I want to find out what is happening in regard to CAP. We want to see if there is any progress in relation to the proposed budget and retaining the Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 structure which has served Ireland well up to now. During Ireland's Presidency, how much progress can we realistically make towards securing a full and proper budget which will sustain Irish farmers and European agriculture?

In the time allotted to us, I would say we will not be able to cover everything in CAP. To take the last point first, the budget is everything. While it is not part of my negotiations as chair of the AGRIFISH Council, it is a key focus of the Irish Presidency. Working with the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and all colleagues across government, we will be looking to significantly progress negotiations on the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, and will work with member states in that regard. I want to progress as many files as I can and progress the Council's position on as many positions as possible, ideally agreeing a partial general approach across the 27 member states so that the Council's position will be locked in. We cannot get to a full agreed general approach unless the budget is agreed because we need the figures as part of that. Getting the full general approach is out of our control but we hope to get as close as possible to an agreed Council position across all issues so that the position is set for the trilogues, which are the negotiations between the Commission's proposals, the Parliament's proposals and our own proposals.

Negotiations on the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy are progressing well. Progress was made under the Danish and Cyprus Presidencies, with discussions now increasingly focused on the remaining political and technical issues regarding the CAP regulation. During its Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Ireland's role will be to facilitate negotiations, build consensus among member states and act as an honest broker in advancing the discussions.

In relation to income support, the Commission's proposals continue to provide for the use of coupled payments under the future CAP, where this is justified. Ireland could, for example, continue operating coupled income support in the same way as under the current CAP strategic plan, where protein aid is paid as a coupled payment. That is an example of that but there are a number of elements and what happens with them - like in relation to entitlements, which I can expand on in a minute - will determine whether coupled payments would work or will be needed.

I appreciate that but negotiations can only get you so far when you do not have the budget. We need to secure the budget and that is why I want to focus on that more than anything. Over six months of the Presidency, we need to secure that and get agreement on an increased budget. A decrease of approximately 20% will be devastating for Irish agriculture and for many sectors.

I am thinking of the suckler sector in my area, which really depends on these funds. If these funds are cut, it will have a detrimental effect on this industry and on many other sectors across agriculture. What we need to get down to here is whether the Minister is saying to me that we will have an increase in the budget and that Ireland will be able to secure it in the term of the Presidency. The Minister is smiling as if I am asking whether he has a crystal ball but what we need to know is how determined we are to ensure this can happen and what are the indications coming from other member states in respect of it. Is the Minister up against it or is there openness to trying to progress an increased budget for CAP?

It is fair to say that across the AGRIFISH Council, all of the Ministers for agriculture and fisheries want to see the maximum budget for the next Common Agricultural Policy and the next Common Fisheries Policy. That is obviously what we would expect. At the last Council meeting, I made the point to Ministers for agriculture that we need to go back and make sure, in every member state, that if the minister for agriculture is saying this, then the minister for finance and Prime Minister should also be saying it at the European Council, ECOFIN and all of the other Councils. The Tánaiste is in Brussels today and tomorrow on this.

In this regard, the Irish Government is four-square behind the approach of maximising the funding for the CAP. Other governments have different approaches. There are the countries traditionally known as the frugals, which are concerned about the size of the budget and want it to be less. Many countries, in eastern Europe in particular, are demanding that a larger allocation of the spend goes to the area of defence than has been the case historically. There are also many countries saying they are not able to pay more in. There are a lot of competing demands, which is why I have positioned food security and funding for the CAP, not as distinct and in opposition to the request for more money for defence, but as complementing it because food security is an integral part of the question of security.

I appreciate that and food security is certainly central to this. Every time somebody from the European Commission speaks, they talk about security but as we know with the various conflicts, and we have seen what is happening again in Iran, primary to security in Europe will be food security. We need to focus on ensuring we keep our agricultural sector vibrant and producing. If we do not do so, we will have a food security problem. To go back to the other issues with the Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 structure, and the possibility of more coupling and what sectors this may impact, where does the Minister feel this will move? In what direction are we moving?

To go back to the broader point about the funding, the ring-fenced budget is 76% of the past seven years. It is not enough. It is not nearly enough for what we need, what our ambitions are and what we want to do over the next seven years to support the agriculture, food and fisheries sectors. In terms of the mechanics of how we do this, we have the €45 million that President von der Leyen brought forward as a proposal in January. We have conditionality through the national regional partnership plan, NRPP, structure around a certain amount having to go to social cohesion. There is more money to be chased in terms of the overall pot but there is conditionality around it. This is where I am talking about flexibility and member states having the flexibility to be able to access it. This is about us being able to access additional money to increase that percentage. I am working with colleagues across member states to be able to do that.

In terms of the point on coupled payments, this is directly linked to what happens with entitlements. Right now, there is no provision for entitlements. Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 are gone and the NRPP structure is here to stay. I do not think farmers could really tell us what pillar their payment came from; they just know what is important about it. We have to work within the mechanisms. I am happy that in recent times, under the Cyprus Presidency, we did get a number of decisions made, such as on active farming, under the CAP regulation and not the NRPP regulation, which means it will be the agriculture ministers deciding, which is very important.