Apologies have been received from the Cathaoirleach, Deputy Ward, and Deputy Michael Murphy. I thank members for coming to Dublin to attend our meeting on what is a non-sitting day. I am delighted, on behalf of the committee, to welcome Mr. Christophe Hansen, EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Food, Mr. Piotr Serafin, EU Commissioner for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Public Administration, and their officials.

The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss European Union matters that fall within the portfolio of the committee, most particularly the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, and the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. The MFF is the EU budget. It usually covers a seven-year period. Last year, the European Commission proposed a new EU budget covering the calendar years 2028 to 2034. The proposed budget is valued at almost €2 trillion and covers a range of policy areas and EU programmes, including CAP funding. The budget is important for the EU's long-term planning. This committee has a role in scrutinising the proposals and their potential impacts here in Ireland, which is why this meeting forms part of our work programme for the year.

Before we begin, I must deal with the issue of parliamentary privilege and a number of housekeeping matters. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that may be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, witnesses will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings.

I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to the constitutional requirements. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any members partaking via Microsoft Teams that prior to making their contribution, they confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

The Commissioners will have five minutes each to make their opening statements, after which we will open the floor to questions from the members. I propose that we take the opening statements in alphabetical order. I invite Commissioner Hansen deliver his statement to the House.

I wish everybody a good morning. I thank the Chair and the honourable members for inviting us here today. I am very pleased that I can do this together with my colleague Piotr Serafin, who is with us today as well.

My last visit to Ireland took place almost one year ago, shortly after I entered this new office. It was on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA , first annual general meeting. I have to say, it was quite an impressive welcome in the little room where people are literally sitting above you. It reminded me how special agriculture is for Ireland. It is on the basis of my strong commitment that I am here again one year after my first visit to Ireland to discuss the challenges ahead. Indeed, agriculture holds a very central place in Ireland and reflects the deep culture, landscapes and traditions nationwide. This is why we have to stay engaged together to meet the challenges that arise.

The global context, of course, keeps evolving around us but my commitment to an attractive, competitive, future-proofed and fair sector remains very steady. These objectives link directly with our dialogue today. It is very special and meaningful timing as well because we will soon celebrate the first anniversary of the Vision for Agriculture and Food strategy. This was a real milestone in our shared work, and I believe it has marked a shift in the dialogue and the direction of our agriculture where we put competitiveness and productivity back to the centre of the discussion. The vision sets very clear goals for everyone. It seeks a farming sector that is attractive and fair, confirms farmers as partners and offers solutions. Two thirds of these actions have already been delivered, but our direction of travel remains the same because a lot more needs to be done.

There are three priorities that will guide our work for this year. We want to: shape the future CAP within the next MFF; open markets to ensure fair competition; and address the costs and pressures our farmers are facing. As a result, the CAP remains a crucial policy tool. It supports farmers and strengthens rural life. Our priority is very clear for advancing future CAP negotiations in the context of how it will fit with the next financial framework. Many questions still arise, but that is exactly why we are here - to discuss these questions. I always say at the AGRIFISH Council that this is not a sprint, it is a marathon. Now that the proposals are on the table, the co-legislators have to contribute to this fine-tuning. This fine-tuning will be about governance, change and uncertainties. This is why clarity and direction matter so much. Our treaty obligations will guide our work.

When approaching the MFF, I set a few priorities as agriculture and food commissioner. The income support has to stay fully ring-fenced, so all the tools of the CAP that directly bring money to farms need to be maintained. This money needs to be stable because farmers will otherwise face instability and insecurity. That is not acceptable, particularly as they have invested and have to pay back loans. That is why farmers deserve stability. Second, the support must not depend on national reforms. As I said, farmers need predictability as well. That is why our money is excluded from flexibilities and reforms. I do not want it to happen that the money does not flow to the farmer if a government is not able to do the necessary reforms on each side. The third point is that all current CAP measures had to remain because they have proven to be efficient. That is why farmers deserve this continuity. I am pleased that we could deliver together on all three of these priorities.

It was presented on 16 July in Brussels that there will be almost €294 billion of direct income supports. With these supports, we have broadened the definition of what income support means. It is not only first pillar payments. It is also investment support, natural constraints and agri-environmental measures under the second pillar. This is already secured. We know there is an additional €450 billion of non-ring-fenced money that backs the national partnership fund, so there is a possibility to top up. However, there was a lot of, let us say, controversy about this proposal. That is why the Commission already stated very clearly in November - this came after a meeting between Commission President von der Leyen, Mette Frederiksen and Roberta Metsola - that we will put on the table a spending target relating to the 10% rule that will secure €48.7 billion EU-wide. In January, after the protests by farmers, there were other commitments, but we unlocked an additional €45 billion for the CAP and rural communities under the next MFF. This is taken from the reserve. That principal should have been available when the mid-term review took place. Now, we land roughly at about €400 billion. We currently have €386 billion, so we are already where we need to be with the money.

On predictability, we see that crises appear way more frequently for farmers now. We have droughts, floods, wildfires and so on. Currently, we have the agriculture reserve fund of €450 million annually. We have doubled the money available to €900 million annually by means of what we call the unity safety net. We want the farming sector to stick together. This money will equip the sector against these external crises. It will also provide stronger defence during the market shocks that can happen in a global market. This is why the unity safety net is so important. We know that unity is our strength, but when this unity is challenged, it becomes our weakness. Let us take, for example, the Chinese putting pressure on our dairy and pork sectors. The unity safety net is going to help us be better equipped to face challenges of that sort.

Further support comes from the competitiveness and research funds. I will say just a few words on that. This includes a €40 billion innovation window. There is a lot of potential for agriculture. For example, the southern countries will look into irrigation projects. Here in Ireland, it will eventually be more in, for example, the area of biogas production to protect from, let us say, challenges of the livestock sector and also to create opportunities for the sector.

The fine-tuning of that is going to be done by the co-legislators over the coming months in the hope that we will get a final text by the end of the Irish Presidency. I was on the European Parliament side during the previous reform. The problem is that when we bump into European elections, everything is delayed. Everything then needs to be rushed and that does not help in the context of the efforts we need to make in the context of simplification, be cause, in the end, farmers want to live from working in their fields and with their animals as opposed to having to look at screens and fill in forms. That is one challenge.

On the competitiveness fund, which is not in the competitiveness and innovation framework programme, CIP, yet, but there is a window for bioeconomy and agriculture. That is something we need to seize upon.

Farmers give me one very clear message. They care about a fair pay for hard work as opposed to just funding sources. They do not farm in line with budget cycles either. Our task is very clear, namely to bring supports directly to their farms.

