ireland, the indicative CAP allocation of €8.16 billion for 2028 to 2034 compares with €10.7 billion in the current programming period. This is a reduction of between 20% and 24%, as the committee has highlighted. This proposed reduction is a major concern for Ireland. It comes at a time when farmers are facing higher input costs, increased volatility, rising regulatory and environmental obligations, and growing expectations around food security and strategic resilience.

As the committee has clearly stated, it is not credible to expect farmers to do more while being supported with substantially less. I fully share the committee's view that a strong, adequately funded and ring-fenced CAP must remain a core priority in the negotiations. The Commission has argued that member states may supplement CAP funding from their wider NRPP allocation. In Ireland's case, our total NRPP general allocation is €11.4 billion, from which the €8.16 billion CAP allocation must be drawn. However, this wider funding envelope is subject to competing demands, mandatory spending targets and horizontal conditionality. In practice, relying on non-ring-fenced funding creates uncertainty and risk for farmers and rural communities. This is why Ireland continues to press for a robust, sufficient and clearly defined CAP funding envelope with strong safeguards.

I draw the committee's attention to recent developments, including a non-paper in December and correspondence earlier this month from the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, which outlined potential flexibilities. These include earlier access to certain mid-term review resources for agriculture, additional crisis-related flexibilities and a proposed minimum rural investment target within the NRPPs. While these proposals are welcome as a recognition of the pressures facing agriculture and rural areas, they do not remove the need for careful scrutiny. To be clear, these proposals do not, in themselves, offset the scale of the proposed reduction in ring-fenced CAP funding, and their practical application will require detailed examination.

On governance, Ireland has consistently argued that CAP-specific provisions should be clearly located within the CAP regulation itself, rather than dispersed across the NRPP. This is essential for coherence, auditability and legal certainty, and to ensure that agriculture Ministers retain full responsibility for CAP. The Commission's non-paper in December proposed the transfer of certain CAP-related articles into the CAP regulation. This is a step in the right direction but from Ireland's perspective it does not yet go far enough. We have made our position clear on the additional provisions we believe should be transferred, and we are engaging closely with like-minded member states to advance this position.

In terms of policy content, the proposals include significant change. These include the removal of entitlements, the introduction of a per-hectare payment system, degressivity and capping of area-based income support at lower payment levels, and the consolidation of eco-schemes and agri-environment measures. These elements raise important questions for Ireland, particularly given our farm structure and the role of productive family farms. As the committee has highlighted, thresholds for degressivity are low by Irish standards and risk disproportionately affecting a relatively small number of highly productive farms that contribute significantly to output and food supply. These issues will require further analysis and negotiation.

Generational renewal is another central element of the proposals. Ireland strongly supports the objective of attracting and retaining young farmers and we welcome the focus on this issue, which is a big cause of concern in Ireland. However, I share the committee's concerns regarding certain provisions, particularly proposals linked to automatic age or pension-based exclusions from income support. Ireland's position is that generational renewal must be supported through positive, well-designed incentives, including succession planning, land mobility and intergenerational co-operation, rather than blunt exclusions that risk unintended social and economic consequences.

The committee has also placed strong emphasis on rural development and LEADER. I fully acknowledge the concerns raised about the absence of ring-fenced funding for LEADER under the proposed framework. LEADER has delivered tangible benefits across rural Ireland, and safeguarding community-led local development remains a priority for Ireland in these negotiations.

Feedback from stakeholders through the CAP consultative committee and written submissions has been consistent and clear. There is strong concern about the scale of the proposed CAP budget reduction, the loss of the two-pillar structure under the NRPP, and the risk that agriculture funding could be diluted by competing priorities. Stakeholders have highlighted the central importance of farm viability, simplification, generational renewal and the need for environmental ambition to be matched by adequate funding, flexibility and practical delivery. There is also broad opposition to age- or pension-based exclusions from income support. Building on this engagement and the feedback received, I want to outline the next steps in our approach to the CAP post-2027 negotiations. The CAP consultative committee will continue to meet on a bimonthly basis and I intend to shortly open a public consultation on CAP post 2027.

The Commission's proposals present very real challenges for Ireland. The shift to the NRPP framework, the reduction in ring-fenced funding and the increased complexity around governance and conditionality all raise serious concerns. However, these proposals are the starting point of negotiations, not the final outcome. Ireland's priorities are clear and closely aligned with those set out by the committee. These are a strong, common and adequately funded CAP, protection of farmer incomes and food production, meaningful supports for generational renewal and rural communities, and a policy that is workable, proportionate and fair. I look forward to engaging with the committee and I thank it for the invitation. I look forward to hearing the views of members and to continuing this dialogue as negotiations continue.

I thank the Minister. There is a huge amount in his submission. As he has rightly said, the committee has met farmer representative groups, development partnership representatives and LEADER groups, and we put together the extensive submission we made to the Commission late last year. We outlined the huge range of concerns we have, including with regard to the two pillars and the reduced funding. I note that a lot of what the Minister is saying is on the same page as what we said. I want to try to establish where we go from here and how we bring effect to it and move things on.

In his opening statement the Minister referred to a December non-paper and the President of the Commission outlining earlier this month potential flexibilities in the CAP. We would like to try to establish what is meant by this. Is it with regard to funding? In the Mercosur discussions, there was a view that there was some mobility in CAP funding. Is this what the Minister was referring to? Will he give an outline of any extra CAP funding that might have been discussed at that point and any level of commitment with it?

The Cathaoirleach is right to start with the money. There is detail and there is so much at the heart of this that is a big concern for our farmers and all stakeholders in the sector, but everything is driven by and is going to be influenced by how the overall negotiations go on the multi-annual financial framework. They are running in tandem with the CAP, so that is something we have to manage.

I recognise that when Commissioner Hansen was trying to get a ring-fenced proportion of budget, other commissioners were not able to get anything ring-fenced. To get something ring-fenced was a good starting point and needed to be built upon, but there is no way that 80% of the current CAP is anywhere near good enough because 100% of the current CAP will still devalue over the years by the devaluation of money and its purchasing power for our farmers and beyond. As I said in my opening address, this is not a nice additional thing for a farmer to have; it is a key part of their viability in many of our farming circumstances.

Currently, the 2021 to 2027 EU funding is €10.7 billion of the CAP and the funding ring-fenced for the next round is €8.16 billion. That means a reduction there of between 20% and 25% or about €2.5 billion less than we had the last time. The changes announced by Commissioner von der Leyen at the extraordinary meeting of the AGRIFISH council at the beginning of January, the non-paper and the discussion previously in relation to the debate about Mercosur when that proposal came, is worth an approximately €45 billion. That was to be the mid-term money that is coming forward. That is not new money, but it is coming forward earlier and would be worth about €500 million extra for us to have. It would still leave us short about €2 billion short from what we currently have, even accounting for the option under access to the non-ring-fenced funding and elements there.

I share the view of the committee that we ideally need to be in a space where we are back at the two pillar structure and where we did not have the NRPP. We have a lot of concern around that structure. However, the direction of travel, the statements from the Commission in December and the EU Council discussions lead us to the fact that the NRPP model is not being torn apart. It is still there. While we express all our concerns about it, which are real and practical, we also must work to try to measure them. Mercosur was mentioned earlier and this is kind of similar. We worked all the way along with like-minded countries to try to stop it, while also working on the safeguard so that if we could not stop it, the safeguards were better than what was originally proposed. It is kind of the same with the approach to the NRPP. We are not happy about it. We are very concerned at an administrative level about how it could be implemented. On the one hand, there is a general principle that on an overall level it is not a bad idea. If all the countries are not willing to pay more into the budget, the cake will not be big enough for all the different demands that member states have from defence to agriculture and everything else. They said there was a certain amount of money and if somebody says agriculture is their top priority then they can go back to their member state and put it all into agriculture. At face value, we can see there is an element of flexibility that allows the member states to put the money where their priority is, but there is a big question mark over the flexibility. We still have to work through an awful lot of detail in the NRPP regarding how much the EU will direct that certain percentages are ring-fenced for certain elements like rural, social and cohesion funding and different things. If the EU is overly prescriptive in the NRPP, we will not have the money to physically do the things we want to do. On the face of it, it might look flexible but on an administrative basis, it will not be.

That is where mistakes have been made in the past in designing programmes. We have had a lot of previous Ministers and Commissioners who talked about simplification and then every new CAP seemed to be the opposite. That is not because anyone meant it to be that way, but I can see how that happens, and we have to avoid that happening by being overly prescriptive this time. It is about subsidiarity. It is about giving member states the flexibility they want - people warn me to be careful what I wished for on that but I am up for that - while also not losing the common benefits of a common policy across member states, which is important too. They are not contradictory positions. I believe we can have both.

I thank the Minister. Seven members are offering to speak. We will do seven minutes which gives us a chance to come back for seconds if we need to. I will start with Deputy Fitzmaurice.

I welcome the Minister. He may take these questions down and answer them because I am going to be as quick as I can.

Ireland is going to have the EU Presidency for six months from July through to Christmas. Is the Government going to prioritise agriculture and try to get the CAP wrapped up in those six months? I think it has to be done by the beginning of 2027.

The Minister's document states the consolidation of eco-schemes and agri-schemes is being proposed. Has he started with the eco-schemes already? From what I heard last night there is going to be a big change coming for farmers this year regarding eco-schemes. Is that part of what he is getting geared for? Does that mean eco-schemes and environmental schemes will basically be all one and farmers will not be getting rewarded for putting 10% of land to one side?

There is a 24% cut in the CAP budget. I welcome what the Minister clearly stated about the lollipop being handed to Meloni on Mercosur not being new money. Basically, there is nothing new coming. In respect of the 24% cut being proposed, it is my understanding that the member state can fill the gap. If the horse dealing is done and let us say it is 10% or 12% or whatever, can the member state put it in or are there state aid rules to block that? I welcome that the Minister is opposed to farmers not being kicked out of it when they get the pension or whatever. Is that going to be compulsory by 2032?

Under the new CAP farmers will not have entitlements per hectare. The suckler cow is Pillar 2. The programme for Government states each cow will be worth a payment €300. Is there going to be a Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 or what is the set up? Will that be honoured?

In light of Mercosu and all the different headwinds - and I welcome the vote today - part of the CAP or the Department budget is given to Bord Bia. Bord Bia has lost credibility today. Going forward under the CAP, is it going to be getting money if people involved on the board are bringing in meat from Brazil?

We do not want to bring any-----

I have asked about Bord Bia and the involvement of people.

They will be looking for an opportunity to respond to that.

They can.

They are more than welcome to come in.

They can come in. Are they not coming in two weeks?

I thank the Deputy for that and for being succinct. Regarding the EU Presidency and the question whether it will prioritise agriculture is a key point. It absolutely will. When in the chair of any committee, as the Cathaoirleach will know, you have to be an honest broker and cannot just talk about yourself all the time and must look at the broader things.

In some ways, the relationships I am building now and have been for the past year across the AGRIFISH council really matter. I was in Berlin last week at the Global Food Forum where I had nine different bilateral meetings with Ministers for agriculture so that we can clearly understand each other. I am telling them Ireland's priorities while they are telling me theirs for when I am in the chair. On a broader level, the multi-annual budget negotiations are at the same time as the CAP, which are interlinked. The role the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance have in those discussions is really important. Will Ireland put a priority on this? As an overall Government we absolutely will. We are a net contributor per capita but 75% of the money we get back from the EU for the Exchequer, which matters to people in Dublin and Cork as much as it does in rural areas, is through the CAP. Therefore, this is really important for our overall economy and everybody that we do that.

