Mr. Phil Hogan:

I thank the Members for their kind remarks and will do my best to provide answers to their questions. Senator Paul Daly is right to be concerned about the budget for the CAP, which several Senators mentioned. The next programme period will be challenging, when we will be down €12 billion because the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union, and many member states have already agreed at European Council level that they want to see some programmes such as security, migration and defence co-ordinated. It is estimated that this will require another €12 billion over seven years. In the absence of additional contributions from member states and new sources of additional income for the European Union, there will be a cut in expenditure. The challenge is for us to get the balance right on where those cuts should be.

I also want to reflect on several Senators' remarks about the fair distribution of payments in respect of the CAP. At the moment there is a cap of €150,000 on payments in Ireland. We will be proposing a €60,000 cap for all farmers in the European Union. Whatever I propose it will be a matter for the member states and the European Parliament to agree. We can only make a proposal but I am concerned about this issue. Whatever savings can be made from the proceeds of this cap can be kept within the member state and redistributed to small and medium-size farmers to ensure that it limits the impact of any particular reduction in budgetary terms for those farmers who need it.

Part-time farmers will not be excluded from payments in the CAP. These people are actively involved in farming the land. Only those people who engage in hobby farming, or sofa farming as we call it, have reason to be scrutinised in respect of getting money from the CAP for not being engaged in agriculture. It is a matter for the member state to tease out an appropriate way to deliver a fair distribution of payments but also to prioritise the young and genuinely active farmers. We have given subsidiarity to the member states in recent months to do this.

The Commission has also been very much involved in trying to help Irish farmers through these recent difficult months. Many Senators have raised this, understandably. I met 700 farmers from all over the country in my native city of Kilkenny last Friday evening. I had to admire that they were able to be there given that three fine days had arrived for the first time since the autumn but people are always concerned about their future. When I was asked to advance some additional moneys from the basic payment scheme last September to help the cashflow of farmers through the winter I responded positively by increasing the 50% of advance payments to 70%. When I was asked by the tillage farmers' community and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to abandon and derogate the greening measure for what is called the three-crop rule for 2018 because farmers could not sow their crops until recent days, I immediately responded politically to say we will do this. When the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine asked me if we can actually pay out the final green low carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, payments, which are significant balances to be paid, I immediately responded that they could be paid in May of this year. While I know this will not be a big deal for those who have suffered a lot, it is some income that they need at times of difficulty and inclement weather conditions.

Simplification of the CAP is very urgent and necessary. I have brought in at least 100 changes already in secondary legislation. As Senator McDowell knows from his time as Attorney General, the basic Acts have to be opened before meaningful reform can be made. This is what we will do in our CAP legislative proposal in the first week of June when we will attempt to introduce a new model for delivery of the policy to ensure that it is less complex for the farmer and the member state, but particularly the farmer. I emphasise this new delivery model is not re-nationalisation of the policy, the word "common" will remain in the CAP in so far as the policy will be dictated and decided by the member states in the European Parliament at Brussels and European level. Implementation in the form of flexibility and subsidiarity will be decided in the context of a CAP strategic plan that each member state must submit to the European Commission for approval. The Minister for agriculture of the day here will be able to consult with the farm organisations and the Houses of the Oireachtas to draw up a plan that fits Ireland's situation provided that they meet the nine specific objectives of the CAP that must be met at European level. The objectives will be in economic, environmental and social aspects of the policy. If Ireland does not meet them the plan will not be approved. This is how we make sure we have a level playing pitch and continue to have the Single Market of which, ironically, Margaret Thatcher was the architect. In doing so we will be able to reduce the need for a rules and compliance-based approach and change to a performance and results-based approach.We will have targets and indicators in the same way as we have at present for the Water Framework Directive or various environmental policies. We will do so in a common-sense way. This will allow the flexibility of member states. Of course, we do not want to see member states then involved in gold-plating some of the initiatives that we will be taking. We will be monitoring this aspect of it as well before they get approval.

Forestry was mentioned by Senator Grace O'Sullivan. It is the case that forestry is essentially a member state competence. The Senator is correct. However, forestry is an essential element in the climate challenge and will also make a significant contribution to the development of the bio-economy in Europe which has considerable job potential. We will be giving specific attention to this in the rural development policies of the European Union. I understand that planting levels in Ireland are currently approximately 5,500 ha per annum. That is low against the target of 10,000 ha per annum that was in the rural development programme. Ireland is facing a challenge in meeting its 2020 and 2030 climate objectives. This is another reason we must look at how we can use the forestry sector in a planned way that can give us more carbon sequestration to meet these objectives on climate and the environment. Agriculture has a role to play.

I always subscribe to the basic philosophy that there should be nobody getting any money unless he or she will do something for public good. This would be the philosophy of the Common Agricultural Policy. If someone is getting money in direct payments for income support, we want him or her to do a little bit more than he or she has been doing in the past for environment, climate and public goods. Farmers, perhaps, for the first time, realise if they want European taxpayers' money and they want their budget protected, they have to do that little bit more to respond to the public concern that there is 34% of the EU budget going to agriculture and we need to do more. Of course, many do not understand that farmers are the only sector that gets money directly from the European Union for what they do. No other sector gets that. That is why it has been a successful fully-funded policy of the European Union since 1962.

In any area of environment, the environmental architecture will be constructed in such a way in the CAP to meet our targets and do better to help us to achieve our international obligations under the Paris Agreement under the sustainable development goals. It is common sense that our farmers would want to pass on their farmers in better condition, as to soil quality and otherwise, to the next generation. It is short-sighted if one wants to destroy one's natural resources. Farmers understand that, probably better these days than they did in the past.