We have some key actions for this year. The livestock strategy coming during Ireland's Presidency will strengthen resilience and sectoral value. This will be very important. We have huge challenges on the input side in the context of arable crops and tillage farmers. The fertiliser action plan will tackle the affordability issues when it comes to fertilisers. This will be another big priority for the Irish Presidency. Markets will require special attention this year. This is why we have proposed a thorough assessment or health check of our markets. There are challenges and there are needs as well in the context of being able to specifically support the sectors that are more under pressure than others. This will be a challenge too.

I thank members for the opportunity to be here. I look forward to their questions and remarks.

I thank the Commissioner very much. That was quite a broad outline of the Commissioner's work, his budgets and how Ireland fits into the overall plan. I ask Commissioner Serafin to make his opening statement.

I thank the Chair and members for the invitation and for opportunity to have an exchange with them today. This is not the first time I have been in a national parliament. Every time I go to any of our member states, it is important to engage with the national parliaments. Members will not be surprised that opinions around Europe on the EU budget may differ. Today, we will see the priorities of Ireland and its people. Even if we have different perspectives, I can always feel the sense of a common good that can be achieved through the EU budget. I am pretty sure that spirit will be present today.

The budget has been put on the table at a time when the world around us is changing at a pace we have never seen before and is moving in directions we cannot fully predict. We must be prepared to face a more competitive and, at times, more hostile global environment. This is the reality. That is why we need to have more flexibility in the EU budget to react to events that we cannot foresee today.

I will focus on a few points, particularly as Commissioner Hansen already gave an overview of the Common Agricultural Policy. We should take a step back and look at the key objective which we had when tabling the proposal on the next MFF. That is strategic autonomy. The MFF is designed to strengthen Europe’s capacity to act in the global environment and increase our resilience, economically and politically but also in the area of security. The key challenge for the European economy that is going to be discussed in two weeks’ time by the Heads of State and Government is the question of competitiveness and growing the competitive gap between our Continent and the US and China on the other side. We can see concerns about European competitiveness reflected in the MFF proposal. We are aware that the EU budget, or the money, is not going to solve the problem of innovation or European competitiveness, but it can be one of the tools that can be used to stimulate innovation, research and development and competitiveness. The Chair mentioned a figure of €2 trillion. The biggest increases in our proposal are concentrated in the area of competitiveness. The amount involved is €450 billion. When we talk about Horizon Europe, which is part of that , the current amount is going to be doubled in the EU budget. We wanted to put an emphasis on with Europe's competitiveness.

The war on our eastern border has reminded us that we need to do more together on security and defence. The EU is not a military alliance and never will be. However, it is our responsibility to invest more in defence industries, innovation and jobs on the European Continent in that sector and to stimulate co-operation between member states' industries in that area while fully respecting national competences and specific national choices. We are all too aware that weaknesses in defence can create vulnerabilities in other areas, including those of economic co-operation and trade relations. We might be being weak. We might be too often confronted with bad offers that we could not refuse.

On cohesion agriculture, we have €865 billion out of the €2 trillion to which the Chair referred for national and regional partnership plans. This demonstrates that while this is not an area where resources are increasing, we guarantee the stability and predictability for the seven years to come. Another aspect is the question of the national contributions and new own resources. I am pretty sure this will be raised during the question-and-answer session, but I just wanted to deal with it upfront. In that context, why did we put on the table a package of new own resources? I know the Irish position in this regard, which is that the gross national income, GNI, contribution is predictable and simple and that we should stick to it. Having had exchanges with many of our member states, I am aware that if we stick to national contributions only based on GNI, it will not be possible to meet the challenges I have just outlined. It would then not be possible to provide sufficient resources for cohesion and agriculture, to provide increases for competitiveness and to start paying back NextGenerationEU, NGEU, related debts. That is why the package of the new own resources is on the table.

I look forward to members' questions. As my colleague stated, we are looking forward to Ireland's Presidency. We trust that during the Presidency the budgetary negotiations will be finished. In 2013, Ireland secured the agreement on the current MFF. Hopefully, history will repeat itself.

I thank the Commissioner very much. I wish to bring to the attention of members that it is 11 a.m. and this meeting is to end at noon. Ten other members and I have indicated a wish to contribute. We are going to take two at a time. We will give a fair turn to everybody and every party. First up is Deputy Ó Murchú. He will be followed by Deputy Lahart.

We could do without any party-political broadcasts from anyone. We have two very powerful-----

That is disgraceful commentary from the Chair.

Tús tús maith leath na hoibre. Sin é. I was sure Deputy Ó Murchú would take the lead. That is why I am letting him in first. Could he please lead by example?

Cuirim fáilte roimh na finnéithe go léir. The Commissioners are very welcome. I accept that we are in a very changed world geopolitically. We used to talk of strategic autonomy but it is now a very serious conversation. It goes without saying that for the European Union and the individual states to work, it has to be sustainable and competitive. We must be innovative in what is a very changing world. We can talk about any particular aspect we want on that.

In fairness to the Commissioners, they accept the importance to Ireland of agriculture. The two questions I am going to put to them first relate to that. The Mercosur deal was supported by the Council and by the Commission but it has been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union on a vote by MEPs. Eventually, post that, there could be a vote by MEPs to endorse the deal or not. The fear is that a provisional application would be made, which we would see as a slap in the face in relation to democracy. I would like some sort of assurance that this would not happen.

The big fear for Irish farmers is obviously 100,000 tonnes of Brazilian beef and 180,000 tonnes of poultry that would not be up to the same levels as regards protections, traceability, antibiotics and hormones as Irish beef, which is the most environmentally friendly beef produced in the world. That is something that we need. It goes without saying the reason the CAP payments were introduced was to ensure sustainable food and the fear is that there will be a proposal for a 22% reduction in it. How do we ensure the sustainability of Irish family farms? I have already spoken to the fact of how environmentally friendly they are. I have also spoken to the fact that we need to ensure the sustainability of food production. While accepting there are other issues, we need to ensure that this happens. Otherwise it will be detrimental to food production, Irish farming, Irish society and even beyond that to the wider European Union project.

The Commissioners are welcome. One of them made the front page of our Sunday newspaper yesterday with an interview that made for interesting reading. I am a Government TD who is an urban dweller. I wish we could go back and do Mercosur again. From my own perspective, I do not think it was particularly well handled.

I would like to get their comments on just two things. The first is under the heading of the importance of developing new markets and how critical that is to the European Union. I know that if and when Mercosur is fully agreed and implemented, it would amount to a market that accounts for 32% of global GDP. It would be a market of 700 million people for all Irish industries and Irish exporters. I am told in a briefing we had from the European Commission last year before my own foreign affairs and trade committee, and the European affairs and agriculture committees that the beef piece amounted to 150 g per EU citizen per year - 4.4 ounces - which is less than the size of an average burger per EU citizen per year. Decisions have been made and taken democratically. Could the Commissioner remind us what safeguards were built into that deal for beef farmers, so that we could in some way reassure them about that?