Regarding consolidation, environmental and eco-schemes, we have not started that work yet. There is the general ebb and flow of how the EU audits schemes and how they operate.

The Minister is changing eco-schemes already.

I am about to explain it to the Deputy why he is saying there was a change in eco-schemes. Some farmers were written to in order to flag to them that it was highlighted to us in some cases the hedgerows that are in gardens and, hence, not always eligible. Some of them were eligible the last time. This was raised to us by the EU. We are flagging that with farmers in advance of the new basic income support for sustainability, BISS, going in. The vast majority of those farmers will have hedgerows they have not claimed for under eco-schemes and will be able to come in under that. This is normal auditing of schemes. It is nothing new. CAP will be post 2027. There is nothing new coming in on that one. I was very proud of the eco-schemes. I was a big advocate of using space for nature. In Germany, because the eco-schemes were so convoluted in how they were designed, farmers could not access them. That was their single farm payment and they needed to be able to get access back to it.

The Deputy raised the lollipop and the new money. That is not new money.

With regard to how we do that, again, money coming forward earlier is better. It could be argued that, depending on how it is done, it could increase our 80% in overall terms. It could be classed as higher than that but it depends on conditionality. There are rural targets and how the rural targets are implemented depends on what flexibility there is on the ends. On the one hand, it looks flexible but we want to make sure that the devil in the detail is also.

Yes, member states can cofinance rural development, similar to the old pillar 2-type measures. I feel there is a trap here and we are not going to fall into it yet. There will be a time for all of us from different political persuasions – this committee will hold us to account in this regard - to determine how much the Government puts in to support farmers and agriculture. Ursula von der Leyen and everyone in Europe would love us to have that discussion today and let Europe off the hook but we are not done yet in chasing more European money for our agriculture sector. I have sharp elbows and I will make my voice heard at Cabinet when it comes to fighting my corner on that one for the agriculture sector.

The Deputy mentioned the compulsory retirement by 2032. The wording of that retirement element implies it will be compulsory. I presume he is referring to the single farm payment being taken away for someone who gets the State pension, which I have said I am not in favour of. Right now in the regulations that looks mandatory, so we will have to use political capital and work to prevent that being mandatory such that I will have the flexibility not to do that. The language around it is still quite loose. Again, there is a level of detail there but I cannot be any clearer on what I would like to do on that.

With regard to not having a single farm payment as such, we still have to design this. I have spoken before about simplification, and real simplification means fewer schemes. If the money is less, then we are just going to be very-----

I ask the Minister to touch on Bord Bia. That is the last one.

No, pillars 1 and 2 were also mentioned. On pillars 1 and 2, we would prefer not to be in the national and regional partnership plan, NRPP, system. We would prefer to have pillars 1 and 2 but that looks like it is not going to happen. There is an element of ring-fencing within the NRPP structure that we will try to work around.

Bord Bia is not funded out of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is funded directly from the national Exchequer.

Yes, by the State.

It is an exemplary organisation. It has been directly involved in the exponential growth of the value returned back to our farmers from the food and drink that are exported out of this country year on year. I presume - I might as well call it out - that the Deputy is referring to the media reports in recent days. Those are matters for the board. The chairman of the board has ably assisted in that remarkable performance of our year-on-year record growth in the value of our food and drink exports for our farmers. In 2012, the value of our exports was €8 billion or €9 billion. In the most recently published figures, the value is now at €19 billion, and when the CSO figures for all agri-food and drink exports come out for 2025 soon, I expect that the value for our farmers will be in the region of a record €21 billion. If people think Bord Bia, the chairperson and everyone who works in it did not play an integral role in promoting and marketing that food, I do not know what they think they are there for. We have to be honest with people in this regard. I absolutely understand the emotion of what was reported. I understand there is a meeting of the board tomorrow and it will get to go through that. I have sought a report on the matter and on proceedings tomorrow, and I look forward to receiving that after the board meeting.

I cannot be any clearer that while I, Deputy Fitzmaurice and all of us in this room have farmers' backs, we are not doing them any good by undermining Origin Green, the quality assurance scheme or Bord Bia with comments that might be made here. That is absolutely not in the interests of those farmers, who have seen better prices in recent years for their beef and dairy products. Obviously, prices are also dictated by supply and demand around the globe, but the access we get to the market and the higher value markets that Origin Green opens the door to are absolutely critical for us.

Everyone needs to wear the Irish jersey-----

Absolutely.

-----and not bring in Brazilian meat.

The next speaker is Deputy Kenny. If there are any outstanding questions, I ask for the answers to be sent on.

That is what Bord Bia does when it is abroad. That can be seen.

I thank the Minister for his opening statement. We all understand that there is a job of work to be done by everyone from an Irish perspective to ensure we get the best possible CAP and as much funding into it as possible. It is disappointing that we are in a situation where we see - both the committee report and the Minister's comments have acknowledged this – a reduction in funding. That is the big issue. That is the serious one we have to try to grapple with. That is, in the long term, what is going to have the biggest effect on the agricultural sector and farmers.

The Minister pointed out in his opening statement that this piece of money that was revealed during negotiations around Mercosur with regard to Italy is not new money. Rather, it is money that was there and will be brought forward. If that money is going to brought forward, however, what is going to happen when we get into the third or fourth phase? Will there be shortages of capital? How is that going to be filled up? That is a problem. If we move money to the front, it is going to have to be met later. That is a point that needs to be worked out as to how we are going to do it because the multi-annual framework, MFF, sets out how much money is there. The difficulty we have is there is not enough money. If we start to tinker with the money that is there, it is going to create even further problems.

Going back to one of the points that Deputy Fitzmaurice raised with regard to the BISS payment and the space for nature and all of that, this was raised with me recently. It is a change that is occurring that seems very peculiar to farmers. They cannot understand it. If a farmer has a hedgerow, whether it is beside a shed or in the middle of a field, it is still a hedgerow. It is a space for nature. Farmers do not understand why this change is coming in. Perhaps the Minister has an adequate explication. If so, we would like to hear that.

There was a vote today with regard to Mercosur. Whatever view we may have on the Government's flip-flopping and half of the Government MEPs voting for it and the other half against it, that is where it is. We have to understand that Irish farmers are concerned that there is a move in the European Union to bring us to a direction where we will have to compete with products from outside the European Union that do not meet the same standards. That is a responsibility, and while I recognise that the Government voted against it, which is fine, the Government has a responsibility to try to ensure that we do not allow that to continue. The frame of mind has to change. We must ensure we have standards in Europe and those standards have to be met. We cannot allow those standards to be diluted.

In that context, there was a recall of products just before Christmas. Three products came into Ireland and through the North to the South and we do not know where they came from. They were recalled. Three companies were involved in that, as we understand. We do not know who those companies are. Does the Minister know? Is Dawn Foods, for instance, whose CEO is the chairperson of Bord Bia and is in serious difficulties, one of them? We need to get answers to this because without answers, the confidence of the agriculture sector is undermined. The Minister understands that, and I am not saying It to be combative, but if confidence is undermined, farmers are not going to believe in the system. If we want a system that is going to work, people have to believe in it.

This session is for CAP.

I understand that.

It is up to the Minister whether he wishes to take the questions on the other topics as well.

I will take the last point first. The matter the Deputy raised around traceability and so on is a matter for the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI. The committee should be inviting it in here and having a conversation with it about that. In respect of what came in from the North, there was a significant gap until it was notified to us as well. It could be argued that the traceability measures worked, but the FSAI is the competent State authority for this and it will be the one able to answer.

Does the Minister know the companies in question?

No, I do not have them to hand. In my preparation for this meeting, I did not read over the FSAI report.

That is fine.

Are they written in a report somewhere? I do not think so. I do not remembering seeing it but that is not what I was preparing for in coming here today. When the Deputy asks me questions like that, I am answering off the top of my head in terms of my memory of it. I do know there was a roughly three-month gap from when there was an issue to when it was notified to us and, obviously, the product worked through. That is not satisfactory. That absolutely feeds into the general sentiment that there has been. I completely understand the concerns of farmers and consumers in that regard.

When we go abroad or anywhere else, we say rightly that SPS standards are non-negotiable from an EU perspective. I hold that to be true and that is why, at the extraordinary meeting I attended, Commissioner Várhelyi gave us a commitment around a 50% increase in inspections in third countries and a 33% increase in border control posts in European countries on products so that we have a higher level of scrutiny here to be able to stand over those assertions to European consumers about what is coming in.

The challenge and contradiction around the Mercosur trade deal for me was always about environmental standards. We know they are not the same and the EU admitted that. We have asked our farmers to meet the highest levels of environmental sustainability over 20 and 25 years, which has impacted their margin and costs. It cannot be the case that they then see product come in that is not of the same environmental standard and footprint. They do not have the same level of traceability there yet. It could be argued that trade deals try to raise all boats. It was unacceptable to our farmers that they would have to take a direct hit to the value of their beef industry here, and that is why I advocated to oppose the Mercosur deal. SPS standards were never in that. We know that 200,000 tonnes of Mercosur beef comes into Europe already and has done year on year. It comes in at a high tariff, between 40% and 50%.

That is the nature of it. If that comes in at that price point, then the proposal is that 99,000 tonnes of that would have a reduced tariff over a number of years. That does not have any impact on SPS standards. Food safety standards are non-negotiable, and they should be. I encourage the Deputy to engage with the State body in this regard, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI.

Perhaps the committee will consider that.

In relation to the best possible CAP, this is obviously where we are at. On the point around there being no new money and whether there will be shortages, there will not be. The flexibility being allowed here is that this is money that was being held back for the mid-term and for priorities at that time. It can now be used across the seven years, so it is just going to be available to us for longer. In an analogy with household income, people might have savings for a rainy day that they have put in some investment they cannot access for five years until their kids are going to college. Now, it is as if the restrictions have been lifted, and if people need to do a job in the house before the kids go to college, when they are 15 instead of 18, they can access that money. That is the idea of it. We all still have to be sure we have enough money when the kids get to college, and it is the same for our farmers in respect of ensuring we can manage this money over seven years. I am managing our TAMS budget now. This is the normal ebb and flow of this kind of process. It is better, but I am not saying it is new money because it is not.

We do have traceability and labelling as part of our agenda as well. That is being scheduled. We will move on to Deputy Cleere.

The Minister and his colleagues are welcome. It is good again to get the opportunity to continue our engagement on the Commission's proposal for the new CAP post 2027. I know huge work has gone into getting us to this stage from an Irish perspective. To manage the time best, I will fire through all my questions at once and then I will get the Minister to come back in.

The first issue, and this has been spoken about previously, is the reducatio in CAP funding. It is a huge priority that the CAP needs to be ring-fenced and adequately funded to make sure we continue to have that competitiveness. The new CAP has to be designed to retain its value in real terms, given the significant reduction that has been seen in previous years. It is also hugely important, and I know the Minister and his officials are working really hard on this, that the CAP be targeted at those who are primary producers of food. If the CAP budget is reduced as proposed, it is non-negotiable and double underlined that farmers’ incomes and family farms must be protected. Whatever comes out of this, that has to be non-negotiable.

In terms of generational renewal, we really need to see in the new CAP a little bit more imaginatio to make sure our younger farmers have sufficient incom and to make sure it remains an attractive and viable career option for young people. From a generational renewal perspective, especially with the challenges we have in Ireland with fewer than 5% of our farmers being aged under 35, we really need to fight hard to make sure there is a really strong package to encourage our younger farmers to get involved.