Renewable energy, as Senator Mulherin mentioned, is an important issue. There has been a little confusion in some quarters that the 2020 targets for renewable energy that we have under the Renewable Energy Directive would be rolled over in some way into the 2030 targets. That is not the case. The 2020 target must be adhered to and we must be proactive in what we want to do in renewable energy to reduce the dependence on fossil fuel in line with what we have signed up to as a member state regarding the Renewable Energy Directive. This morning I met the Minister for energy, Deputy Naughten, about this to ensure that we all know exactly that there is no real free pass post-2020 in relation to the Renewable Energy Directive and we would be running into the trouble of perhaps infringement proceedings if this was to happen.

In successive trade agreements - I acknowledge that former Minister for trade, Senator Leyden, would have a particular interest in this - we have made a lot of progress in recent years. While President Trump wants to remain protectionist, the European Union has found an opportunity to go into the marketplace and replace the United States, in many cases, in doing good deals in Canada, in Mexico now, in China and Japan, and Vietnam, and of course we are working with Mercosur. Whether it is agriculture, financial services or pharma, there will always be sensitivities about certain areas of economic activity. However, this mandate that the Commission works under is agreed by the member state governments and the European Parliament before we go and negotiate at all.

If people are saying that they have a particular problem and sensitivity about a sector, such as beef in the Mercosur, that is already reflected in the mandate of the member state and we are able to flag that to our opposite numbers in Mercosur countries. I can assure the House that there will be no deal between the European Union and Mercosur unless we have high-quality standards adhered to, good sanitary and phytosanitary conditions, and that there will be an offensive interest in the context that we will get something in return, in particular, on the dairy sector. Of course, Germany, France, Italy and other countries will be anxious to do a deal on the basis of cars and car parts. Each country has its own priorities but these are reflected in the mandate. There has been little movement in recent months on Mercosur. I have no indication that there will be movement because we are in the middle of Brazilian elections as well at present and the Brazilian political situation is quite troubling.

In the context of trade, we also have in recent days concluded a deal with Mexico. These are important in the context of what Senator Leyden stated about diversification of the marketplace with the challenges that we will inevitably have with Brexit, where we have 43% of the total agriculture production here in Ireland going to the UK but, as one does not often hear, there is 53% of agricultural products from the UK coming to Ireland. There is an integrated trading relationship around agriculture. We must continue to impress upon member states, the Commission and the European institutions that are involved in these negotiations how Ireland is vulnerable in terms of economic shocks, particularly around the agri-economy area, perhaps more than any other member state. This is very much in the consciousness of Mr. Barnier, the chief negotiator. I am glad to be able to say that he will be visiting Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the coming days. He has an intensive programme where he will hear at first hand many of the issues that the Senators have raised as well.

On the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill, the amendments to the Bill were notified to the member states and the European Commission in January last. The deadline for responses was Friday last. The European Commission responded with comments, which were communicated to the Irish Government on Friday last. Both Portugal and Italy responded with what are called "detailed opinions", which effectively introduces a three-month standstill on the progress of the Bill. It is now a matter for the Irish Government to decide how to react to those detailed opinions. The Commission expects the Irish Government to address these issues raised in the comments. They are largely around an issue, in particular, about what is the definition of a cancerous product as to whether it is based on science or World Health Organization reports, and labelling arrangements and nutrition arrangements. These are all quite difficult issues when they have to appear on the label.

I am happy that Senator McDowell mentioned the context of the ongoing discussions on Brexit and that some irresponsible comments were made by some Members of the House of Commons. The Senator, in his former roles as Minister for Justice and Attorney General, will understand better than most the hugely important work that was done in the Good Friday Agreement. Mr. Barnier has been at pains on every occasion to reflect the genuine concerns we have, on the island of Ireland and, indeed, in the United Kingdom, to ensure that nothing happens that will unleash unintended consequences that in any way water down the Good Friday Agreement. I assure Senator Conway-Walsh of the same.

The contents of the Good Friday Agreement are sacrosanct when it comes to the European Union's negotiating mandate. Citizens' rights and human rights, and all of the issues Senator Conway-Walsh raised, will continue to be part of the normal day-to-day activities of people, whether they are North or South. The common travel area will be protected. Of course, it is dependent on what the United Kingdom proposes because it takes two sides to negotiate a deal. We would hope to be able to convince them that there is a new look required in customs partnerships. They need to look at their red lines around the customs union-Single Market regulatory alignment because otherwise they narrow their options, both for a deal and about what they could consider as a landing ground for a reasonable outcome on any future relationship or free trade agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom.

I note Mr. Barnier's assessment of the stated position of the United Kingdom at present. We are fortunate that Mr. Barnier is involved in these issues because he understands, from the time he was Structural Funds Commissioner, about the peace and reconciliation fund that is so critical to continue as well. We all know that the nuances of the traditions of political persuasions on the island of Ireland are not easy to explain to people who are a long way away from this island but Mr. Barnier gets these nuances. Hopefully, that will continue.

Many asked if the model we agree will be a Norwegian model or an Icelandic model.Will it be a model around the Swiss model? I do not know what model can be looked at if there are so many red lines from the United Kingdom side. It narrows the scope considerably into a free trade agreement. That is not what the objective of the European Union is, but it seems to be the objective of the United Kingdom. I hope that as Senator McDowell has said, there is a reawakening of these issues in the coming days and weeks in the United Kingdom and that they will be able to help to achieve a better outcome than they are proposing at the moment with their red lines in the interest of their own people, in the interests of business and in the interest of good relationships between the UK and Ireland and the UK and the European Union. Notwithstanding the fact that we are sorry to see the result of the British people in terms of this issue, all of us want to have a close relationship on the islands of Ireland and the UK, but equally between the UK and the European Union.