The second question relates to Commissioner Serafin's comments about security and defence. There is a growing understanding in Ireland that our assets are European assets as well and that while we are militarily neutral, we need to protect that neutrality. We are the gateway to the European Union, including for data. Something like $1 billion of trade comes into the European Union every six hours, much of it in the form of services through the cables that enter this country and then go on into the European Union.

We welcome the respectful comments he made but certainly in the party of which I am a member, there is a growing awareness that we cannot continue the way we have done and we need to invest in that. We also need to take advantage of the dual aspects of the investments that are going on in relation to security and defence. We could be more alive to the threats. It is a debate and a conversation in which we could invest a little bit more time. They are the two points that I would make.

I will let the Commissioners come in. The questions were across both departments.

The question on Mercosur will be for Christophe. I did not stress enough the importance of the dual aspect of security, as the Deputy said, in my introductory remarks. When you look into various financial instruments that we are implementing already and what we have in mind for the future, that is indeed to concentrate the intention of the European Union on industrial aspects and innovation. I am afraid that the war theatre in Ukraine right now demonstrates the point about dual-use technology, like drones, which did not necessarily start as a means of war, and also innovation in the area of AI and all sorts of digital technologies. Even for a neutral country like Ireland, by having such a strong capacity in the area of research and development, it is one of the most successful member states when it comes to participation in the Horizon programme. There are also opportunities for Ireland in that respect. That would be my comment on the dual use and security.

I thank the Deputies very much. Most of the questions related to the Mercosur deal that, as they know, has been negotiated over the last 25 years. A trade deal is negotiated on the basis of a mandate that is given by the member states and that is what the Commission did. There were, of course, some intermediate changes. We all remember that the Paris climate agreement, for example, only came after the beginning of the negotiations, so this was built in already in 2019. Then there was a strong demand to have an additional safeguard clause for the sensitive sectors, so that was also integrated. The mandate from 25 years ago has substantially evolved over the different negotiation periods. On the front page the Deputy mentioned, he knows better than I do that the Irish press sometimes take a headline out of context and put it forward.

Yes.

Of course, that is part of our business and I can live with that. It is very important that we are looking at developing markets. Earlier I mentioned the unity safety net of the €6.3 billion that we will have, let us say as weapons, as defence elements when somebody challenges us. When we look at the current trade flows, do we have problems with Canada? I think the answer will be "No". Do we have problems with Japan? The answer again will be know "No". Do we have problems with the US currently? Yes, we do. Do we have problems with China? Yes, we do. What is the difference between those? Of course, with Canada and Japan we have a trade agreement, a reliable partnership, where we have agreed on common rules, common safeguards, and common standards. This is the most stable relationship that you can have.

On the other side, you are always exposed to disturbances or sometimes by the decision of a single man who tries to hit us with tariffs, for example. This is why, in this very turbulent geopolitical time, it is of utmost importance, first, to not have all the eggs in the same basket and, second, to negotiate common rules, which is trade agreements are about. I do not like the term "free trade agreements" because if there are strong rules then it is not so free in the end but, of course, you decide commonly on where the landing zones are.

On the most sensitive sectors, we have very offensive and very defensive sectors. On the defensive side, we have cereal producers, poultry producers, sugar producers and beef producers. These are the sensitive sectors which is why it was so important to get the safeguard clauses up and running. We are currently in a phase where beef prices are very high. That is good for the sector but it is not necessarily a sign that the sector is going well because if the prices are high, then this shows that the offer is not sufficient compared with demand. I want to work on the Common Agricultural Policy and make the sector more attractive to young and new farmers to get us into the next decade and the decades to come. Now we have very high beef prices. That is good for beef producers but they know that there are price fluctuations in the same year because there are phases of high and low demand. Now, with what is on the table, if you see in one single member state that the price drops by only 5% and at the same time imports have increased by 5%, then an investigation will be launched, if so wished by the member states and by the European Commission and we can quickly act and close the market for that, which is very important. This is something unprecedented. From the reactions by President Milei and other political leaders, they do not like that at all because they know this safeguard clause will bite and provide, in some way, price security for producers who currently enjoy high prices.

I am aware of certain investigations that have been published here in Ireland which mainly focused on Brazil. Brazilians can produce whatever they want for their population or the Chinese. However, it is very important to us to have very have high standards. For example, we do not allow the use of growth hormones. For us, it must be clear that products cannot come in if they do not comply with our standards. That is why in the food and feed omnibus that we have put on the table, and it is our colleague, Olivér Várhelyi, who is in charge, we will double down on the controls and checks not only on our imports in our ports and airports but on the spot to see exactly the manner of production because we will not compromise on our very high standards.

Another very important aspect is origin labels. You will know whether a steak is from Argentina or Ireland but do you know when you chicken nuggets, for example? Probably not. We must be bolder with origin labelling for lower price products, so that consumers have a choice in what they buy. That is an area on which we need to work.

Another issue that I mentioned earlier is to not have all our eggs in the one basket because it makes us vulnerable if one single person can decide whether to impose tariffs on our products. I am leading the so-called high-level missions, and I call them agrifood diplomacy missions. My first mission had a mandate where I led 120 European agrifood companies to Japan and it was a huge success. Last October, I also led a mission of 80 companies to Brazil, including Irish producers who want to get into these markets. In the Irish case, it is spirits and dairy products. There are opportunities in these countries. Brazil has a population of 230 million consumers and Brazil depends on milk imports, for example. We are currently competitive in the milk sector and it is up to us to access these markets.

Another important aspect is for us to protect our quality and standards. In the Mercosur agreement, with Irish cream and Irish whiskey, the geographical indications will be protected. They are not currently. This goes for dairy products as well but on the ground there is counterfeited Italian Parmesan cheese and Irish spirits. That is why these agreements are so important because they are based on rules and not just the whims of some single politician.

Can we have a guarantee that there will not be provisional application of Mercosur by the Commission?

If the Commissioners can answer briefly then great and if a more detailed response is required then come back to it later. I want to be fair and ensure everybody who wants to comment gets the chance to do so.

The Council's mandate is very clear that the Commission has the possibility to go for the provisional application. So far the decision has not been taken and this will be done together with the-----

Next are Deputies Butterly and Robert O'Donoghue. I want to get everybody in and urge members to ask their couple of questions and we are delighted to have the Commissioners here to answer questions.

I welcome the Commissioners and, along with their colleague, thank them for taking the time. I will start with Commissioner Hansen. The 4th report on the State of Food Security in the EU found the following: "High and volatile input costs and extreme weather events perceived as the most relevant risks for EU food supply in the second half of 2024." I think it is fair to say that this had not diminished and, if anything, it is increasing. The report made another finding that the "EU food supply and food security perceived as in a riskier state than in previous assessment." This statement holds true if not even more so at the moment. How can we reconcile our huge concerns about food security with any reduction in the agricultural budget, in particular the abolishment of pillar 2 which has provided funding for projects to Irish farmers?

