Michael Fitzmaurice Challenges CAP Cuts and New Environmental Rules

First of all, thanks for coming in. I think when you read the document, the first thing is, I think, Paul, and I just want clarification on this. As it stands at the moment, you're saying there's between 20% and 24% of lack of funding compared with the last cap. Is that correct? When you read through the document, there is talk about environmental climate and biodiversity. In it, there's monies will be put towards that. When did that come into cap? Because the reason for cap was to make food basically accessible to people to reduce the price of food for people that was working and living in cities. And now we're going on to a new venture of putting more layers on top of the farmer under biodiversity, climate and environmental. Why are we allowing that? Why wasn't cap, why aren't all the officials from different countries making it clear this was the reason cap was brought in under McSharry? And why are we moving the goalposts constantly? Because there's no extra money. It's 24% less. Yeah, thanks, Deputy. Well, maybe just to pick up on a couple of elements of that. I think, really, the shift towards an environmental component in cap happened, certainly, obviously, subsequent to McSharry. But what happened, I'd say, probably 20 years ago in the first rural development program that we had when we first had our first agri-environment program. And I think what's been happening over the last number of years, not so much that the goalposts have been changing, but that in order to secure sufficient money for the cap budget and the overall budgetary negotiations at the EU level, there has been increasing pressure to basically meet and achieve environmental requirements. There's a lot more environmental conditionality now around how the EU budget is actually discussed at the EU level. Well, all Member States and the Commission as well, I mean, we all have signed up to environmental targets over the medium and longer term. And a large part of the justification for the ongoing level of the cap budget is around the need to incorporate environmental objectives into the, and not just competitiveness or supporting farm incomes, but also to look at environmental protections as well. Now, that would have started, like I said, probably 20 years ago, and I stand to be corrected on that in terms of the first RDP that we put together. And that has evolved since then. So that kind of beachhead, if you like, was established from an environmental perspective, has grown and has become, I think, a bigger component of the cap over the last number of years, to the point that under the current CSP, we've moved on now into what is large expenditure of money on environmental objectives, greening objectives, much more ambitious, I think, targets in terms of environmental outcomes. And we've had to do that again to justify the amount of funding that's been made available at EU level. So I think we're part of, we're continuing a trajectory now to continue the process. Facts are, we're talking about 24% less, putting more problems on top of farmers, and the EU now seems to be more interested in guns and bombs than they are interested in a farmer producing food, when you look at what they're looking at at the moment. I see there, you've said area-based income, is that ANC, or can you explain that one? Leader, from my understanding and reading what you are, is that ring-fenced? And my understanding of the new cap is that, am I correct in this from listening to your own people, that it is now proposed that entitlements will be gone to be a per hectare basis, is that correct? Yes, the areas of natural constraints are covered in the regulation, as one of those areas that are covered as far as income support is concerned. So you have the area-based income support scheme, and then you also have the ANC as well, included in the suite of measures. On LEADER, LEADER isn't part of the ring-fenced allocation at the moment, so... It's not part of it. No, the ring-fenced allocation... I picked it up from your thing that it was, no? No, what I said was, with the exception of LEADER, ACUS, and the EU school scheme, the other measures are included in the general allocation. So LEADER isn't ring-fenced? LEADER isn't ring-fenced, no. Right, and in relation to, can you tell me, with the best will in the world, and the facts are we're a net contributor to Europe, we're giving more money to Europe than what we get back as a country, that's the facts. So let people not think that we're getting soft money out of Europe, it's our own money we're getting back, but less of it, to be quite frank about it. But can you tell me, is it possible, Paul, or can you see any way how you're sorted out, or as Deputy Cooney said earlier, of doing efficiencies, where you're ending up with 20% less of a budget, there's talk about helping young farmers more, which they do need help, I don't deny that, but if you're talking about 20% less of a budget, helping young farmers, helping, say, getting more women into farming, getting more people into farming, because the problems are mounting up, and there's a proposal as well, and can you elaborate on that, that by 2032, that if you were a pensioner, am I picking that up right, there's a proposal on it, that you have to decide one or other, is that correct, on what I'm reading on the proposals at the moment? Yeah, so maybe just to take those couple of points, one by one, just on the, you were asking about the contributor to the EU, and what we're getting back out of it, we are one of the biggest contributors now, net contributors to the EU, I think ninth largest EU contributor, but we're also a member of state that gets most of its money back from the EU through the cap, so obviously we're trying to maximise our cap funding in that context, and we'll continue to do that. In terms of the efficiencies of 20% less, I mean, yeah, we are trying to improve and make the provision of funds more efficient, we are expected to do, maybe not so much to do more, but to do things better, and to do things more efficiently, and to target things more efficiently, I think from the Commission's point of view, it's talking about, you know, more effectively targeting funding, more effectively integrating the cap with other funds and other activities that are going on at EU level and at national level, so we are being asked to do things more efficiently and get better value, I suppose, for the money that's available. Now, the 20% that you mentioned, and I did say earlier on, yes, that ring-fenced amount is 20% less than our current allocation under the MFF, but we do have the possibility to avail of funds within that broader NRP envelope to add to our cap funding, so there's still scope to increase our cap funding significantly within that. Now, there's a bit of a road to travel on that, and there's a lot of clarification that has to be made at EU level in terms of how that'll work, but there is scope to do that. The point you mentioned about the retirement by 2032, yes, there is a specific provision in the regulation which says that Member States shall ensure that at the latest by 2032, the applicants who reach retirement age determined by national law and who receive a retirement pension no longer receive support under that article of the regulation. So that is a proposal in the regulation, but it is a proposal, it's part of a suite of proposals, and it's part of that suite of proposals that will be subject to negotiations among Member States over the next period of time. So we'll wait and see what happens on that in terms of where that goes as part of the negotiations. But it's another element of what is a wider package, as far as the Commission is concerned, to try and support the development and sustainable development of the sector over the next period. And do you envisage, do you envisage, last question, do you envisage that we will know our road that we're travelling by February, March, first quarter of 27? Of 27? Well, yeah, I mean, we should have certainly a much better picture than we have. 27? No, you're talking 27, sorry, 18 months' time you're talking about. Is it coming in then to 27, or is it starting at the beginning of 27? Well, the next framework would commence from the 1st of January, 2028. So the negotiations are about the 28th, 34th. In the 27th, we need to know where we're going. But what I'm saying is, the first quarter of 27, 18 months' time, Ireland will have presidency of the EU as well, I'm sure. You'll be involved in that next year, isn't that right? We'll have it in the second half of next year, yeah. The second half, I think. And will that be a place where you'll be focusing on getting things nailed down the way that we'll try and get the best deal for our farmers? Well, I mean, obviously, we'll discharge our presidency responsibilities as we have to. It'll very much depend on the extent to which the proposal has progressed in the meantime. And for those reasons I mentioned earlier around the complications and the questions that are there at the moment, which are, I think, probably hampering a kind of quicker progress with the regulation at the moment, but we'll have to wait and see what happens with those questions. And we'll have to wait and see also, obviously, not just what the view is within the Council, but also what the view will be on the part of the Parliament, because that'll be an important contributor to the debate and to the timing of any resolution, and also to the nature of the work that we will have to do during the presidency. So, to be frank, at this point, that's very difficult to call. But, yes, I mean, in a very simple answer to your question, we'll have a much better idea by early 2027 than we do know exactly how it will be fixed for the period after the end of 2027, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you.