In relation to the LEADER programme, there is huge concern out there in terms of the two pillars and the possibility of there being only one in the next programme and the impact that might have, not just on agriculture but on rural Ireland and rural communities, the communities I represent and live in. In terms of any other potential avenues that might be available where funding can be drawn down under LEADER at the moment, are there other areas outside of the CAP where such funding might be drawn from?

Regarding simplification, I was delighted to hear the Minister speak earlier about the possibilities. There are so many schemes out there that it is mind-boggling. If there were fewer schemes, which were easier to access or broader schemes and fewer of them, that would make a huge difference to family farms around the country.

Those are my five questions: ring-fenced funding; generational renewal; LEADER funding; funding for rural Ireland; and simplification.

I thank the Deputy very much. When he was talking about ring-fenced and adequately funded money and the impact of that money in the economy, I was just thinking of Carlow-Kilkenny and the impact on local businesses in towns and villages all over his constituency and how that is driven by the farming and agricultural activity that happens across it, the same as it is in counties Kildare, Cork, Westmeath, etc. It is absolutely pivotal. We have to get this right for our country. This is about way more than just farmers. This impacts the small shopowner, the garage, the co-operative and everybody. We know 170,000 people are employed in this area, so it is pretty important, with the multiplier effect and the impact it has in that way.

On targeted measures, the points the Deputy made around this aspect and his next one on generational renewal are connected. Many people ask if there is going to be a scheme, how we would design it and all of that. People are not making the biggest decision of their lives between one generation and the next generation based on one scheme. It is about everything we do. The success we had last year in getting an extension to the nitrates derogation will have a huge impact on giving confidence to the next generation to take on a dairy farm and to invest in it. If we can get the bovine TB eradication programme back to where I think we can get it, and I really believe we can with the investment it is getting now, that can give an absolutely massive shot of confidence to generational renewal, no more than CAP, and will give a clear direction in that space.

The Deputy talked about targeted measures, and I wrote down a note about active farming and farmers’ incomes being protected. The definition of “active farming” is something we are all going to have to reflect on. If we get that definition right, it will absolutely support generational renewal. It will absolutely support people who are doing long-term leasing and will give clarity on what the price of that land will be and access to land. We know from the Commission's report on generational renewal the 31 different points and recommendations it made. A range of areas where there are challenges was highlighted. These included access to land, access to finance, gender challenges and a range of issues across these areas.

Having clear schemes, and probably fewer of them, in a more targeted way is something that will help us deliver in this regard. At the same time, we will never be looking beyond the fact that the biggest source of support for our generational renewal efforts come from our taxation system. We have a very generous taxation system compared to most of the rest of Europe. There is €325 million a year in taxation supports for our generational renewal and we know how important this is.

In terms of the LEADER programme, this is outside the ring-fenced funding now. Negotiations are ongoing. As I mentioned earlier, there is a limited amount in the pot. Broadening the number of things the pot covers would have to coincide with broadening the amount there is. There is no point in getting more things into the pot that are not ring-fenced at the minute and then not getting the 80% increased. The Department of Rural and Community Development and Gaeltacht is the lead department, but I will work closely with the Minister, Deputy Calleary.

Could there be some other avenues outside the CAP where funding traditionally provided through the CAP could be made available if it was under a different fund outside of the CAP?

There is not an obvious one at the minute. I would prefer to get the CAP funding bigger and get the LEADER programme back into it. The programme has worked well there. It has been hugely beneficial for our country.

Yes, it has been.

I want to see the LEADER programme protected, as does the Minister, Deputy Calleary. We are working together closely, and we will across government. That kind of comes back into the higher level, with the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and all the negotiations that will happen on the MFF, which will all be really important.

Perfect. That is fine. I thank the Minister.

First, I thank the Minister. That was a good result that we got today. I just want to publicly acknowledge the work he did with the farming organisations. The way he came out of that very important meeting had a huge impact on where we are today with Mercosur. I want to say that very clearly and publicly. When he took up the job, the Minister said that was one of his priorities and he has delivered on it. He has also delivered on the other one as well, to be fair to him, on the nitrates derogation. I want to give that compliment to him.

I just have eight questions I would like to ask the Minister. Farmers in my constituency are broadly supportive of the environmental ambitions, but many feel that the CAP post 2027 is drifting further from its core purpose of income support. Can the Minister outline what concrete guarantees Ireland is seeking to ensure that the next CAP will actually stabilise farm incomes, particularly for suckler, sheep and small mixed farms, rather than layering additional obligations on these already marginal enterprises?

Turning to convergence and the squeezed middle, many mid-sized family farms in rural Ireland feel they are being squeezed from both ends, losing out through convergence while not qualifying for targeted supports. Is Ireland actively pushing back at an EU level against further convergence post 2027 and what is the Minister’s red line in protecting the viability of these farms?

On the environmental schemes, while eco-schemes and environmental measures are described as voluntary, farmers increasingly feel that they are becoming de facto mandatory to be able to access a liveable payment from them. Will the Minister commit that the CAP post 2027 will not penalise farmers who cannot participate in certain schemes due to land type, stocking rates or their location, particularly in marginal and hilly areas?

The next question is about generational renewal versus reality. Generational renewal is repeatedly cited as a priority but young farmers tell me that CAP complexity, planning restrictions and land mobility are actively discouraging them. What meaningful changes is Ireland proposing in the post-2027 CAP to move beyond slogans and actually make farming a viable career choice for young people in rural constituencies like mine in County Laois?

My fifth question is about national flexibility and trust in farmers. There is growing frustration among farmers about inspections, penalties and administrative burden. For the CAP post 2027, will negotiations by Ireland push for greater national flexibility and a move to a more trust-based approach to compliance, or are we accepting a system that risks driving people out of farming altogether?

My next question is, as the Minister knows, dear to the heart of those people representing County Laois, even though I would not know how to plough a sod. On the matter of tillage focus versus quality viability, there is a one size CAP fits all. Tillage farmers in my constituency feel that CAP is increasingly designed around livestock systems, with tillage treated as an afterthought. In the CAP post 2027 negotiation, what specific measures is Ireland pushing for to recognise the higher cost base, volatility and risk exposure faced by tillage farmers, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach? Tillage farmers are deeply concerned about the ACRES system and productive land loss too.

My seventh question is about income volatility and market risk. Unlike other sectors, tillage farmers are exposed to global commodity markets, input price shocks and weather risk.

The next one is about rotational rules, flexibility and the reality on the ground. Current CAP rules about crop rotation and diversification often fail to reflect the soil type, weather conditions and market demand. In shaping the post-2027 CAP, will Ireland seek greater practical flexibility for tillage farmers or will there be even more rigid prescriptions undermining farm decision-making?

My last question is about competitiveness and carbon leakage. Tillage farmers are increasingly worried that the higher environmental standards in Ireland are not being matched by imports which are produced to lower standards. How will the CAP post 2027 protect the competitiveness of the Irish tillage farmer, prevent carbon leakage and ensure that domestic producers are not undercut by cheaper and less sustainable imports?

I reckon that answering those questions will take the Minister just ten seconds for each one and I will be within my time. I thank the Minister.

I think it will probably take a little more than that.

Every question I asked is for the farmers in County Laois who have asked me about this over the last 12 months since they elected me. They are very happy with me to date.

The Minister has the opportunity to send the answers in writing.

Let us use the time now. I thank Deputy Aird. As a proud Kildare man whose grandfather lived right on the Laois border beside Stradbally, I care about the Laois farmers too. We will see the Deputy there tomorrow when we are with the grain growers at the annual general meeting, which is in Athy this time. They are coming to my side for that.

Not to go into a full history lesson, the reason there was more environmental money the last time was because of Brexit. Britain had left and there was a 10% hole in the overall EU budget. Phil Hogan chased money in other areas to make sure the overall CAP was not cut. That was environmental, green money that had more conditionality around it. If someone wants to come in with another 20% and top up our coffers, I will be open to what conditionality comes with it because, ultimately, protecting farmers' incomes is key here. It is back to the point that our job is to try to have the maximum amount of flexibility we can in designing the schemes.

Deputy Aird is asking is about convergence, the squeezed middle, eco-schemes, the impact of generational renewal and national flexibility and compliance. On the point about convergence, the current position is that the regulations and proposals do not allow for entitlements. That will be a sea-change if that is how it finally lands. What strikes me with all the points the Deputy is raising is that we in Ireland farm differently from other places. Convergence is not an issue for the majority of my colleagues on the AGRIFISH Council because they were flattened years ago. We are one of only a few member states that this is a big issue for. That makes it harder when trying to weigh this up. If everything is a priority for me, then nothing is a priority, so I have to decide where I expend political capital. That is where engagement with the committee and stakeholders through the CAP consultative committee is really important.

On protecting viability, the Deputy talked about the squeezed middle. For me, it is the definition of the active farmer. That will be hard. That has a direct impact on generational renewal and all the points the Deputy is making here. I absolutely agree with Commissioner Hansen's ambitions regarding generational renewal. Currently, 3% of the CAP goes to generational renewal. The proposal is for it to go to 8%. As I said previously, a 5% increase towards generational renewal in the context of a bigger pot will be a challenge. Going from 3% to 8% of a reduced pot, since the money does not come from nowhere and comes off something else, is a really big challenge. Generational renewal is not just about one pot of money, one scheme and one thing. For me, it is everything we do, the definition of the active farmer, what we do around entitlements and eco-schemes and all the points the Deputy raised, including how we support the tillage sector and all the other sectors in that space.

Eco-schemes are moving to the co-funded element and can be annual. There will be more flexibility in this spaces. Eco-schemes have been really positive. I think €330 million has been paid out to farmers in eco-schemes. I made the point that Germany had a really convoluted way of designing it and all farmers could not access it. That was single farm payment money that farmers could not get at. We did not do that. We designed it so that farmers could get it, which is really important. Regarding tillage-----

I need to move on to the next speaker.

What about the young farmers? The Cathaoirleach is always on about them.

We should have an opportunity for seconds after everybody gets a chance.

Great.

I will keep a response for the Deputy for the next time.

That is all right.

Deputy Aird does not have to use the next eight minutes to ask all the questions again.

I welcome the Minister and officials. He has just dealt with the good lands and good farmers of Laois. Now we are moving on to an area of natural constraint in Westmeath. Areas of natural constraint were designed for what it says on the tin, so it has to be maintained. I have many asks of the Minister and only a few questions. Much of what I was going to say has been covered. I know the Minister is at negotiation stage and what is involved in those negotiations. He does not need me to tell him that a 20% reduction, even if we get what we had the last time, is a step back because of location. I will use the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, as an example. If I am getting a 60% grant to build a shed, the Department will have to give me twice as much money for the cost to build that shed compared with five years ago and it is still only getting one shed for twice the money. That is a step back, even if there is the same money to play with. We have to fight tooth and nail to get it back to parity.

The Minister made a point which cannot be made often enough and about which the message needs to go out. Many people think this is a brown envelope from Brussels for farmers and they will be all right. If there is a 20% reduction, that is a 20% reduction in the spend of the agriculture sector in rural Ireland. For businesses that are supplying to agriculture, a reduction of 20% of their turnover will lead to a loss of possibly 20% of jobs. That point needs to be made over and over again. This reduction will affect everybody, not just the farmer, in rural Ireland in particular because of the economic spread.

On pensions, the average age of the Irish farmer is 59. The majority of farmers I know have a job to complement their farming because they cannot farm without having a part-time job, at least, or a farmer who is working off-farm. How will that change when they hit pension age? If they need a job and an income to keep the farm going, they will need the pension when they have to retire from the job. It does not make sense that they would lose the CAP payment when they receive a State pension when, as I said, they need the second income to keep the farm going. We have to fight tooth and nail for that.