Commissioner Hansen touched on the more sensitive areas of tillage and beef. All one has to do is look out the window this morning to see that it is very predictable to think that the tillage sector will have another very bad year. The increasing costs, particular around fertiliser, will once again make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for tillage farmers to get a fair price for their product. This is not a once-off event as tillage farmers have had a couple of years of this. How will we address this matter? I ask because this will trickle down to other areas.

Commissioner Hansen spoke about high beef prices. There is a perception that when beef prices are high that farmers are making gold. That is not the case. We must be clear about that because input costs are going up. Finally, beef farmers may be making a penny or two now but over the past ten years price volatility has generated losses for beef farmers. Therefore, the volatility, which the Commissioner mentioned, must be smoothed out. If not, then we will not have a future generation of farmers. No matter what, each scheme seems like an emergency scheme. The only way to attract young farmers back to or into farming is if they can see that they have a sustainable livelihood.

I welcome the Commissioners. As Commissioner Serafin has said, the world around us is changing due to unforeseen events, and even ones that happened a year ago.

Given that, how has the last year changed Mr. Hansen's outlook on the MFF? Strategic autonomy, I believe, is vital, and competitiveness is a key part of that. Does Mr. Hansen see proposals like the 28th regime and the savings and investment union as being important for strategic autonomy and developing the EU budget to meet the challenges that we will face geopolitically into the future? Given that we have competing priorities for the next EU budget, decisions will have to be made as to what areas are prioritised in the absence of additional revenue streams. This was noted by one of the other Opposition parties in the Dáil last week. Are additional revenue-raising measures being considered at EU level for the EU budget? What would Mr. Hansen's take be on expanding revenue streams to meet the growing list of challenges the EU faces?

Commissioners, if we can try to keep it to the point that would be great. We have a lot of members here and are very keen to get in.

I will try, but it is always difficult, because everything is interlinked. The Deputy mentioned rightly that we have very volatile input costs and climate change is here to stay and we need to be better prepared for all of this. That is why we are working on this fertiliser action plan as well to get this input cost under control. We also need to work on insurance and reinsurance systems because, currently, less than 20% of farmers have insurance for their production and we have, of course, this agricultural reserve of €450 million annually. For 27 member states, this is a drop in the ocean and not sufficient and that is why we need to look into alternatives.

When it comes to the budget, of course, we are now with the different amending letters that we have. We have roughly the same money on the table that we had before. However it is not as simple because we also have other obligations. For example, we have the new member states that have historically received less money. We need to bring them closer together as a matter of fairness because there is a big "C" in the Common Agricultural Policy. That is why if we have a little bit more to give to the new member states, then of course it needs to be taken from somewhere, even if the pot remains roughly the same. That is now the fine-tuning we will need to make over the next month, because there are possibilities to tap into different budget matters. There is also the national possibility to support farmers better, because we need to ensure together now that the farmers will not have less available in finance. The challenges the Deputy mentioned are bigger, so that is the common challenge, to find the solutions within these very complex challenges we face so that the farmers can continue to produce and at least get an equivalent support for the future.

I also very much agree that high beef prices are not, as I said in the beginning, not a sign that the sector goes well. It is a sign that there is too little offer compared with the demand. When I was at the Ciney Expo in Belgium, which is the biggest European cattle market, I saw calves being sold for breeding. I spoke to a farmer there who was 72 years old. He told me that he did not have a successor. That is a real challenge. We need to make it more attractive because it is a tough job. It is not only about the money in the beginning but also generally about the administrative burden and so on and the obligations that our sector is facing. It is not sufficiently attractive. We are working as well on other points, including farm relief services because we see that the suicide rate, for example, in the farming sector is very high. That is very worrying. If we compare it with other economic sectors, when people have animals, they do not have time to go on holiday or even have time to take a sick day. That is why we proposed this farm relief services to make the sector more attractive again.

Will the Commissioner clarify the retention of Pillar 2?

Deputy, we do not have time.

That was the first question.

All the tools from Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 are maintained. It is important to emphasise that. The structure is different but that is because we want to make the "C" of the Common Agricultural Policy bigger, because currently we have member states that have nothing in the second pillar and all the money in the first pillar. They exist. We have some member states that have one third in the first and two thirds in the second or the opposite. Now the "C" is becoming bigger and second pillar instruments like LEADER and connectivity in rural areas remain mandatory for the member states. They also need to be in their NAP plan or otherwise the Commission will not approve them.

I will start with the question on the second pillar, because it has to be also well understood. For national regional partnership plans, we have as a budget for those plans what is today in the agriculture fund and the Cohesion Fund. The basic assumption was we preserve the budget of those policies in nominal terms. This was the basic assumption on which this budget was built. Then we leave member states this flexibility. It is for the member states to decide how they would like to invest the money that is in the national and regional partnership plans. There are some safeguards, like for the income supports, the €293 billion which was mentioned by Mr. Hansen. There is the decision that 10% should go for the rural development investments but it is all minimum. Then it is left to the member states. I know there has always been pressure and there are competing pressures. Some people say we should not decide too many things in Brussels. We should leave space for the member states to decide. In a sense, national and regional partnership plans are a step in that direction. It will be for the member states to decide how they would like to spend those moneys.

As mentioned, I deal with the EU budget, but I do believe that the Single Market is much more important than the EU budget when it comes to generating prosperity in Europe. Tomorrow, we will have a debate specifically about competitiveness in the context of the Single Market. With the Single Market we are not dependent on anyone. It is really in our hands whether we would like to take further steps. The Deputy mentioned the 28th regime and the savings and investment union. I can also add the terrible ten. These are the barriers to the European Single Market that still exist. With the reduction of those barriers we can actually generate more growth than through the Mercosur-EU deal, the EU-India deal or any other deal. This is at our disposal and we can do so. We are preparing tomorrow for the European Council on 12 February. At the Council I hope there will be a strong push and message in the direction of further development of the Single Market. The only approach, in my view, is a package approach, because everyone who has barriers on the Single Market has good justification why the barrier is needed. Member states should be ready to look at this, take a broader view, and see there may be a need to resign or make a move here in order to gain more because others will also move in the direction of reducing further barriers. The same package approach should be applied, I would also suggest, to the own resources package.

Thank you very much, Commissioner. I am very focused on our time, and I am keen to give everybody an opportunity to ask a question. I will take four members on this occasion and I will take four afterwards because that is what we have here. Then we will see after that if we have time for something supplementary or perhaps the Chair himself will have some questions. We will see at that stage.

I welcome Commissioner Hansen back to Ireland. I thank him for renewing his commitment to a prosperous, fair and forward-looking Irish agricultural ecosystem with the emphasis on succession as he has just spoken about. I know he is aware that Irish agriculture is uniquely exposed to changes within the CAP funding because of agriculture having a very central role in supporting rural Ireland and the rural economy.

