Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

I will take the last question first. I do not believe we are getting side-tracked. We stay in very close touch with the Commission, the Cabinet, the Commissioner and other member states.

It is absolutely true we are living in an environment in which there are a lot of uncertainties. That is the reality. I do not think there is any kind of an agenda to mislead anybody. I am simply trying to present the facts we are aware of now. The fact is there is a leaked document from the Commission. I would be a little bit more cautious than to say we would greet it with open arms. It sets out a set of principles with which we can work but it would only be the start of a discussion. To greet something with open arms, we would need to see the detail. We have not seen any detailed proposals.

I did not answer one of Deputy McConalogue's questions about the position of farmers in the supply chain and the role that the CAP can play. There are specific proposals being prepared at the moment on unfair trading practices outside of the CAP. Our view has always been that if these things are to be effective, because we export 90% of what we produce, they need to be done on a pan-European level. We have introduced legislation in Ireland but it is not enough to resolve that issue. In terms of what the CAP can do, the focus of its interventions in this area has generally been on supporting collectivisation from farmers. It has been on supporting producer groups. We have launched a programme for developing food producer groups in the beef sector. We will fund a facilitator who will help farmers to get together and provide them with guidance on governance and that sort of thing. They will have the latitude under the current competition rules and the CAP to negotiate collectively. That has been the kind of intervention the CAP has made available to deal with supply chain issues. It is a difficult issue to deal with. When one looks at public consultation and the responses from farmers and non-farmers, which are quite different in some areas, 100% of respondents favoured strengthening the position of farmers in the supply chain.

Deputy Kenny asked about environmental sustainability and whether we see the CAP going in that direction. The reality is that the CAP scheme was greened the last time around and that trend will continue. Do we foresee a threat to direct payments? There are those who feel there should be a shift in funding from direct payments to rural development and the departing member state was one of the major proponents of that. It is not something we would necessarily support. We had the option the last time around to move funding on the basis of national discretion from pillar one, direct payments, into pillar two, CAP, and we chose not to do that. If one is looking at threats to the CAP and its shape and the proposals for modifying it, it is a proposal that could emerge. The balance of funding could be shifted towards public good, RDP measures and away from direct payment. That is something we would have to look at very carefully if we receive a proposal. Our position has been unequivocally that the direct payment is the fundamental pillar of supporting farm families. We remain in favour of that.

President Macron made a speech a while ago and perhaps that is what the Deputy was thinking about. He talked about being unafraid to address the old taboos when it came to the CAP. He made the point that even though farmers complain about the CAP, when we come to a point where we have the opportunity to fundamentally reform it, they tend to oppose that. If one examines the detail of President Macron's speech, it is a bit similar to the leaked paper; it is a set of principles on which one could fit many policies. He has allowed himself sufficient margin for movement in what he said. At the time when he made the speech there was quite a violent reaction when he said we cannot be afraid to discuss the old taboos. I am not sure it was matched by the substance of the speech.

Deputy Corcoran Kennedy asked about the budget. There are a number of elements to the budget.

We are not at the point where we will accept in any kind of a formal way a reduction in the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, budget. We do not know what the financial arrangements will be when the UK leaves the European Union. It is one of the largest net contributors to the budget, some €10 billion a year. If 38% of the overall EU budget is CAP funding, then that could be a cut on its own of €3.8 billion. That is the first piece of the jigsaw.

The second piece is that there are new political priorities in some member states, such as migration and security, for which they will be looking for funding. The next piece is the eastern bloc countries looking for a bigger share of the budget. We looked at a proposal for external convergence of payments per hectare across member states before and we are absolutely certain we have nothing to gain from it. Would we lose from it? We would have to see specific proposals to determine whether we would lose from it or not. The last proposal from the then Commissioner, Dacian Ciolo, was to move everyone to the average payment per hectare across Europe. When we looked at the specifics at the time, our payments per hectare were more or less bang on the average. At that time, we would not have been significant losers from external convergence.

As for now, we would definitely not gain from external convergence. At the same time, we cannot take it for granted that we would lose from it. We would need to examine the proposal at the time, look specifically at our payments per hectare, compare them to the European average and assess the proposal.

The three threats to the budget are the UK's departure, the political imperative for funding other priorities and the desire of the eastern bloc member states to have what they view as a fairer share of the pot.

Regarding additional contributions, that is a little bit beyond my pay grade and is not even a question for our Minister to answer. All I can say is if the budget remains the same and the size of the CAP reduces, Ireland will become a bigger net contributor. Since 2014, Ireland has been a net budget contributor overall. If one divides the budget on a proportionate basis, however, we are still a significant net beneficiary of the CAP. The ratio is about 2:1. If the budget remains the same and the CAP is diminished, then Ireland will become a larger net contributor. If the CAP is to remain the same and if these additional priorities are to be funded, even if one discounts the loss of the UK money, then member states will have to pay more. If the CAP is to remain the same, one takes into account a significant loss of funds from the UK and these additional priorities to be funded, then member states will have to pay more.

Ireland has never been found wanting when it comes to a willingness to support the CAP. In the context of this discussion, people will assess matters on a logical basis and what is in the national interest. That is as far as I am prepared to go in determining it. I am an official and that is a question of policy to be answered by somebody else.

We based our position on glyphosate on the science. The view from the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, is that there is no public health risk from the use of glyphosate. Based on that, the European Commission has proposed a five-year extension to the approval for glyphosate, which we support.

We are sensitive to the pressure on rural areas and the reality of farming.

Food waste is a real issue. It goes back to public confidence in the system we have for funding farming. I am not sure what the CAP can do in that regard. It can fund information campaigns. That might be the kind of initiative which could potentially emerge. Again, it seems to me that it needs to be done on a pan-European rather than a national level.

I referred to family farms but Deputy Fitzmaurice might have felt not as often as I should have. The position on capping is that we have gone as far as we can under the current legislative framework. There is a specific reference in the leaked document to a reflection on whether we should cap between €60,000 and €100,000. The Minister has said it is something he is prepared to consider but we do not have a specific proposal yet. During the 2013 reform, we went some of the way towards flattening payments across farms. The political and factual reality is that when one talks about shifting funding from person A to person B, it is difficult and divisive while people have strong views on it. There was a view taken at the time that if we moved to a flat rate everywhere, it could be disruptive to farm incomes and productivity. There was a balance. By 2019, we will have shifted €100 million from the highest paid farmers to the lower paid farmers. Quite a few people view that as inadequate but that is what is being done. Based on the leaked paper, it will be possible to continue on that journey in the next reform.