Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for taking the time to come in today. The Minister started off with CAP, so I will touch on it first as well. The overall objective has to be maintaining the budget and ensuring that it is protected. In terms of the commitment that Ireland is giving and also the Minister's sense of where other European countries are at, how confident is the Minister that the budget as it is at the moment can be protected and what will that take? It is clear now that Brexit will be completed before the new multi-annual financial framework, MFF, comes into play, but simply maintaining the overall budget - it will take additional contributions from existing countries to do that - will not necessarily protect the CAP budget because of the additional pressures. I know that is a big challenge, but I would like to get the Minister's perspective on that.

We need to be crystal clear. Will the Minister clarify whether the Government is committed to doing what it takes not only to keep the EU budget steady but also specifically to keep the Common Agricultural Policy budget at its current value? The overall budget is the most important aspect of CAP. How that will be distributed once the overall budget has been agreed? What is the Minister's perspective on how that may unfold?

The Minister undertook some consultation recently. Specifically, does the Minister believe the reference years of 2000, 2001 and 2002 should continue to play a part in the overall distribution of CAP? What is the Minister's perspective on that?

I believe kicking the Brexit backstop to touch until October was a backward step. What had been communicated to us at all stages was that the Brexit negotiations would be conducted in two phases. Phase one was to deal with the Border question, among other topics, and phase two was to deal with trade talks. I was with some colleagues in Brussels shortly before the legal text was published by the European Commission. Certainly, the perception at that stage was that the Commission would push to ensure that Britain would accept the legal text. In reality, Britain has not accepted the legal text.

Those involved have moved into phase two, which deals with trade talks. The issue of the backstop has been deferred until the final agreement in October. The idea of the backstop was that it would be in place in the event of agreement not being reached. Now, the backstop is not going to be agreed until the final agreement is reached. The Minister may point out that the backstop was already agreed last December, but we have seen that when it comes to the crunch question of defining the backstop there are totally different interpretations. Until there is agreement on the legal text, no backstop is in place.

This question is particularly important from an agricultural point of view given our position as an all-island economy, as is the importance of having no border, either regulatory or in terms of tariffs, within the island. It is a missed opportunity that the Government has let slide. Europe has stepped back on this as well and has moved into phase two.

The most important thing is that the overall trade agreement is positive and that east-west arrangements between Europe and Britain are appropriate. It is difficult to call anything a backstop anymore given that it has not been agreed, ultimately, it is to be a part of the final agreement.

Mercosur has major implications, especially the proposal for 70,000 tonnes that has been formally offered. It seems that 99,000 tonnes has been informally offered. It appears clear to me from the replies of the Minister to parliamentary questions that the Government has more or less accepted and agreed that the proposal for 70,000 tonnes is something we can live with. The Minister has indicated in the replies to parliamentary questions from me that the Department's objective is not to increase on 70,000 tonnes and not to go towards 99,000 tonnes. The clear subtext is that the Minister can live with 70,000 tonnes and that the Minister has agreed, whether formally or informally, with his European partners that he will wear that. That is the bottom line from what I can see. Can the Minister comment on that?

Representatives of the farming community have said many times that 70,000 tonnes would have severe implications for our beef trade. It would lead to a direct reduction in the value of European beef. The Commission's market assessment indicates and proves as much. I do not believe the Minister should agree to 70,000 tonnes. Basically, that amounts to letting the beef sector carry the can for concessions in other sectors of the economy.