The regulation pressures and production costs are increasing and Irish farmers are absolutely dependent on CAP income for stable incomes. There has been huge concern about the possibility of CAP funding not being ring-fenced, so what the Commissioner said today is welcome and much appreciated, because we felt it would have been diluted by dealing with other EU priorities. There is no doubt the EU is committed to ensuring that. As CAP remains one of the EU's major long-term investment tools, how does the Commissioner see its role evolving in the next MFF, as the Union balances many different pressures? Does he feel CAP can continue, and how will it continue, to support EU-wide sustainability and climate ambitions without placing disproportionate burdens on member states? That is important. Does he see opportunities for greater alignment between CAP objectives and broader EU priorities?

I was pleased that, in his opening speech, Commissioner Serafin emphasised cohesion and agriculture remaining strong pillars. I will put two questions to him in respect of the under-representation of Irish people working in the EU institutions. Where does he stand on nationality-based competitions?

I would also be interested in hearing his views on funding for PEACEPLUS, which is a programme we feel strongly about in Ireland.

I welcome the Commissioners. I have two questions. The first is for Commissioner Hansen. His vision for agriculture document sets out that the Commission will orient the future CAP away from conditions to incentives. What will be done to achieve that and what will it look like?

Is Commissioner Serafin concerned - it is a broader question - that all his and the Commission's work is being undermined by the EU's unwillingness to sanction Israel for its genocide and man-made famine, given the President of the European Commission, Ms Ursula von der Leyen, is a staunch supporter of Israel, and many outside here would say she is a genocide enabler? Israel is clearly a racist, apartheid, genocidal rogue state.

Please, Senator.

Israel has dismantled international law. EU countries are stepping outside the legal frameworks in place to protect citizens.

The Senator has been asked not to defame anyone.

I have not defamed anyone.

It sounds like it to me.

I said many people outside this room would say that Ursula von der Leyen is a genocide enabler. There is an increasing disconnect between the EU and ordinary European citizens. Is that not a huge threat to the EU project? Is that disconnect helping the EU when the EU Commissioners are looking to negotiate deals with other countries and blocs? We have a situation where Israel is allowed and invited to attend EU conferences and events as though it had done nothing wrong, as though it were a normal state, when clearly it is complicit and the only institution it should be in front of is the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

I thank the Commissioners for being here. My questions are largely directed at Commissioner Serafin.

As he will be aware, Ireland is a militarily neutral country so I am concerned by the plans in the MFF to build a defence European Union. That is the exact wording of the Commission. I welcome references to respecting specific national choices, but the Commissioners' colleague for defence, Commissioner Kubilius, is calling for a European army, and in this budget, Irish taxpayers' money will go directly into supporting the arms industry.

Defence and foreign policy is a national competence, but the Commissioner's opening statement on the structure of this budget makes clear that the European Union is increasingly including those competencies, or trying to include them, in its remit. It was exactly these concerns about this direction of travel that led the Irish people to reject the Nice and Lisbon treaties and to incorporate a requirement for a UN mandate for troop deployment in the shape of our triple lock. This is a huge cause of concern for me.

I am glad the Commissioner made reference to cohesion funding, but it has been expanded to include military spending and competitiveness funding has also been expanded to include defence industry support. In this context, how is the national competence of member states being respected when the EU is focusing every aspect of this budget on military spending and leaving what I would describe as crumbs for cohesion projects for our small farmers and fishermen and any small businesses that do not operate in the security or arms sector? That is my first question.

Moving on from that, I strongly believe our best defence against Russian interference and propaganda and our best path to defending our democracies is the strengthening of our quality of life, social safety net and communities. I am deeply concerned that this budget seeks to turn away from that most important aspect of the European peace project. Will the Commissioner explain how this MFF can support those aims when EU Cohesion and competitiveness funds designed to help our small businesses are overwhelmingly now being spent on arms factories? That funnels industrial development funding into the already most developed member states. This means the money that makes the daily lives of Europeans better will be decreased in favour of funnelling money into military spending and the arms industry, which is already extremely profitable, all while our businesses-----

Thank you, Deputy. Time is up.

I have nearly finished. This is all happening while our businesses, community integration projects and farmers struggle to survive.

Finally, the Commissioner's opening comments referenced our shared sense of common good, so I assure him that is exactly what I am passionate about and what I believe is under threat with this direction of travel of the European Union. That is what motivates me to put these questions to the Commissioner today.

I thank the Deputy. I ask Deputy Fitzmaurice to try to stick to questions. I would appreciate it.

I have four or five straight questions.

Good man.

Commissioner Hansen might be able to take note of them and give me an answer. There is a decision to scrap Pillar 2 funding in the next MFF, where no funds will be ring-fenced for environmental schemes. We have ACRES and the LEADER scheme in Ireland at the moment. I think he stated it would be mandatory for member states to have LEADER funding. Bearing in mind there is a 24% cut to the CAP budget, where does he envisage this money will come from? Will it put a huge responsibility on member states?

He talked about young farmers. In the past 15 years, something like 5.3 million farmers have been lost in Europe, which puts a huge question mark over the direction in which the EU has brought farming in all of Europe in the past 15 years. That is a massive number of farmers. He talked about young farmers and women in farming, who are also needed, getting priority. How can he square the circle that the budget is being cut by 24% - I know there is another budget everyone has to fight over - with giving more money to young farmers and women in farming? It does not add up no matter how good you are at maths. That is my second question.

The Commissioner talked about trade agreements. If they are done with proper terms and conditions, no one has a problem with them, but how can the EU stand over this? It was proved by the Irish journalist, Adam Woods, in a documentary. Traceability is fundamental in the EU under animal regulations.

Traceability is number one. The first thing is that, in Brazil, there is no traceability. Medicines are freely available on shelves that have been banned in Europe for 40 years because they have proven to be carcinogenic. Hormones are freely available. In Ireland and in other European countries over the past few months, we have now proven that hormonal beef has come in. How can anybody stand over that situation or even contemplate doing a deal with a country that has that track record?

On the trade side of it, will the MEPs' vote be honoured where they have referred the Mercosur deal to the courts? Obviously, a main vote has to happen when that decision is made. Will the Commission hold the trade deal until then?

I thank the Deputy.

I would like answers to those questions. If I will not get answers here, I might get them sent to me.

We will do our best on them. I have to let in four more members after the Deputy, so time is closing in on us. If the Commissioners could do their best in the time allowed, I would appreciate it.

I will do my best. On national-based competition, I am personally in favour of it. The situation today is the following: we had national-based competition for the European Parliament. That decision of the European Parliament was questioned and taken to the court. We are now awaiting the ruling from the European Court of Justice on the legality of the national-based competition. Once the decision is taken and if the court admits it is in line with the staff regulation, I believe it is one of the tools we should be using.

I will be frank with the committee. Ireland is not in the worst situation when it comes to the geographical balance. Ireland is extremely well represented at the level of senior management. The concern with Ireland, which I share, is rather about middle management and young talents. That would be the first point.