I am a big fan of coupling. CAP was originally set up so that we would have cheap, traceable, top-quality food. The farmers who should get the money are the farmers who are producing the food. I hate to hear of big CAP cheques going to corporations, armchair farmers and massive landowners who are not producing any food. Sometimes when a thing needs to be fixed, we need to look at its original format. If we tried to model this on the original CAP, I would be a big fan of paying for food production. This is about food security going forward. In my opinion, that is where the money should go.

Those are more comments than questions but maybe the Minister can give me his feeling on them. I wish him luck going forward. The multi-annual financial framework, MFF, will probably be decided during our Presidency. The MFF is the key here. The CAP will be dependent on the money which will be decided in the MFF. It is to be hoped having the Presidency will get the MFF budget back to where it was.

The last thing is this famous €45 billion. It is not new money, but based on what happened today, will it trigger at all? If there is a two-year wait now, is it written in stone that it is going to happen? There is no Mercosur happening for two years until the court has decided on it. Are we wasting our time here talking about the €45 billion because it will not trigger until the Mercosur trading starts? How is it fixed this evening after today's decision?

I thank Senator Daly for that. On that last question first on the €45 billion, like everything that is in the proposed CAP, it is a proposal. This was a proposal from Commissioner von der Leyen for an extra €45 billion. It was obviously made in the-----

Was it not a kind of condition that was put in to try to get Mercosur over the line? Now that Mercosur is not over the line, that is not on the table.

I know the question the Senator is asking. It was offered and it was discussed in the context of Mercosur, of improved safeguards and us saying there is going to be an economic hit on it. Like everything here, however, and like the fact that there are no entitlements provided for, such as the retirement age, they are all proposals. Commissioner von der Leyen's proposal was an extra €45 billion in taking that money there. It still has to be negotiated through the Council, the Commission and the Parliament and all that process. It is not nailed on. The Senator is asking a very valid question because today it is being kicked out. We could spend loads of time here trying to second-guess where Mercosur will go. There is talk there that perhaps it could provisionally be implemented and there is talk that it would be in abeyance at the European Court of Justice for years. We have to deal with what is in front of us but that is the proposal that has been put forward. While it was done in the context of the discussion of Mercosur, the proposal is there. We can get our access. We cannot be operating at 80%. We all agree that here. If it has been flagged that flexibility can be provided on that, it would be very hard for them to take that offer back, in my view, and I will go after it and I will look for the money because we really need it. That matters to the Senator's poor farmers in Westmeath for whom the Senator pleaded the béal bocht there with the areas of natural constraint, ANCs.

With regard to the ANCs, when I talked earlier about simplification and fewer schemes, you probably could not get a simpler way of directly getting money to farmers with the least amount of hassle and the least amount of administrative cost and burden than with the likes of the ANC. Who knows where we will end up here. We could have an enhanced ANC because it might be the only mechanism to try to get money to people in a simple way and have a list of measures and whatever. That all has to be worked out. That and coupling and the points the Senator made about coupling are all stuff we will engage on this year through the CAP subcommittee and through me with this committee here. I am interested to have this committee's feedback on coupling. With coupling, it does come out of one pot. It is not extra money whereby it can be got here and elsewhere. If there are changes there and if entitlements-----

No. I was referring to where it ends up.

Yes, absolutely. Let us say that entitlements are gone and there are no entitlements there, then we know there are some people who would lose out on that basis from a single farm payment, so would coupling be a mechanism there that could be used? They are all the things we have to consider when we get more detail on what the final proposals look like.

The point on the pension is a very valid one. I have said on the record a couple of times that I do not agree with the proposal of taking a single farm payment off a farmer because they have reached the State retirement age. The farmer I am thinking of most in that scenario is the poor farmer who would like to have a successor and does not have an identified successor, where either children, nieces or nephews are not interested or perhaps there are no children there and maybe the farmer lives on their own. They are stressed enough about it as it is and they would love to have that successor. The idea that the single farm payment would be taken off them, given that the farming activity they do at 65 compared with 66 would be the same farming activity and yet they would not have a single farm payment, goes back to the Senator's original point, that this is their net income and this is at the heart of their viability. This is why it needs to be thought out a lot more.

There is a racecourse in Kilbeggan and Senator Daly is very much involved in it. They only put racecourses next to where people are very wealthy people, so the Westmeath people are very wealthy.

It is all Laois people in them.

I thank the Minister for coming in. With the last CAP, inflation has eroded a third of the real value of it. To have a cut of 20% to 24% is not good enough, as we have all said. What is being done? The Minister is speaking to other countries. I presume other countries are in the same situation as us. What is being done in that line? Regarding the money we spoke of as the carrot for the stick of Mercosur, where was that money pulled out of? Was it money that we were going to get anyway with a bit of bargaining? Obviously we are not going to lie down and take what we are given; you always goes in for more. Was that money they were going to give us anyway? Was that written down anywhere? I have heard they were giving that money as a carrot for Mercosur. Was it written down anywhere that this was going to be given? Perhaps the Minister will just speak on that a bit.

We need to look at this whole generational renewal with farmers. My father-in-law is well retired. He is on the farm and it is for his mental health as well as to keep him active and keep him young, so we do not want farmers to be pushed off. They bring an expertise that is extremely important for the younger people. There are farmers who have to work to bring in an extra income, and then there are the fathers or grandfathers there to keep an eye. We do need to encourage younger people to come into it but also encourage the older farmers to stay on board. We do not want a situation where they stiffen up on the chair because they are not outside in the yard anymore. My father-in-law is not going to take up knitting or anything else, so for his own mental health he has to go out. When they get to retirement age they could be encouraged to stay on board. That is a real thing that we need to look out for. We also need to address the supports for the younger farmers because they are dropping away at an age and there are so few of them now. We have met a lot of the young farmers and they have such energy and drive, which needs to be encouraged.

The one thing with any new scheme is issues around paperwork or people think they cannot do it. Perhaps the forms do need to be simplified and we could squeeze them up a bit. A lot of stuff is being done that is almost the same thing being repeated. It is to simplify all of that.

We got the CAP payment for our food security and to top up farm incomes but it now seems to be all about the green payment. Everything seems to be heading that way and it is almost not so much about food security anymore. It is what we can make greener. With the whole Mercosur thing we really do see the importance of food security and to know where our food is from. A lot of people out there did not realise beef was coming from Mercosur countries. They did not realise it was on the shelves. When we have a situation where meat comes in in September, it gets tested and we do not get results until the sell-by date is truly gone in December, that is worrying. I know they have said there will be extra checks on that but extra checks and double checks is not good enough because the checks were too small anyway. We really need to maintain as much of this CAP as possible.

The Deputy said the cut of 20% or 24% is not good enough and she asked about what other counties are doing. This committee is probably quite reflective of the AGRIFISH Council which I sit on in Brussels once a month and I will be there next Monday, which is myself and the other 26 ministers for agriculture. We all tend to agree with each other that the money is not enough, if the truth be told. We all look to the Commissioner Hansen the way I look at the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputy Aird, now and say that we need more money and he says "I totally agree with you, and you could do with helping us", and it does bring home-----

He will not say that.

He will absolutely say that. He is trying to get it and he wants us to support him in that effort, which we do. His point is that we should bring that back to all our governments as well.

I completely agree with the Deputy that we can have this conversation on food security. Europe lost its way on food security. Some member states take it for granted. They forgot that the European project was and is primarily a peace project. At its heart, why the Common Agricultural Policy was such an integral part of the European project all the time was because the biggest cause of conflict in the world was hunger. Taking that for granted is a problem. We should not take our food security for granted. We could have a food security crisis very easily. On that basis, we want to try to make that point.

We also have loads of other challenges and crises across Europe. I am mindful when I sit at that AGRIFISH Council, while they are fighting to get more, these are ministers for agriculture in other governments who are making decisions around spending 5% or 6% of their annual government budget on defence because they are close to Russia and are convinced they are in a pre-war phase where Russia is contemplating invading them. They are not dealing with surpluses as we are here, with our economy going as well as it is. They are making cuts to spending in departments such as health and education to spend more on defence. In that context, we are saying we need them to pay more into the overall pot for Europe because we want to give more money to CAP.

This is ultimately about the MFF negotiations and the multi-annual financial framework that will be decided at leader level across Europe and about how big that cake is. What we are fighting for is how we can slice and dice it then, but we know other member states want a big chunk of the new cake to go to defence that did not go there before. That is their renewed priority, so unless we get a bigger cake and more people pay into it, or extra revenue-raising measures are put in to make it bigger, something is going to give. That is the space of those discussions. They are beyond my pay grade in terms of the overall element of it but, to go back to my earlier point, it really matters to Ireland because we are a net contributor. Per capita, we pay one of the highest levels per person into the overall EU budget each year. We get back less than we pay in, unlike when the Structural Funds built our country, built all the fine motorways, and gave us the structure and uplift to our economy. Those funds gave us that boost. We should be very proud of the fact we are net contributors now, but that means the main way we get some of the money back from Europe that we pay in is through our CAP receipts. A total of 75% of all the money that comes back to the Exchequer from Europe is through the Common Agricultural Policy. Therefore, it really matters to the Minister for Finance, the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and everybody that we all want this to be as successful as possible in getting that back.

Sorry, just to explain-----

The rest of you were able to go over.

The Deputy has a minute and 15 seconds.

Will the Minister explain the bit about the extra money given from Mercosur? Where is that coming from?

That was mid-term review money that was being held back. There is still some being held back to fund mid-term review measures. The flexibility being proposed is that €45 billion of that will be front-loaded and will be available to us to avail of. We are still scant on detail and it is still an early-stage proposal, but we would have access to it over the whole seven years from the very start, from 2028 onwards, and would not have to wait until 2031 for it.

Was that written down in a proposal?

The Deputy can come back in again. In fairness now-----

It is a proposal from President von der Leyen.

I thank the Minister for attending. It is one of the great boosts we get when the Minister comes in to answer questions because we are being asked questions all the time by our constituents, and if we do not have answers for them, we should not be here. Like everyone else, I am very happy about the vote regarding Mercosur today. I hope it will delay it for years and for as long as possible. We had many dark days during Christmas and through the shortest days of the year. I hope things will brighten up again with this hold-up. We hope it is permanent rather than temporary.

One of the things I have been asking about or highlighting at much of this recent committee is that, when we joined Europe, the CAP payments were to be compensation for farmers not getting properly paid for their produce. That has developed a bit now because we see the CAP payment being divvied up for, we are told, climate change, and that it is more anti-production. I do not agree with that. We are all unanimous that productive farmers should be seen after the ones who are struggling to keep their own food on the table, rear their families and have a fair, reasonable type of income and life with it.

Deputy Newsome Drennan raised the issue of pensions. I am glad to hear the Minister agree with her that it would be very wrong to stop farm payments for fellas who reach 66 or 67 years of age. I remember when some fella who won the lotto very early on, who was a farmer, was asked how he would spend the money. He said he would stay farming because the money would have to go into it. It is a fact you can keep putting money into a farm in the hope you will derive a better income out of it. If people want to change the climate or think that they can and want to spend money on it, it should not come out of the same fund we are giving to active farmers. It is not a present or gift these farmers are getting or are waiting for. It is to ensure they can live themselves.

