Address to Seanad Éireann by Members of the European Parliament Seanad Éireann — 2026-05-27 ============================================================ Barry Cowen Like Ms Carberry, I will do my best to try to respond, even briefly, to many of the points that have been made. I thank Senators for the contributions and input. On CAP funding and the 20% drop that is inevitable in the context of the commitment that has been made to defence and security, which we cannot disregard either, Europe has been successful when it is unified. It was unified on Brexit. It was unified on Covid vaccination programmes, in its response to the war in Ukraine and Europe's overdependence on Russian gas and in the means by which Horizon funding was provided to help with and address the issues caused by those. Efforts to disunite Europe succeed in undermining it. From our perspective, there are eastern bloc countries that, whether we like it or not, are more interested in tanks than tractors. You have to respect and appreciate that. We have a role, in a unified Europe, to ensure we play our part, even as a militarily neutral country, in assisting in defence, whether that is in relation to our waters, our cables or our cybersecurity. The Government, fortunately, is committed to that, as are the other member states. That does not take away from the fact no defence and security policy would be complete without pro rata provision for food security. That is the argument we hope will win the day insofar as we cannot have one without the other. As shadow rapporteurs, we have a duty to make proposals to initially bridge that gap and seek more funding thereafter due to inflation. We think we can win the support of colleagues in doing that. On animal transport, Senator O'Loughlin rightly alluded to the fact that Ms Carberry and I joined forces on amendments to separate sport horses from the norm, although that is not to say there is not a responsibility to ensure that, as an island nation, we are protected in relation to the time of travel and so forth. There are 3,000 amendments proposed on the proposal. It is in quicksand at present and we do not see it going too far. That is not to say we will not be mindful, if and when it is resurrected, to ensure that industries such as the sport horses sector, especially by virtue of the impact it makes in this nation over others, are recognised and appreciated. On generational renewal and Senator Joe O'Reilly’s point, it is commendable that the Commission, in its proposal, has gone from 3% to 6% of the overall spend. As I said, the Government is committed to a figure of 8%, which is commendable. We hope that will become a reality. I believe it should be accompanied by exit or voluntary retirement packages, side by side. A lot of work was done by the Government in preparation for that. I would have no difficulty with that being a conditional commitment within CAP for member states in order to avail of increased payments to younger farmers. Starter help and assistance to them, with accessibility to land, finance and so forth, could be dependent on a scheme for exit, and not one that aligns with the proposal that is there to throw pensioners off a cliff in relation to their entitlements. That will not be the case. The role LEADER plays has been mentioned. The proposal in the Commission's draft at present is for it to be outside the CAP envelope. We are arguing strongly for it to go back in. We are arguing strongly that it be measured by traditional means and metrics rather than cohesion metrics, which would show the improvements that have been made and lessen the availability of funding. It is something this Government should underpin and commit to in order to work with us to reassure us that, irrespective of what form the CAP takes after it has been agreed, it will contain similar commitments to LEADER programmes, local development companies and so forth because of the role they play, especially in rural communities. In relation to trade and the Mercosur deal, Senators asked specifically about Government parties. The Government made a commitment not to support it and it did not support it. Some Senators will say it was late in the day when that was finalised. That was because of the Government's efforts to ensure there was better conditionality, safeguards and safety nets in place to address the issues. That was my job too, and I alluded to that earlier. I do not think we would have had the sort of strengthening of the conditions and conditionality associated with the agreement without that commitment. It would have been a lot easier to shout and roar from the sidelines and give out about the agreement, but I had a responsibility and duty to deal with the reality that it could well be passed without our vote, which has happened. There is a case being taken, and people will say it is looking at every aspect of the agreement, but it is not. It is merely looking at the separation of the political and trade sections of the committees in question. There is, unfortunately, precedent in Singapore where the separation was catered for, and I expect that to be the case here. There are much better safeguards and provisions in place now than there were 12 months ago, when people were saying we could not and would not vote for the Mercosur agreement and we should have been early in saying that. We respected and honoured the commitment made in the programme for Government and went so far as to ensure those improvements were made to make it a lot easier if those concerns become a reality. If we get to see it again, if we have more time, I will do that too. We are pro-trade, as I said----- --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-05-27/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:00+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-05-27