On PEACEPLUS, it has been present in the negotiating box that was discussed by the member states in December 2025 and it is foreseen it will be financed from the INTERREG programme. I understand and have heard from the Government today that it believes it is not enough and we should invest more into PEACEPLUS. I recollect that in the previous MFF negotiations, the question of PEACEPLUS was also present at European Council level and additional resources were agreed at that level on the last day of the negotiations. We share the Government's assessment of the importance of the PEACEPLUS programme and its validity from the European perspective also.

On the question from the honourable Senator Andrews, I think the opinions expressed by him are not fair. On 17 September, I was in Strasbourg when the President of the European Commission gave the state of the Union address. This was the moment when I remember a standing ovation from almost the whole house - for sure, from the left - when she made a number of important statements with respect to Israel. The Senator can find this speech, read it and then assess whether his judgement was fair. On that very day, President von der Leyen announced a freeze on financial assistance to Israel.

On security and defence, I am aware of the statement from Commissioner Kubilius on the European army. When I was young, there was this debate as well. I remember some Commissioners, and even Presidents of the Commission if I am not mistaken, making the same sort of statement 20 or 30 years ago. It is not the Commission's policy at this point. Our policy is to support job creation and innovation in the European industry. This is our policy. The reality on the ground, flowing from the geopolitical context also, is that these days, a lot of jobs will be created in the dual use and defence industry. We believe that the European Commission can play a useful role by stimulating co-operation between member states in that particular area.

The mid-term review of the cohesion policy was mentioned along with the possibility to spend some resources on the defence industry and military mobility - in other words, dual use infrastructure. That is indeed the case. It is a possibility but it has remained a competence of the member state or regions, depending on the structure of the cohesion policy in the member state, to decide how they want to use that opportunity, if at all. Nothing is being imposed. It has always been and will remain the subject of sovereign choices taken at the national level and, in the context of cohesion policy, even at regional level.

There were a few questions on agriculture as well.

I think most of them were on agriculture. I will try to group them.

When we speak about the budget, Deputy Fitzmaurice mentioned a 24% reduction. Others say it is a 20% reduction. We have to be very clear. What was put on the table on 16 July has evolved. If we speak about 16 July, you can argue that there is a 10% cut. However, there are still 20% of CAP tools that were not yet covered in the ring-fencing and remain mandatory. They still need to be done by the member states. Back in time, over €450 billion was available to the member states to do so. This brings us back to the discussion. The member states asked for more flexibility. Why did they ask for more flexibility? Often, cohesion policy and rural development overlap in some way. For example, if you build a road in a rural area, is it for the farmer or for cohesion? It is difficult to say. If you bundle these amounts, you can then do something more impactful, which is why I think the member states asked for this flexibility.

Meanwhile, we heard a voice that perhaps did not trust a government, or an agriculture minister who did not trust someone holding the European structural and investment, ESI, purse, and was worried that agriculture would not get the necessary attention. That is why the Commission has reacted with this 10% rural spending target. That additional €45 billion brings us roughly to €400 billion. That is already available and now on the table. It is now about fine tuning. We have a lot of constraints on external convergence. For example, it is now about fine tuning to make sure that the same amount of support can go where it is needed. That is the second pillar, which has already disappeared because of the first beginning on 16 July. Areas with natural constraints are in the second pillar. Does the committee agree? Investment support is in the second pillar, does the committee agree? This was already there and the second pillar being gone is a myth-----

What about the LEADER programme?

LEADER is still mandatory and is to be covered by the 10% rural spending target. No country can afford not to do LEADER because the Commission will say "No thanks" and that the country has to revise its copy. That is very clear.

This brings me to the young farmers. We have presented the generation renewal strategy. We have proposed a 6% spending target there, which is not mandatory yet but I hear from certain member states and some in the European Parliament who want to make it mandatory. That is something on which there is now work happening and will continue over the next few months. I hope we will get this security as well.

This cuts across a little to incentives versus obligations for the payments. There is a lot of pressure on the farmers currently and it is not really incentive based. This brings me back to taking the agri-environmental measures from the second pillar together with eco-schemes because they often serve the same purpose. We have more money for one single programme that people are doing. This already cuts the administrative burden by half. This is clear simplification. That is an incentive, so this incentive will be bigger and more attractive to the farmer.

This will deliver on environmental practices that will be to the benefit of farmers. It is very important to say that sustainability remains at the core, but it will be more attractive for the farmer to do it and not just an obligation. That is what we are currently working on.

We have doubled down on coupled support because certain sectors need better support. This depends very much on members states. It is currently 13% of CAP. In Ireland, you are only using 5%, but we can go up now to 25%. This is particularly important for livestock in areas with natural constraints, for example, but could also be for protein crops, as is the case in Ireland, and other deficiencies that you currently have. This is another incentive, this time not for the environment, but for the needs of the market.

Thank you, Commissioner. Senator Lynch-----

The Commissioner did not answer the short question I had on CAP moving away from conditions towards incentives and what that would look like.

I just answered that.

Sorry.

Next will be Senator Lynch, followed by Deputies Newsome Drennan, Aird and Moynihan, who is the Chair of the agriculture committee.

I thank Commissioner Hansen and Commissioner Serafin for being with us here today. It has been very interesting hearing their presentations. I come from an agricultural background. I am on this committee, but I am also on the agricultural committee, so the development of CAP over the past few months is important to me and the people where I am from. A lot of it has been covered in terms of the reduction of the budget and the new format of it. However, while the new plan has a lot of positives in it, we are fundamentally seeing a reduced budget of 20% to 24%. Do the Commissioners foresee that there will be an increase in this? When we look at the current proposal's reduction on what the last budget was, and allowing for inflation, we had hoped that the budget would at the very minimum have been retained. That is not the case, though. I take into account all the comments the Commissioners made to my colleagues about the way the scheme will work, its new format and its place within the national and regional partnership plan, NRPP, but we want to see a bigger budget. Are the Commissioners optimistic or in any way confident that, while the negotiations carry on, this is something that could happen? We have seen the reduction and that is fine, but are they in any way optimistic or confident about an increase being attained?

I get generational renewal, the starter pack and all of those measures included within the CAP plan. I read the Commission's policy document on generational renewal that was published last year and, indeed, we published our own one at a similar time. Do the Commissioners think these go far enough? How are we going to get more people back into farming? The average age of farmers in Europe is 58. It is 59 here in Ireland. The industry is facing real challenges. When you look at the national and European picture, employment in the industry is down because there are so many other prevalent industries that are probably much nicer jobs to have. They are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and you do not have the commitment that you have when you are a farmer. How do we actively tackle that and what measures can we take? Food security going forward is undoubtedly going to be a serious problem and I am not sure that we are fully addressing it to the extent that we should be. We are looking at other security and defence issues, and I appreciate the massive increase in the budget in that regard, but food security is as important as any other security. We need to make sure that we have that.