Generational renewal is the big problem, especially for people with smaller farms. Young fellas now see that their companions can finish on Friday evening and do not have to show up until Monday morning. That is not the way for a farmer's son; he must be there. To entice them to take over the farm, we must help them financially and we must seek to do that in this CAP. CAP allocations will be reduced from €10.7 billion down to €8.16 billion. We have to realise that costs have gone through the roof. Instead of 20%, CAP could be reduced by 30% or 40%. It will be short that much. Is there anything we can do about that?

On suckler farmers, one of the things we aspired to in the programme for Government was to bring up the payment to the suckler farmers because, if we do not keep producing calves, our entire beef industry will fall down and the whole thing will be lost after all the years and the effort. The signs are there in that cow numbers are reducing. I have not left the Minister much time, but I would appreciate whatever answers he can give me.

What a great way for the Deputy to start his contribution by telling me that me being here gives a boost to his day. I am really delighted about that.

It certainly does.

Thanks very much. I also thank him for his comments on Mercosur and beyond. We continue to work closely on that.

The issue of CAP compensation and not being properly paid gets to the heart of the point I made earlier that we agree on, which is that single farm payments and CAP support are an integral part of farmers' viability. They are not a nice to have and are not an additional. I think it was Senator Daly who talked about people having a perception that it is a brown envelope farmers get to do something else with, but it is their key income. We know that. Whether it is the man with the lotto win or the lad taking a single farm payment, it is going directly into paying to run the farm and to pay a wage the farmer lives on. This is a really significant potential change.

The Deputy talked about climate change, anti-production and where we are at. I explained the history of why the money was chased for environmental purposes last time; it was to keep the money up.

Different decisions have to be made on every single CAP but the definition of the active farmer will be key for the next time. Generational renewal is a key point. We will have to maximise all the positions in the regulations to support young farmers while living within the budgetary scope. The same goes for the point the Deputy made around sucklers. I have big concern in that regard. We are seeing farmers vote with their feet, notwithstanding record prices for people last year. There are fewer farmers doing it. It is physically difficult work. That is linked to the challenges around generational renewal, the lack of identified successors and those pieces. Some meat factories are looking to review operations in terms of boning halls and such measures. That stands to reason. It also stands to reason given the record level of live exports, which the numbers are not going through the factories in the same way. We have to be mindful of this.

I was a suckler farmer for most of my life growing up and I am very proud of that. I loved it. The coupled payments, if that is the space we move into, will come out of the one pot. It is not additional money from somewhere else. We are still dealing with the same amount of overall money we get. It is about how smart we are and how we target it. That will come down to the priorities we will all agree on as to where we direct that money and the sectors that will need the most support.

I thank the Minister for his opening statement. I compliment him and his team on the fantastic work they are doing, specifically with regard to the nitrates derogation and the outcome of Mercosur. They deserve great credit.

There is always concern - there is no point saying otherwise – about the CAP, but these discussions are now taking place in a very different world than even one month ago. We are well aware of that. There is huge geopolitical uncertainty arising from international conflicts, energy instability and global trade tensions. In that context and given the need for increased food security in Ireland and the EU, does the Minister believe the old CAP structure, with its ring-fenced budget funding, should be retained rather than moving to the proposed new structure that has a risk of funding reallocations when national budgets come under pressure – as we are well aware - to cope with the external geopolitical shocks? This is happening at the moment.

I thank the Deputy for his warm comments at the start. The geopolitical uncertainty and everything affect the farmers in Clare every bit as much as they affect our businesses and those that pay corporate tax and so forth. They impact everything we do. I am acutely aware of them when it comes to protecting the key part of how we and our farmers operate. We are an export-led country. We export the vast majority of the food and drink we produce. The income derived from that food for farmers in Clare and beyond is critical. The support they get from Europe for operating at that higher standard, higher than anywhere else in the world, is important.

The old CAP budget would have been the preference in the context of Pillars 1 and 2. We expressed our concerns around the new proposal of the national and regional partnership plans, NRPP but, as I said earlier, it is the case that we have to be pragmatic in our approach. We must recognise that the European Council definitely did not do down the NRPP proposal in December. There is a direction of travel now and it is looking a little bit more inevitable.

I made the comparison earlier with how I handled Mercosur. At the start, I made it clear what we wanted. We worked with like-minded countries to try to achieve that but we never stopped working on a plan B around safeguards so that, in the event it were implemented, we would get more money and safeguards would be strengthened to protect farmers’ interests. The same is the case when it comes to advocating for the retention of the Pillars 1 and 2 structure and at least 100% of the last amount of money. At the same time, we will be mindful, if we do not get that and have to work within the NRPP structure, to ensure it is flexible enough to allow us to do what we need to do to best support our farmers. God forbid that we will not be at 100% of funding when this process is finished. I hope that is not the position between all the different elements to it. If we are in that position, however, flexibility is going to be more important than ever because it goes back to the point I made - this will come down to decisions. No more than decisions have to be made around the tillage scheme at the minute and how we allocate that money, the decisions we make will decide to whom we target the money. We will all have to agree on the farmers who need the most support. While every farmer and sector needs support, it will be about those farmers and sectors that need it the most and coming up with the most effective way of getting that support to them.

We must be mindful that support for farmers supports the whole rural ecosystem around them, including the towns and villages and all the spin-off industries. There is a multiplier effect when our farmers have money in their pockets that gives a boost to all of rural Ireland. That is why this is so important. We are working on having the maximum amount of flexibility on it at the end.

Under the new proposals, which we believe will have 25% less funding, and given rising costs, are we going to be able to cope? Will they put a lot of pressure on farmers going forward?

The Deputy knows me well enough from the past year to know that I am a glass-half-full kind of guy. I refuse to catastrophise about things where they are bad. Farming can be stressful enough in terms of income volatility and weather but we do not give ourselves enough credit in the farming and agriculture sector on how resilient we are given the number of big things our farmers have faced in the past 15 or 20 years. When I was growing up in the eighties, I was patted on the head at the Kilcullen mart and told there that was no future for a young man like me in farming because the Maastricht treaty was coming in 1992 and it would be the end of farming. The Maastricht treaty, Franz Fischler, Brexit, Covid-19, the invasion of Ukraine, the increased cost of living, greening and all these different things changed things but we are still farming. As a country, we farm differently but my farm still operates at home. When my time in politics is finished, I will be back farming full time again. Some of my children are looking at farming as a future as well. That is where we want to be.

We will manage this. We will get through it. I want farmers to retain that hope. There are very good people all around me, both in the Department and Brussels, who are determined and working across the Government to get this right to best support our sector. Will the support system be different in the future? Yes. Will we be farming differently? Absolutely. I am farming completely differently at home now than when we did in my mother and father’s time, may Lord have mercy on them. We will all roll with it and ensure that those processes protect farmers well. Ultimately, it will come down to decisions and all of us continuing to engage. That is why the work of this committee needs to be commended. The committee has done tireless work that is not always seen by the general public, such as all of the meetings with stakeholders and the compiling of that report. It matters and it feeds into key decisions we will have to make down the line because it helps to have the widest amount of consultation to feed in to make the right decision in the end.

I see where the Minister is coming from but we can see ourselves that we are finding it hard to encourage young people to get involved in farming. We can see the age group of farmers out there. If any stumbling blocks are put in their way going forward, we are going to turn more people away from farming. Does the Minister have any concerns in that regard with what has been proposed in the new CAP?

We absolutely have generational renewal challenges. Part of that is because we have never had as much opportunity in this country for a young person leaving school or college. They have loads of options. If we are to be honest about it, a lot of those options involve easier work and fewer hours compared with being a farmer, although it is an awful lot more rewarding. The generational renewal challenge largely comes down to income. No young person should have to accept a lesser quality of life than their peers with whom they went to school because they decided to be farmers as opposed to doing some other profession. How do we support them? We support them by ensuring that we continue to open the maximum amount of markets to get the best possible return for the food and drink produce they are producing. We support them through the mechanisms at our disposal and by trying to put as few barriers in their way as possible.

While this is a challenging space to be in, it is also an exciting space. To be the Minister at a time when we get to craft the next CAP allows us to think outside the box. We will deal with the hand we are dealt and then we will make sure there is the maximum amount of flexibility so that we can support that generation. We need that next generation in because they are the ones who are going to adopt newer and more modern farming approaches and mechanisms that are needed around income viability and beyond.

I agree with exactly what the Minister said. It is a challenging time but it is important to protect what we have going forward.

We need to move on to Senator Lynch. There will be an opportunity for a second round.

I thank the Minister for being with us today and for his feedback and input on CAP negotiations. Obviously, I share the Minister’s view and that of many of my colleagues here today. It is incredibly disappointing to see a budget drop of just over 20% in CAP particularly when this CAP is for 2028 onwards and the previous budget was from 2022. Obviously, with the price of inflation, this is a detrimental drop and it is something that is going to be very difficult to handle.

There is still an awful long way to go with negotiations. When someone is wheeling and dealing, he or she is never going to come out with best offer first. In that regard, I share the Minister’s optimism that we are not at the end game with the €300 billion figure.

What is the format of negotiations, going forward from here? When is the next proposal coming forward in terms of trilogue and ministerial negotiations? In light of that, I am asking about negotiations and where they go from here. As we are hosting the European Council Presidency from July of this year, will this allow us to bring CAP and the Irish position on it to the fore? What impact will that have in our negotiations with our colleagues?

Everyone has spoken about the lack of ring-fencing in respect of CAP and the change from the two-pillar system, whereby the CAP would come from the national and regional partnership plan, NRPP, allocation. I note that €8.16 billion is the current proposal for Ireland to take from our NRPP but there is still €4.2 billion left within that fund. Is it premature to be negotiating with Irish colleagues and Departments to see if we can increase our own CAP budget from within the NRPP? Is that something that will be done at a later date? Once the CAP is actually fixed, does the option exist throughout the period of the CAP to pull down extra money from the NRPP if we can reach agreement on that, which will obviously be difficult?

On generational renewal and the provisions relating to pensioners, my colleague Senator Daly has already spoken about it, as have others. They are inextricably linked. It is incredibly difficult for young people to get into farming when we look at the issues surrounding labour, finance, land, access to land, land mobility and succession. I note the starter pack that is included within the generational renewal proposal, which came from us here and from the European Commission. Are they strong enough? When will we see movement on generational renewal? My understanding of it under the CAP is that the first thing is for each member state to submit its own plan and it will kind of go from there. On the phasing-out of the pension, in terms of payments versus pension, what view is being expressed by other ministers for agriculture across Europe? It is something we are fairly up in arms about here and I have no doubt the Minister is too in his own submissions. What feedback is he getting from other ministers for agriculture when it comes to that provision about pensions? Is the view shared? Is it something we should consider amending, increasing to an older age rather than the actual pension age? I am not proposing or suggesting it, but we should be mindful of how it was here in the sixties and seventies, when it was not possible to get a pension until the land was signed over. It is not something we have not experienced before.

Will the Minister provide us with more information about the degressive area-based income support? What is his opinion on that, and what is our position? It is all linked. The crisis reserve within the CAP budget has now been renamed as the unity safety net, an amount of €6 billion. How will access to that work? Is it well defined as to what we can request funding for under that? There is an interesting provision within it to address market disturbance. How do we prove that? Within that fund, the market disturbance element might provide some form of compensation. I would find it interesting to see how that would work. Maybe it has not been fully rolled out.

