Mr. Joe Healy:

I apologise for interrupting earlier. To go back to the question that was asked, it is very clear that the next round of the task force will take place when the injunctions are lifted. The Goodman Group needs to ensure those injunctions are lifted and to allow progress to be made on the issues that Mr. McCormack outlined.

On market disturbance, the €50 million was secured under Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013. A question was also asked about work in Brussels. As the first vice president of COPA, I am in Brussels quite often. We continue to meet the Commissioner, Mr. Phil Hogan, and other Commissioners and MEPs from other countries who we would not meet in Ireland. This is to ensure we can put the facts in front of them. We had done the analysis on what farmers were paid between September 2015 and March 2016, which was pre-Brexit. We then compared that with the prices paid in the period from September 2018 to March 2019. Those were the facts and we were able to highlight those. The figures even excluded the increase in costs in the meantime. When the prices were explained to the politicians and the other farm organisations they appreciated the huge difficulties Irish farmers were experiencing as a result of the uncertainty of Brexit. That is without a no-deal Brexit or anything like it.

Throughout the Brexit negotiations, and indeed previously, the Irish Farmers' Association had an incredibly strong relationship with the Ulster Farmers' Union and the farming unions in Britain, including Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers' Union in the UK, Andrew McCornick, NFU president in Scotland and John Davies, NFU president in Wales. Just yesterday, I spoke in London at an event organised by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, AHDB, on global Britain and the implications of Brexit. I was speaking from an Irish perspective on the Brexit implications for Ireland.

Senator Marshall asked about Mercosur, an issue that has been well covered already. As farmers, we see all the asks being put on us. We hear our representatives in Europe and our politicians speak about climate change and the need for farmers to do this, that or the other. We go to meetings where we try to embrace the issue of climate change and highlight its importance. While we were doing that, however, the same European politicians agreed a deal with Mercosur. Farmers see large tracts of the Amazon rainforest being destroyed. We highlighted the fact that an area the size of a football pitch was being destroyed every minute in Brazil. There is hypocrisy attached to that and there is a promotion of double standards of production, especially when one considers the standards of production that Irish and European farmers have to live up to. That is the difficulty around Brexit. Last year, EU beef production was 102% of what was required by the market. That 2% excess is equivalent to some 160,000 tonnes of beef. At the same time, 270,000 tonnes of beef was imported from the Mercosur countries, of which 140,000 tonnes was from Brazil. If the pitch is level and if we produced beef the same way as it is produced in Brazil, we would not be allowed to put it on our shelves. We are looking for a level playing pitch.

Senator O'Reilly asked how realistic is the prospect of Irish product being displaced. That is a very realistic prospect. The idea of a cheap food policy in the UK is major issue and one of our biggest concerns. I spoke to my colleague, Minette Batters, in the UK some 12 months ago at a meeting hosted by the NFU in Newcastle. Ms Batters commented that she had just met the chief executive of Tesco UK and his words to her were that the average shopper visiting a Tesco store in England had £85 or less to feed a family of four. If they had the choice between a cheap product and one produced to the top standards in the world, they might choose the former. I believe displacement is very realistic. We see the race to the bottom among retailers at the moment. They may have a 33% discount on beef one day and 50% off the next day. They are willing to use beef as a loss leader because research has shown that people who put meat in their shopping basket will spend four times more than those who do not have meat in their basket. Retailers are willing to use beef as a loss leader. The average retail price of beef in the UK is £8.50 per kilo. The average retail price in Ireland is €8.97 per kilo. The UK accounts for two thirds of our beef. We are talking about €8.60 per kilo at retail level but beef is sold to manufacturing and food services sector at an even lower price. The fears in this regard are not a case of farm organisations crying wolf. They are very real and we are seeing the effects already.

On small farmers, there is no discrimination in the payments made to part-time farmers, small farmers or big farmers. The only discrimination we have seen over many years has been in the beef exceptional aid measure, BEAM. Someone could own an airline and draw money from the BEAM, whereas someone milking 41 cows could not draw it. That approach was as close to discrimination as I could see. It was wrong and it was pointed out to the Minister and Department. Senator Paul Daly made a point about revisiting that. It beggars belief and highlights how wrong the regulations on distribution were to see that two sectors, the suckler and beef sector, that are on their knees have not applied for all of that money. The only reason they have not applied for it is the restrictions that were put in place. A farmer who milks 45 or 50 cows is as much a beef producer as a dairy farmer, if he or she finishes the stock on the farm.

With regard to the Common Agricultural Policy, the proposals include a 10% increase to the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, which would increase from 1% of gross national income to 1.1% of GNI. Unfortunately, it appears that the cost of the new initiatives on defence, security and migration will exceed the amount generated by the 10% increase. This has resulted in the 5% cut to CAP. As I highlighted, by the end of the next round of CAP, the total of the EU budget allocated to CAP will be 28.5%.

In 1985, a total of 55% of the EU budget was spent on CAP. One of the original aims of CAP was to ensure an adequate supply of top-quality food to the consumer, a box we have more than ticked. Another was that it would be available at affordable prices, another box we have more than ticked. In the 1960s, when CAP was introduced, 30% of the average household income was spent on food, whereas today, the average throughout Europe is 10%, or 9.2% in Ireland. Last year, Irish families spent €124 per week on transport and €123 per week on food. That gives some idea of what CAP has done for the consumer. Nevertheless, if consumers were asked about CAP or what they understood about it, many would reply it was a benefit or payment for farmers. In essence, however, it has benefited the consumer more than it has the farmer, given that I am not sure whether it has achieved its third aim, namely, to provide viable incomes for farmers.

Senator Paul Daly asked about a bull and I thought for a moment he was talking about the bull we saw Boris Johnson leading around the place. Mr. Chestnutt has answered the question quite clearly. Over the years, pedigree sheep were often bought across the Border and from Scotland. When trade becomes seamless, one takes it for granted. Issues arise only when they are raised.