I thank the Commissioners for coming. Commissioner Hansen said that the EU had renewed its commitment to Irish farmers through engagement and dialogue. It is a bit of a pity that same could not be said about the Commissioner for EU trade and economic security. Three months ago, I asked for an email to be drafted through the agricultural committee around the safeguarding of the loss of earnings and our food security. I also inquired about the €1.8 billion given to Mercosur countries through Europe to improve their standards.

The European project was founded on the principles of ensuring peace, security and prosperity across our continent with a commitment to uphold these values globally. Over the past 30 years, the policies of globalisation have driven a massive shift in manufacturing from Europe, where we have progressive workers' rights, strong health and safety laws and strong environmental responsibilities, to states in Asia and South America where such standards simply do not apply.

We are now witnessing the latest attempt to shift food production from the EU to South America through agreements like Mercosur. This means supporting systems associated with mass deforestation, animal welfare standards decades behind our own, and little to no regard for environmental protections or workers' rights. How does this align with the EU's stated policies and vision? In the volatile world we live in, is the Commission not concerned that this relentless outsourcing is leaving the European Union more exposed and strategically more vulnerable than ever, especially as its once long-standing partner is actively undermining the work of the EU?

When it appeared that Mercosur would not pass, an additional €45 billion was suddenly found for CAP to secure support, which it did with the support of Italy. Is that money still being added to CAP now that the deal has been paused? Commissioner Hansen spoke about doubling down on safety checks, but the safety checks we have are nowhere near enough, so just to double those will not be enough.

Have the Commissioners seen the documentary that the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, and the Irish Farmers' Journal put together? Are they not concerned about its findings that you can walk into any merchant's in Brazil and pick up whatever drugs you want. As a farmer at home, we can do none of that. We do not want to go back to where we were, but we know that the likes of Brazil are decades away from being like us. We recently saw how beef that contained banned hormones could get through and we were told that they could give hormones to female cattle. If they cannot tell the difference between a male and a female, we have serious issues.

Did the Government and the EU have an agreement that Ireland would be given derogations in order to go ahead with the Mercosur trade deal?

The Commissioners are very welcome. I will keep my questions very short. If the MFF is still under negotiation, what hard guarantee is there that the ring-fenced CAP budget will not be reopened or diluted later? Commissioner Hansen claimed that income support would not depend on unrelated national reforms, but farmers are already facing rising conditionality through ACRES and controls. What concrete limits will the Commission place on member states to stop this becoming conditionality by another name? Will the Commissioner give a yes-no answer to that question? Before July 2026, what specific changes will Irish farmers see that proves this CAP will deliver income stability rather than added complexity?

I know the Commissioners will be meeting other people later, but before they leave this island today, will they just consider the fact that the population of young farmers is dropping? They are all talk about encouraging farmers in, but if the farmer population is dropping, will they be able to write to us to tell us exactly what they are doing about it? As we sit here this evening, there are people exiting the cereal industry. The price of milk is there or thereabouts the cost of production.

I ask the Commissioners to listen to my next comment. Some people have this vision that the beef farmers of Ireland are all millionaires at the moment because of what is happening.

Do the witnesses realise their predecessors were people principally associated with 220,000 suckler cows of the best quality animals in this country having now gone west? There is no more of them. That is why we see the situation we are in at present.

Are we going to do the same to the dairy industry, and especially the sheep industry? We are trying to encourage people here to stay in the sheep industry. We are trying to do everything possible to keep them in it. These are young people who work 24-7-365-----

Thank you, Deputy Aird. I have given you twice the time now.

-----and the witnesses even mentioned it. These are people who are committed to it. Will they please ensure they have a future here today? That is all I am asking.

Last, we have the Cathaoirleach of the agriculture committee, Deputy Moynihan.

First, I thank Commissioners Hansen and Serafin for being available to us here.

We have had quite a bit of discussion back and forth in our agriculture committee with the various stakeholders on the CAP proposal post 2028. We also made a submission to the Commission before Christmas. Throughout those discussions, some of the key topics that came up again and again and which were mentioned earlier, were what appears to be a reduction in the overall available funding of at least 20%. That is a real concern for farmers, the LEADER groups and everybody in that. Could we see what opportunity is there for getting an increase in funding for that? It came up particularly in respect of schemes that are mandatory but no longer have ring-fenced funding. The school milk scheme was one particular example.

There was mention earlier of the €45 billion and I would be particularly interested to get the witnesses' understanding and views on that. Is it additional funding over and above what was available to us or is it moneys being brought forward? The witnesses might clarify that for us.

There were two other issues. The first relates to women in farming. CAP currently has specific aims on supporting and encouraging women into farming and that is not as apparent in the new proposals going forward. What measures are going to be put in place to support and encourage women in farming?

Finally, a typical, average Irish farm comes in at about 34 ha in size. Across Europe, you have many other smaller holdings, so 10 ha would be the average. We are also constantly looking for simplification of the application process. When the Commission is doing it for those smaller holdings and aiming it towards those 10 ha farms, it believes it is making a great achievement. Here in Ireland, however, because our holdings are not typically under 10 ha in size, we are not benefiting to the same extent at all. Could there be simplification for those smaller Irish farms that are in the 20 ha to 30 ha zone, in addition to the smallest of the small?

I have one brief query myself. There have been hints of it there but on the Mercosur agreement, do the witnesses see a timeline for its implementation, when it is being challenged in the court at present? This has happened before with other deals, so I am curious if this is the way the European Union is going to look at, to implement the deal and deal with the court process as they see fit afterwards. If so, could the witnesses provide a timeframe for that please?

The Commissioners might try to answer these few queries for members. I apologise as we have gone slightly over time, but for an Irish meeting with so many interactive and interesting politicians, we have not done too badly. I appreciate the Commissioners' and their team's time.

I usually get remarks that we should not answer all the questions, but I have difficulty with not answering all of them.

I appreciate that; it is par for the course.

On the referral to the European Court of Justice, while we of course have precedents, with the Singapore agreement for example, this usually takes 18 to 24 months. That was in the past and we have no influence on the European Court of Justice, which is entirely independent. That is why this is difficult to predict. However, is this unpredictability that we currently have the best solution for our farming and food-producing sector in a very tense geopolitical time? I would say no to this and that is also the Commission's position on it. We would have preferred the Parliament vote on its consent or not, and then we would have clarity. That has been avoided by this vote so far and this is of course not being helpful.

On the €45 billion that was mentioned, this is of course not new MFF money. It is very clearly coming from the MFF because there is no money outside of it, but it is new CAP money, in a sense, because it was not on our board before and now it is. That is why it is new money to the CAP but not new money externally.