I thank the Senator for that detailed range of questions. On the budget drop and the inflation she referenced, going back to 2021 and 2022, she is absolutely right. When we went out for a bite to eat or a few pints back in 2021, our €50 went a lot further than it would today and much further than it will in 2034. That real loss in the value of money, coupled with it not being the same amount, puts into sharp focus what the impact will be on how well we will be able to support farmers if that allocation does not increase. I am very confident and hopeful that I am going to continue to work on that and we will do everything we can.

On the Senator's question about having national discussions, absolutely not yet. To me, that is a trap that member states fall into. If we start fighting among ourselves at our own Cabinet table about how we are going to spend European money, we are leaving something behind us. We will fight for more European money until the last day while also working on proposals and how they work through. We have to continue to try to get more into the Common Agricultural Policy for all the reasons colleagues here have outlined.

The Senator asked about the process and how it works. It is currently with the Council and the Parliament. They are working through their processes and will come back with their own agreed proposals and positions. Our Council of agriculture ministers would hope to agree a general approach later in the year. We will have the Presidency from 1 July of this year, so that will be a pivotal moment for us on the AGRIFISH Council but also for Ireland in general, as we will be expected to significantly progress the multi-annual financial framework. Those budget negotiations will be a key part and will work in tandem. How they go will very much depend on where we are at.

On pensions, pensioners and generational renewal, the area of generational renewal is central to everything I do. It is not about one measure or intervention and sitting around waiting for that. The context of an 80% budget makes the things we want to do on generational renewal through the Common Agricultural Policy difficult from a money perspective. We have flexibility already through our national plans but all of our money is currently allocated. We do not have money set aside outside of annual budgets. We would not want to underestimate our annual budgets, however, compared with other European standards. Our taxation system is by far our single biggest support for generational renewal and is really important. In Britain and Northern Ireland, we see what happens if people take that for granted and a government comes in and slashes and burns inheritance tax proposals. It can have an absolutely devastating impact. We do not have that here. We have very strong financial supports through our taxation system. Generational renewal and the challenges we face in that space, which are what the Senator works on in the EPP on the farmers' group, are not unique to us in Ireland. It is an issue that all the Senator's colleagues are highlighting across Europe. It is a big challenge for us. The impediments are many and varied. We have to try to get to the root cause of them all to effect that big change.

The Senator asked about the views of colleagues on the AGRIFISH Council on pensions. They are mixed. It is not as big an issue for everyone. Some countries do not pay a pension until a person retires, which sounds like what most people would expect. When we are in a situation whereby the historical nature of it has been that this income comes in and we do not take the single farm payment away, that would be an awful big change to bring in for people. The Senator might reflect on constituents she would know in Cork who are farming and do not have an identified successor. They might live on their own and be farming away. They might love to work in that partnership. I think Deputy Newsome Drennan talked about the life experience of the older farmer who is looking to have an identified successor. I completely agree with her. The old retirement scheme banished them off the farm and we do not want that. What a lovely thing for a farmer to be able to impart their wisdom and life experience to a younger farmer with more energy, enthusiasm and ability to take risks. The younger farmer can be supported by the guidance of a person who has been through it all and knows how it works. That is what generational renewal should be. Really crude, blunt instruments like telling people they are not getting their single farm payment any more if they are getting the State pension really fly in the face of that sentiment. I recognise what Commissioner Hansen is trying to achieve, though. He is trying to crack a very big problem that we have across Europe. For generational renewal, the plan is there and we will look at that one.

Market disturbances are a challenge-----

Maybe we could give Deputy Paul Lawless an opportunity. There will be another round where we can get answers to the remaining questions.

I thank the Minister and his officials for coming in. I do not have a lot more questions. We are talking about a 20% reduction in CAP and whether a pensioner will receive his CAP payments or his pension entitlements. We are essentially talking about a reduction of €360 million per year in CAP. Meanwhile, it is important to say that Ireland is a net contributor to the European Union. We are second only to Germany in relation to our contributions.

When we are talking about this money, we are actually talking about Irish money. We are not talking about European money. This is Irish taxpayers' money. We are net contributors and we are second only to Germany. We see the influence and power that Germany has in relation to the direction of trade deals, etc.

Has the Minister assessed the fact that Ireland is a net contributor and that 75%, as the Minister mentioned, of the funding that Ireland receives comes through CAP? Where will this reduction leave us in terms of that? Has the Minister made this point to his European colleagues? When they are talking about reduction of CAP and about this as a European pot of money, has the Minister made it clear to them that this is Irish money and this could push us ahead of Germany in terms of net contributors? I would like the Minister's thoughts on that, whether he has stressed that and whether his Department has conducted any analysis of where this would ultimately push us in terms of that table.

I thank Deputy Lawless for the points he raised. We all share concerns around not having, at the very least, a 100% fully funded CAP. That is what we continue to work towards.

Earlier I made the point that we are a net contributor to the EU. The Deputy is dead right. On a per capita basis, we are one of the highest in Europe. Compared to larger countries with much bigger populations than ours, our figure is still very small compared to what they would put in, but it is big for us and it is big on a per-head basis. It means when I sit on the AGRIFISH Council, or my colleagues are out in Brussels as well, I do not feel that Ireland is a small member nation with 5 million people, or that we are on the periphery of Europe; I feel we are absolutely integral to it. The former eastern bloc countries look at us as a model of how the European Union has been a success. Those early Structural Funds in the 1980s helped us to build up the infrastructure in our country to allow us be in a position to grow our economy, become prosperous and proudly be in a position that we are net contributors. That is not a negative; it is a positive. It means our economy is going well. If we surpass another country in terms of net contributions, it is because we continue to grow our economy. The metrics on which it is measured are how your economy is going as well as the population and size.

When I sit at the AGRIFISH Council and talk to colleagues about where our money has come from, I do not say it is Irish money because they could turn around and say it is German or Danish money. It is all our money. We pay into the pot. They pay into the pot. The bigger discussion that will be had, at leader level and at finance minister level, is based on the idea that it all goes into a pot. I referred to it earlier as a cake. The slices of the cake and the demand for other priorities of spending out of that pot are growing.

The slice of our cake is primarily made up of CAP. Clearly, any reduction of CAP has a much greater and more disproportionate burden on Ireland. That is the point I am making. We are talking about the Irish money unless there is another stream of money and the European Commission, etc., will say it will reduce CAP but, because Ireland will be disproportionately impacted, it will give us funding in another stream. That is my question.

That is not how Europe's budgets work. Maybe the committee needs the Minister for Finance in to explain it to the Deputy. We are a net contributor. We pay in a lot because we have a very strong economy, we are doing very well and we are in a position where we should be contributing to the overall budget of Europe. If every member state said, "That is our money and we need to get exactly back what we put in", what would be the point in being in it? People would say, "Let us just stay on our own." There is a common effort here to go in. When former eastern bloc countries that are beside Russia are petrified of Russia invading them and are spending more on defence, they expect us to back them the same way they backed us on Brexit, and different areas as well.

It would be a little simplistic if we were to go down the Deputy's line too much. I stated on the record earlier to Deputy Fitzmaurice that we are one of the biggest net contributors per capita and that 75% of the receipts we get back from Europe - the overall amount we get back from Europe is less than what we pay in because we are net contributors for all the reasons I outlined - is through the CAP so what happens there really matters. That is not the only reason we are advocating for this. We do not sit there and only talk about ourselves. From a European perspective, as I have said previously, the regulations and standards that we are held to, and the hoops our farmers have to jump through which can be a cause of frustration for them, mean that we produce the food better in Europe than anywhere else in the rest of the world. On that basis, I strongly believe we should not be producing less of it. We should be producing more of that food because we do it better than other places in the world. Sometimes those policies can go too far and can drive down the amount of food that is being produced, and that is not what we want. I do not just sit there and talk about Ireland; I make the point around food security. I make the point that the EU project was a peace project, that food security is at the heart of it, that the Common Agricultural Policy focuses on that and that we cannot lose sight of it.

The Mercosur deal has been referred to the European Court of Justice, ECJ. Bloomberg and Reuters are reporting today that the Commission may proceed with the deal provisionally pending the ECJ ruling. Can I get the Minister's thoughts on that? How will the Minister ensure the deal is stopped until this ruling happens?

My role in relation to this as part of the Government was to advocate on behalf of the agriculture sector and to hold true to the commitment in the programme for Government to work with like-minded countries that opposed the deal, and that is what I did. For the last 12 months, I did that. I held true. I spoke out at Brussels, at every meeting I was at, with my concerns and my opposition to the Mercosur trade deal. That culminated in Government voting against ratifying it.

The Minister must be very disappointed that Maria Walsh MEP, Seán Kelly MEP and Regina Doherty MEP voted not to refer to the ECJ.

The focus is on CAP. The main business is CAP. I will move on to the next speaker, Deputy Kenny. We will have an opportunity for seconds.

It sounds like dinner, going for seconds.

Put a bit of salt on it.

One of the key points in regard to the CAP budget we spoke about earlier is where the money is going to come from and how much money will be put in place. During the EU Presidency coming up in the next six months, is the Minister expecting that full clarity will be found around the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, by the time we are at the end of that Presidency?

Yes. There will be huge pressure on Ireland and an expectation that we will culminate during our Presidency the discussions on the MFF. If you take it in terms of all the things we are talking about, we will progress as much as we can of the Common Agricultural Policy but the overall budget negotiations are at the heart of it - how much money is there and the mechanism for doing it.

Cyprus's EU Presidency is currently steering the discussions on the MFF, the national and regional partnership plans, NRPPs, and the CAP regulations, including following up on the Commission non-paper on transferring CAP articles. The movement on the CAP articles is that the discussion in the working group is expected from February. That is the timeline on that one. There will be drafting proposals likely to begin in March - this is a response to Senator Lynch, who was asking around timelines as well. Further clarification is expected on CAP governance within the NRPPs on the implications of President von der Leyen's letter on financing, the structured stakeholder engagement, public consultation and targeted internal workshops across Department of agriculture divisions so that we identify what is workable, what the red lines are and what the trade-offs are - all of that discussion will happen this year - as well as the development of a clear consolidated Irish position on the CAP regulations by the end of March, ahead of us entering into Presidency mode. In the Presidency, we will absolutely have an influence but we will also be an honest broker expected to deliver for all of Europe, and we will have to balance that.

On the budget side, I would say we would be very hopeful that we can progress that. You need every member state to work with you. You need the Commission and everyone to do their piece. It is important that we get clarity on the budget sooner rather than later, but at the same time we need the right result, not a quick result. If it means hanging out for longer to try to get more money, I will be up for that.

It is clear from the vote today and everything else. It shows that the agriculture lobby across the European Union is strong and that rural communities are putting the pressure on. I hope that Ursula von der Leyen, the Commission and everyone else in play will recognise that.

There is a tendency among people out there - I come across it living in a rural community and I am sure other committee members come across it as well - to be a little sceptical of Europe. You hear that, and it is not a good thing. We need to be able to stand up for ourselves but we also need to be able to recognise the benefits and positivity that is there.

That is why I think Ireland's Presidency has an opportunity to be a lead in that, to carry that banner proudly and strongly, and to say that we represent rural communities not just in Ireland but across Europe, which have flexed their muscles a little this morning and said they will not be kicked about here. That puts a certain level of responsibility on the Minister, if he does not mind me saying so, and also on the Taoiseach and everyone else, when we go into the Presidency in the next months, to deliver an enhanced CAP for farmers.

I completely agree. We all have a responsibility. Brexit did not happen by mistake. It happened because there was a lack of leadership for 20, 30 or 40 years to explain what Europe does. That is hard at times. People are annoyed about things at home and it is easy to say they-----

There is often a tendency for politicians at home to blame Europe for stuff they are screwing up. There is a possibility of that happening.