As regards women in farming, that is a priority for me. I always say young farmers and female farmers because they both face very similar challenges, such as access to finance. I was really shocked when I saw when based on gender, you also have more difficulties getting access to finance, and we need to remedy that. This is why we are not only better targeting our support to young and female farmers but also launched a women in farming platform, which will be an important tool to see where the bottlenecks are and to work on them.

Regarding simplification, it is only for the current CAP that we have brought the omnibus over the finish line, and this will be felt from this year. For example, with GAEC 2 which concerns the peatland, we have also already moved in this CAP from obligations to incentives to act on peatland, so this can now be incentivised by the Irish Government. Again, this is a positive way forward.

International trade is very important. We are heavily dependent, exporting €235 billion in value of agrifood goods in 2024, which is roughly €64 billion more than we are importing. This figure is very important to keep in mind because that is where the money is made. I am also completely aware of, and Senator Lynch also said this, the importance of food security. I once said in an interview that you cannot build a continent on an empty stomach and this is very true. Maybe we can live without a cell phone or something like that but we will not be able to live without healthy and sufficient food. That is why we need to work on this generational renewal together.

This is not just the money and starter pack given from the European Union. The money is limited but there are many factors. When you look into countries where the generation renewal is really working, Austria is the best example. It is also based on education, which is a national competence, because young people need the right skills. It is based on access to land because without land, you cannot produce and that is of course a problem when you look into many member states and the structure of the beneficiaries of the Common Agricultural Policy. Sometimes it is because they want to continue and sometimes it is because they need to continue because their pension is not sufficiently rewarding. Again, the pension is a national competence that needs to be worked on to make it sufficiently attractive.

We have also proposed in this Common Agricultural Policy that the degressive area-based payments should also be linked, so that when you get your pension, in principle you are not allowed to get this any more. Some member states are already doing that. This does not exclude investment support or the agri-environmental measures, so even if you are producing and when you are 80 years of age, you can still get this. However, the degressive area-based payments should be for those who are not yet retired. That is still a discussion we are having. In many member states, including Ireland, we have many beneficiaries who get money but say they are not farmers.

It is important to me that the money gets to those who are actively producing, contributing to our food security and delivering on our treaty obligations. The overall aim for us should be food security, as referred to in the treaty, along with a decent living for the farmers, not only the landowners because that is another question. Another part of our overall aim is the affordability of food for our consumers.

On the last question, the increase of the budget will be dependent on member states wanting to contribute more but I believe there are fewer that want to do so. Commissioner Serafin knows more about which states are in the coalition of the willing and which are in the coalition of the frugals. I will let him answer on that.

There are three questions. The first question was on where the €45 billion comes from. Commissioner Hansen already gave an insight but I will try to do so from my perspective. Given that we believe that in the EU budget we need to have more flexibility and more resources for unforeseen developments, we set aside in the national and regional partnership plans a sum of €68 billion. We say it should not be touched and that we will decide only in 2031 how it is to be spent. The €45 billion comes from that reserve and that €45 billion can be allocated in 2028 provided it is goes to rural areas and farmers. That is the logic of the mechanism. Some might be critical about that because it shows a clear preference on how the money should be spent.

On the next question, there are mandatory measures like LEADER but there is no ring-fenced budget. Then the question is how the Commission is going to ensure there are some resources for LEADER, for example. We will be in the process of negotiating national and regional partnership plans. Once the budget is approved, the next stage will be member states and regions coming with their vision on how to spend the money. Then negotiations will take place between the Commission, on the one hand, and the member state, on the other. This is exactly the moment when it will be for the Commission to say, for example, that LEADER is a mandatory measure and to ask what the budget for it should be and whether it was foreseen in the member state’s plan. That is what it will look like. This will also apply vis-à-vis other mandatory measures in the budget.

The last point is on the increase in the new budget. My trademark is to be frank, so I will be. I am not going to tell members what I would like to see but what I can see right now. Right now, I hear many member states saying that the Commission put on the table too ambitious a proposal. Many member states are saying we need to see cuts. They are not specifically talking about the Common Agricultural Policy, but when there are cuts nothing is certain. One more point, which I made this morning and which I would like to make here, is that this is exactly the reason we put on the table the own resources package. We know that some member states cannot afford right now to increase their national contributions because they are in excessive deficit procedures as they are in dire fiscal positions.

Some have a long-term habit of being against an increase to the national contribution, and that habit has not changed even though we have proposed a more modern structure for the EU budget. That is why I believe the only way forward is to have a serious discussion on the new own resources. We put a package on the table. There is not a single member state that would say it likes each and every proposal made. Each and every proposal regarding own resources is questioned by some member state.

There are two ways forward. Either we stick to the position of saying we do not like such a candidate and will not accept it or we are ready to consider the package and determine whether it is good or bad for us, bearing in mind that without a proposal on own resources, cuts related to the Commission proposal will be deeper. I know that is not an optimistic conclusion but it is constructive advice.

Sorry Chair, but a couple of my questions were not answered. Have the Commissioners seen the documentary by the IFA and the Irish Farmers' Journal on Mercosur? Was there an agreement with the Irish Government on a Mercosur deal derogation?

On the EU’s stated policies-----

I thank the Deputy.

-----and vision on supporting systems associated with mass deforestation, animal welfare standards, environmental protection and workers’ rights, how does its vision look if a deal is being done when Mercosur is clearly not meeting those standards?

Commissioner Hansen may answer briefly. We have time constraints and he has other meetings, but if he has anything to add, he may do so.

I have seen the documentary. We reacted to the farmers’ protests, mainly because we met the farmers with President von der Leyen herself and the President of the European Council President, Mr. Costa, and afterwards with me, Commissioner Serafin and two of our colleagues, to hear them out. This was not only about the budget; it was also about Mercosur, reciprocity, standards and fertiliser prices. That is why we proposed a package to the agriculture ministers on 7 January covering a range of topics, including more reciprocity in controls and the so-called food and feed omnibus. I remind members that our border controls are the competence of the member states. Member states need to control their ports better and we are doubling down on our efforts in third countries. I think this replies to the Deputy.

The Deputy asked about the ring-fenced amount. I am confident that we will maintain the ring-fenced model with an amount that is not going to be reduced.

I thank the Commissioners.

What about the agreement with the-----

Sorry, Deputy, but-----

I have asked it three times now.

We are way over time. We are 20 minutes over time.

The answer is obviously "Yes" if there is no answer given. I can take that as a "Yes".

They are not answering me.

I appreciate the attendance of the two Commissioners. Ireland, as we are all aware, is extremely committed to the EU, and that is why we have had such intense debate here today. We are looking forward to taking over the Presidency in July and are very excited about it. As an old Irish saying goes, go n-éirí an bother libh abhaile, which means "May the road rise to meet you on your way home". I thank the Commissioners for attending with their team.

As there is no further business, we will adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, 4 February 2026, at 3.30 p.m., when we will hold a private meeting. The next public meeting of the committee is scheduled to take place at 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 11 February.