Thankfully I have never done it. I see that it is important that we talk up the positives. The point I made at the start, while it can sound contradictory, is that I am in Brussels looking for subsidiarity and the ability to have the flexibility to make local decisions to recognise the fact that people in our State, Ireland, farm differently from people in Slovakia, Germany, Denmark or wherever. At the same time as making that point, I am not saying we want to be an island on our own. I am recognising that we in Ireland have massive benefits from being part of a trading bloc that has 600 million people in it, and the common element of the Common Agricultural Policy is really in our interest. We need that bit of flexibility but we do not need to all go into our own silos and for every country to be competing against each other, because we are stronger together. Ireland in particular has benefited hugely from being part of the European trading bloc. We do not always agree on everything. We argue our corner on it, but we do so from a position of strength, which I will be looking to continue this year.

A range of questions from Deputy Aird remained unanswered.

I have no additional questions. The Minister might give one minute to each of the answers. I asked about generational renewal versus reality.

I still have the questions Deputy Aird asked.

Will the Minister answer the question about generational renewal versus reality? All the young people in County Laois are on to me about it. There are less than 4% in farming, as the Minister knows.

The Deputy mentioned planning and land mobility. The report of the commission on generational renewal identified all the challenges we face. I do not believe that just one scheme or intervention in policy design will fix the challenges we face. Income is key but so is access to land. Decisions that we make around entitlements and definitions of active farmers will absolutely have a massive impact on young farmers who are wondering if they will have much land and if they will have it for long enough to be able to invest in it. In Michael Noonan's time, the move to long-term leasing and the generous tax incentives for that were a game-changer, but whether it is operating in the best interest of generational renewal is questionable. Are there opportunities to change there?

The minute is up on that. The tillage-focused question was about tillage viability versus a one-size-fits-all CAP. The cereal farmer thinks that everything is going to the livestock farmer. Will the Minister speak on that?

I would argue against that. The irony is that in my first meeting in Brussels, the senior official in the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development said to me that we are the opposite of every other country in Europe, since we are the one country that does not have enough tillage. The big concern across Europe is that most countries have too much tillage and not enough grass. We are the opposite here and the EU supports us in recognising that we need to protect our tillage sector. It is so important. There is an ecosystem of interdependency across different areas. In fairness to the Commission, it has given us the flexibility to be able to direct supports into the tillage sector. I am working with the Commission now on how we administer the €30 million. Many of those tillage farmers are in Laois. The protein aid and straw incorporation schemes are co-funded schemes that are really beneficial to the tillage sector, so tillage farmers definitely benefit from being part of Europe.

The next one was on the eco-schemes and productive land loss.

I was explaining that one at the start. That is the general run-of-the-mill audits that happen. The European Court of Auditors highlighted audit issues with the land parcel identification system, LPIS, data and weightings attributed to the space for nature. It is about hedgerows beside houses. In some cases, the hedgerows are in the garden and so are not eligible. If a hedgerow is in a garden and is not out in a productive field, it should not have been counted as space for nature. In some instances, it was. In the vast majority of these cases, we are flagging this with the farmers now before we open the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, scheme so that when they make the application, they have spare space for nature that they can reallocate that to. We will be able to work through this with them. This is not any big change for the new CAP. This is just the normal, run-of-the-mill CAP and we are flagging it with them early. Hedgerows beside non-parcels, ineligible crops and areas that are not roadways are the ones to look at.

Will the Minister address income volatility and market risk?

Income volatility is a key part. We try to address it in our budgets too. We have income averaging here. We can see in the dairy sector the high prices last year and the challenging year that 2026 will be. All the indications are that the price of milk will be the price for the majority of 2026 because of the oversupply coming from the United States and beyond. Inadvertently, the high price of beef is driving milk production because American farmers and others are calving cows that they might not have otherwise because they are getting a better price for the calf. That will continue to lead to a higher level of milk consumption.

Cheap grain does that too.

There are many contributing factors but the price of beef being where it is has direct knock-on implications. We have to make sure that there is a solid, stable income for our farmers from the food they produce, which is where they want to get their money from, and at times when it is not there, that we are able to support them. We have not been found wanting in the past.

The other question I had was about soil type, rotation rules, flexibility and the reality on the ground.

That will be GAEC 7. The simplification package that was recently announced created additional flexibility around crop rotations and diversification rules, and farm holdings of less than 30 ha are exempt. A good bit of flexibility has come into GAEC. When I was in front of this committee last year to address GAEC 2 and carbon-rich soils, people were very concerned about them. I am happy that, today, a year on, only two farmers in the whole country have lodged an appeal on GAEC 2, and nobody's farming system has had to change at all. The fear and scaremongering, and the big concern-----

The last question was about competitiveness and carbon leakage. That is all my questions.

On the tillage side?

Yes.

From that perspective, that includes maximum residue limits, MRLs, and the mix standards across Europe. Commissioner Várhelyi has been working hard on that. There are certain tolerances across Europe. If something goes to zero, it can have many knock-on impacts. I will be at the annual general meeting of the Irish Grain Growers in the morning and will be discussing the frustrations on the tillage side, and the work we are doing on MRLs and the common market organisation, CMO, for co-operatives. I discussed it with the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society, ICOS, yesterday. There is an awful lot of regulation there and much small detail of what we do, which will have an impact, and we are very aware of it.

I thank the Minister. I will not be there in the morning. Would he tell the Irish Grain Growers I raised those questions on their behalf?

I will bring the list with me and show them all eight questions Deputy Aird asked.

I have a statement more than a question. The Minister covered it somewhat. We have to be careful with our narrative, because we can promote euroscepticism by saying we are net contributors and we are better off out because we give more than we get. We would not have anything to give to it if we did not have access to a market of 500 million or 600 million people. That is the bottom line. We were not always net contributors. I am older than the Minister but I have worked the farm too. My father turned bad land into good land. He got grants to reclaim land. He got on his feet with money that came from Brussels. That is the foundation of what we are working with now. Eaten bread is soon forgotten, and while money is important and makes the world go round, there is more to our EU membership than the money, the market being the big one. We have to maintain that. We would have nothing if we did not have the market. Having said that, we are depending on the Minister to get at least parity on the budget, if not more, but certainly not less.

I completely agree with the Senator's sentiment. I do not shy away from singing the virtues of Europe while also saying we hold it to account, we hold colleagues to account, and we fight our corner with sharp elbows. I would be worried about a cut in the CAP because it could feed into people who want to peddle a line about scepticism around Europe, for a variety of different reasons. That will always exist. Our prosperity is directly linked to our membership of the EU. We should be proud of that. I am proud that we are a net contributor but I also want to make sure we get a fair deal. We will do that in all our negotiations with the Commission and with our colleagues across the Council.

What is happening with entitlements? There is mention in the proposals that these include the removal of entitlements, the introduction of a per hectare payment system and capping of area-based income support at lower payment levels. What is happening with that?

Currently, there is no provision for entitlements in the proposals. Entitlements appear to be abolished as of the current proposal. We are at an early stage. This is not an issue for the majority of member states as much as it would be for us. There definitely has been the shift to the flat rate per hectare payment. That is at an advantaged stage. The Commission’s model is framed as redistributive. Without published impact assessments, the real effects on Irish family farms remain unclear. Ireland cannot support measures that reduce income stability. That is important for viable family farms without the robust evidence base. We need that evidence. We need flexibility on degressivity. Senator Lynch asked about this earlier. The Commission's proposals on degressivity propose that the first €20,000 of a single farm payment will be unaffected. The next €30,000 will reduce by 25%, the next €25,000 will reduce by 50%, the next €25,000 will reduce by 75% and anything over 100% will have a fully redistributive effective cap at €61,250. We are capped already at €66,000. Those measures at the higher end do not have the same impact. There is an awful lot of proposals here around how the entitlements go. Does Ms Roe wish to come in there?

The main thing is that we are at the very early stages, but we are one of the few member states that still has the entitlement-based system. We will work through with the Commission and expert groups to figure out how they intend this process to work. We will look for an Irish flavour on that as always. It is probably the best way to talk about it.

If there is an end to entitlements, that needs to be carefully managed here because a lot of people will be impacted. People could get caught with long-term leases with changes over and everything. The proposals as they stand do not allow for entitlements. We have to reflect on that. We are at 85% flat. This would be a very big change. Back to the points that Deputy Aird and others raised about generational renewal and active farmers, we need to reflect on who would benefit and who would not from that perspective and whether the active farmer is disadvantaged by the current set up. There are a huge number of challenges around entitlements. There are a lot of things that can go wrong. A lot of the representations that I get in my office from colleagues in the Houses reflecting constituents' challenges are around entitlements. There is a lot of stress and strain around them. We talk about simplification, but we need a proper analysis and a detailed model that tells us who is the worst affected - coupling was mentioned earlier - and then decide whether we go back and try to direct the support to the person who is the most impacted.

Directly around me in Kerry, what about the young fellas in recent times that are after buying entitlements over the past few years?

That is why it is very important. The committee is aware of this. It has been touched on in the negotiations. Senator Daly raised this point about entitlements at the committee last year. This is something we have to be mindful of. People need to be very careful in the decisions they are making on entitlements right now.

We will have to work seriously hard on this to change this because this will have a massive impact. It could close fellas down. If they do not have entitlements, they cannot pay their leases and different things.

It is important to reassure people on entitlements. Entitlements are in place for 2026 and 2027. What we are talking about here is what the environment in a situation at least from 2028 and possibly later. If we run out of time and do not get the negotiations done in time, there may be an interim transition period where current conditions would continue for 2028. The last time there was an extension. I do not know for sure. We are not there yet. It will be a decision that will have to be made at some point for the next couple of years. People need to be mindful of that fact that entitlements are not guaranteed to be there, and they are key part of our consideration. This has been well flagged.

We all know the value of the LEADER programme in rural communities. We think of the people on the rural social scheme and the great work they do around all our parishes and localities. What funding can they expect this year or in this new CAP? What is that story about?

Again, they are funded for 2026 and 2027 under the current CAP. Everything we are talking for CAP is post 2027 into 2028. The 80% ring-fenced funding that we have talked about that we have at present, which we all agree is not enough, is ring-fenced for single farm payments for the direct supports to farmers. LEADER is not included in that. ACRES and European innovation partnerships, EIPs, which have been hugely successful, are not covered by ring-fenced money. Let us be honest: if we drag LEADER in and manage to get it in ring-fenced but did not get the 80% increased, the 80% will be further diluted. We have to try increase the number of measures, including LEADER, that are ring-fenced and get more money for them. This is a very challenging space to be in. It is a cause of concern for LEADER programmes.

I am working closely with the Minister, Deputy Calleary. We are doing everything across government. The Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht is the lead Department in the administration of LEADER. I know the great work that LEADER does in counties Kildare and Kerry and we do not want to lose that.

I asked the wrong questions.

I always like to leave the meeting on a positive.

I call Deputy Cooney. He can put a big positive spin on it all.

Exactly. In light of the geopolitical situation, has the Department done a budget impact assessment on whether core farmer supports could be undermined or diverted to non-agricultural priorities by the move to the new CAP funding?

Modelling is ongoing. Any decisions I want to make are fact-based. I want to consult with everybody. A key part of that public consultation that we are going to have all throughout March is that we have to be able to show the impact different decisions will make. The modelling is continuing. We hope to have more detail in the coming weeks not to be a hostage of fortune on that. Our intention and timelines are clear here. We want to have public consultation in March. We want that public consultation, where everybody gets to have a say on, including this committee, to be in the context of being aware of if we do X, this is what happens, and if Y happens, this is who is impacted and how much they are impacted. It is important that we have that. The work is ongoing.

Is this impact assessment ongoing?

There is clear modelling around a range of options and measures. It means that any decisions we make we will be making with our eyes wide open. Some of them will be decisions we are making. Others might be proposals that remain mandatory, and we cannot change, but at least we will know what the impact of them is. Therefore, that is where we are talking about flexibility. We will try to mitigate the things that are going to be bad for Irish farmers and we will try to get the things that are going to be good. If something is bad and the models tells us that it is going to be bad, we will have the flexibility to be able to do a countermeasure that outsets that bad thing. That is layman's terms at a high level of where we want to get to. That modelling is going to be a key part of that. We will have that for the committee in the coming weeks.

That is ideal. It will be good to have that. It is good that this assessment is being carried out.

It is critical. We want to make sure that every decision we make is fact-based and is not based on sentiment. We are all at risk that we make comments and make decisions based on how we feel about something. We want to be sure that what we think is the impact of a problem is true before we introduce a countermeasure.

I am delighted that the Minister is giving it consideration.

We have had an opportunity for seconds. Is anyone minded for dessert? I call Senator Daly. He has two minutes.

To be devil's advocate for the purpose of debate, what happens if the Department does not get it up to 100%? A couple of years ago, we were introducing the forestry programme and we were putting in State money. We applied to Europe for permission under state aid funding to have that forestry scheme. Is that something that could be considered with domestic money? Is there an application route whereby if the deal is gone, the Commissions knows it is cutting us short here but our economy is going reasonably well at the moment, under state aid rules, we can back it up with some of our own money?

In general, with state aid rules, you can cofinance under Pillar 2 and there will still be that element in the NRPP. Cofinancing will be an option there. State aid rules are things you can occasionally ask to be offset. They are not keen to do it too often. If we look at the kind of support our fisheries sector needs right now, state aid rules could be an impediment. Most farmers do not pay any attention to the detail of how we issue supports. They just hear the headline about a support payment, but we have a lot of work with the mechanism we use to distribute the tillage support scheme money. Do we use de minimis and those different elements? A lot of work goes on behind the scenes in that area and you cannot top up Pillar 1.

Under any conditions.

No, definitely not. State aid would be necessary outside of CAP. It would be a domestic decision, and it would be difficult. As the Senator said, there are national budgetary considerations, if you are going well in compliance with the rules under state aid that you have to get approval for. However, there is a broader point. The Senator is wishing me well in the year ahead. From a negotiation perspective, it would be a fatal mistake for us to fall into that trap as well.

I get that.

I understand that Deputy Kenny or one of his colleagues in oral questions asked me the question in the Dáil and I hit back hard, because I wanted the record of the Dáil to be clear. We are not having that conversation nationally. It would be lovely for them to send us back to fight among ourselves. There will be a day and a time when no matter how much European money we get ring-fenced into this, I will be back looking for more from colleagues. That is not the thing to do now because there is still more money to chase in Europe. That is my view.

Senator Daly was talking about the possibility in the future. I am thinking particularly of the LEADER and rural development programmes and the grants that used to be available for farmers. Sometimes it could be an alternative farm enterprise or something like that. For that type of stuff there will be no pillars, they will be gone. That type of stuff will be difficult to find funding from Europe for. That is the notion I am getting. We are not in a place yet where we should be saying it is not going to happen. We should be fighting for it. I agree with the Minister.

Absolutely, yes.

Many of our rural communities are depending on schemes and little social enterprises that keep families going and keep things moving along. They are looking at an uncertain future. There needs to be some level of assurance put in place that their future is going to be secure and there is going to be something there. The Minister may not need to be specific yet as to how and what the mechanisms are going to be, but that will be required, particularly when we talk about LEADER and the other social enterprise programmes out there.

You can transfer that sentiment to the young generation worried about generational renewal and the older generation wondering will their children, offspring, nieces or nephews take over the farm and release them of the burden of being an older farmer. That sentiment and reassurance is needed across the board. I will try to provide as much as I can. The general principle I was debating with Senator Lynch about being positive and glass half full about it is that history tells us that, despite the challenges we face, we are a resilient sector that generally comes out and manages this. That is not to say that things will not be different or there will not be change. I cannot give absolute guarantees, and I do not want to mislead people. We are in a phase of negotiations now that need to get intense all of this year because a lot of the proposals we are talking about have an absence of real detail about them. That is a concern for us. There is also an absence within the NRPP of exactly how much restriction and flexibility there will be within that. Nationally we have schemes for rural funding under local enterprise offices. There are different mechanisms to support rural enterprises and so on, but there is no doubt LEADER has a key role. It does in my constituency, and I am sure it does in the Deputy's. We do not want to lose that.

I will follow on from that conversation on the importance of LEADER funding. I turn to this proposal, and the NRPP and CAP is under that and there are all these other things falling under it. Speaking to the Committee of the Regions, it is wild against this in terms of cohesion funding, as are many groups. Does the Minister think there is any chance that structural part of the proposal can change? I know it is early days and there is optimism and positivity with regard to the component. Is there any change in the structure of the proposal? Speaking with European colleagues across the board, there is a lot of opposition to this structural element. I assume the Minister's agricultural ministerial colleagues are saying the same thing from a CAP point of view. However, it is not just CAP, it is the other sectors that will be funded from within the NRPP. They feel they are getting the short straw. Is there requisite opposition to that for it to change at a structural level?

It is a fair point. There is a lot of concern at the AGRIFISH Council that the special committee on agriculture would not be making every decision, and that decisions are potentially made on the NRPP by people who do not have a full understanding of their impact on agriculture and how that could play out. We have to be pragmatic. We have all expressed our concern about the NRPP and the requirements. There will be large support across Europe for sticking to the two-pillar model. The phrase used a lot by colleagues has been about evolution instead of revolution and recognising that we had massive change to our systems the last time. It would be better to not tear up the copybook this time. The NRPP is a result of the fact the Commission cannot raise the amount of money to meet every demand or requirement at present from member states. Member states are saying on the one hand that they will not give in more money, but on the other that they want all these new priorities and more money spent in different areas like defence. Something has to give, and the Commission is trying to manage that. The European Council essentially endorsed the structure in December. It did not vote it down or tear up the copybook. In the short term it needs to be our working assumption, and it is about continuing to raise the points. There is always a judgment call in expending political capital. How far do you go down a rabbit hole fighting against something? If it begins to look inevitable, are you better to use that time and energy changing the structure within than trying to stop it? We continue to monitor that one, but it feels like the direction of travel is set going into this year.

I support everyone in what they have said about LEADER. Every county gained massively from LEADER. It was great. It reached out to communities that we thought would never get anything. To be fair, I think it worked well. I want to ask about convergence and the squeezed middle. We talk about the family-sized farm. That has to be worked out yet. Everyone has a different version. What is the red line issue with the Minister and the Department going forward on protecting family farms in this country?

Ultimately, the red line issue is to get the maximum amount of money into the CAP. That sounds like a general answer, but it is critical and the best way we can support our farming families and the averaged sized farm. The key target of the Department is farms where you worry about their viability should there be a 20% cut in the budget. At the heart of that, it is all about the pot of money. There is a range of detail about how we slice it, dice it, administer it and what complexity there is on it. The number one thing is the amount of money. The second thing is how much flexibility there is to make our own decision on the regulations. That is critical. If it is the right thing for this country that there are not entitlements the next time and we can manage to support the sectors impacted like that, I would much prefer to own that decision, as unpopular as it might be with some people and not unpopular with others. I would prefer to own that decision and be making it in the best interests of Ireland, and not because it is a mandatory measure from Brussels that everybody has to do. That is what I mean about the flexibility being really important. I am not afraid of making hard decisions. I have proved that in my first year. I love to be able to do it after detailed consultation, with all the modelling Deputy Cooney talked about, and making sure we have all the facts and figures to know what the outcomes of our decisions are. If we are making good decisions as a Minister or Government, or as Europeans across the system, it occasionally means a decision you make will benefit one cohort and disadvantage another. If you know that, you can try to mitigate the measures and do the right thing. If we are making decisions because they are mandatory, that is a really significant challenge for us.

It is about balancing sustainability in all its forms as well, recognising that economic sustainability for our farmers is as important as environmental sustainability and social sustainability where they live. It is not just about Ireland. We could think of Italy and every country that has peripheral regions and balanced regional development. We have a movement of our populations to our cities. We need to sustain our rural communities and have them thriving and keep them going. Agriculture and the Common Agricultural Policy is the best way we can drive that money in to do that.

This is a great meeting, the best one we ever had in the agriculture committee so far. It is a very good meeting.

The praise is high.

It is a very good meeting. We got all our questions answered.

Call it up.

No, we had better finish. As the Minister knows, any time there is change, there is a lot of concern.

Yes.

The reduction in funding is going to be a concern and this is going to be looked at, discussed and talked about for the next number of months. Would the Minister be confident we will have a better system in place when the new CAP comes in or what would his views be on it?

I do not know if it will be better. It will be different and we will make it as good as we possibly can with the cards we are dealt. We will try to influence it in that way, but I am always positive. I can reassure the Deputy, though, about the level of work and detail here. I commend Mr. Paul Savage, Ms Corina Roe and Ms Edwina Love who are here with me. They are the forward face of a massive team of people who work across the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine who really get this in a level of detail that is very impressive.

When I fly to Brussels on Sunday afternoon, we will go into a room over in the permanent representation in Brussels, sit down, and, over a pizza, a load of other people will come in and brief us on everything that is going to happen in the meeting the next day. We will agree our strategy and our priorities and how we are going to get through that. I would love the farmers at home to be reassured that a lot of very good people are all over the detail of this, here and out in Brussels. They are working really hard on this. It is not just here, as in Dublin, but all over the Department’s offices. There is the office in Portlaoise, obviously, which has a key role to play in terms of payments, and there is the office in Wexford, for a variety of different reasons, on the environmental side. All arms of the Department of agriculture are on this. It is a top priority. They have never let us down in the past.

We have managed and try to manage it, and it is my honour to be able to lead this area. I am really excited about the year ahead. I am delighted we are in a position where we will be trying to get as much control over the decision-making as we can. I cannot guarantee what that end outcome will look like, but I know it will be the best deal we can get, based on the best decisions because we have the knowledge, detail and experience behind it.

The final thing I will say is that you can feel the expectations from other states. Senator Lynch asked me what other colleagues were saying across the AGRIFISH Council. The biggest thing I get is that sense of expectation they have that Ireland is going to deliver a really consequential Presidency and a lot of big things will happen. It is an amazing feeling to see they really do know from experience that we have the experience in our public service and Civil Service to hold a really good Presidency. They depend on us to progress the MFF and other aspects. This is why I am working really closely with my colleagues in Cyprus now to ensure we have as smooth a transition as possible from June into July, and with Lithuania as well at the end of the year and going into next year.

Since the Minister took over the role, he and his team have done fabulous and fantastic work. Keep it up.

I thank Deputy Cooney very much.

I thank the Minister, the officials and the members. We have had a really in-depth drill down into what is a huge topic. It was a good opportunity to get more clarity on a big issue. It is one that is going to be so influential for rural communities and farming. I would see the next year as being very central in the context of the new CAP, so I expect us to be returning to it and spending a lot of time with it. In the meantime, I thank the Minister and his officials for their input on it. Gabhaim míle buíochas libh go léir. As there are no further matters for discussion, the meeting stands adjourned.