Address to Seanad Éireann by Members of the European Parliament Seanad Éireann — 2026-05-27 ============================================================ Barry Cowen I will try to run through some answers to the various questions. For those we cannot answer, we will definitely remain in close contact in the coming weeks to respond to them. In relation to the issue of Irish school meals supposedly being compromised, I refute that. I disagree with it wholeheartedly. If Mr. Mullooly has evidence of that I ask that he lays it on the table. If he has not, he should withdraw it and let us move on. The Common Fisheries Policy is under review at present and will be under the Irish Presidency. I expect that the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, will be conversing with Members and the stakeholders with the view to seeking to have that overhauled because, as was rightly said, it is very dated. It does not bear much resemblance to the industry today and the way the quota system has evolved over time with Brexit, the deal with Norway that was alluded to and so forth. In relation to the issue of MEPs liaising with the Committee of the Regions, regional authorities and local councillors, notwithstanding the added bonus of my neighbour Séamus Boland being president of the Committee of the Regions presently, we have a very good working relationship. We are kept abreast of developments and of their input and asks with a view to ensuring that irrespective of what committee we individually sit on, we reflect their opinions and aspirations, and support policy and legislation that will help rather than hinder them in their efforts to grow their own communities and regions. On the question on active farming and arriving at a successful definition that takes note and is cognisant of the diversification we have even in Ireland, there are certain parts of the country where food production is more intensive. However, we would like to see no further conditionality on sustainable food production but rewards for those who move with innovation, technology and new practices, and to augment that and build on the success we have had both in our own internal market and beyond Europe's shores in international trade, which I mentioned. That is notwithstanding the progress we have seen in relation to the 7% increase in our beef trade, the 20% increase in our food exports and new markets being opened all the time on foot of European agreements and then carried through by our Government in its efforts to reopen and present new markets. I am also conscious of those farmers who are on less productive and less arable land, who are not full time and are not profitable but are supplementing their family's income. It is essential that is recognised because in the absence of those farmers we would see depopulation in rural areas, so we have to find a way of monetising that. We have to look at making sure that nature and carbon trading is not an aspiration but a reality. The issue of nature restoration and the funding towards that was mentioned in this House previously. I know that the previous Government gave a commitment to divide the windfall taxes between the nature fund and the Ireland fund. We saw the augmentation and repurposing of the national development plan, provided for with the finances that I alluded to. I expect the same in relation to nature restoration and rewetting. We made commitments during the course of the last election that no farmer would be forced to engage in that practice bar they wanted to do so voluntarily. However, they have to be rewarded for doing it and there has to be an income benefit to them along the lines of the supplementary income that I mentioned. That is the sort of concept we want to engender and ensure is easily visible in the context of a new Common Agricultural Policy. In relation to Gaza, first and foremost, Netanyahu, his people, government and army were more than entitled to repel Hamas's illegal incursion and drive it back to its own territory, but under no shape or form would we support or be in favour of what is against the international rule of law and all human rights as we know them, and in total violation of everything we stand for. Irrespective of what we think of the leadership and governance of Israel, I am sure there are plenty of good people there too whom Netanyahu does not act on behalf of. I commend the Government on the leadership it has shown to many other states within Europe. We are in the minority in many cases in relation to this issue. I and my colleagues in Fianna Fáil did not vote for von der Leyen initially because of the lack of meaningful response in relation to this issue. Some will point to subsequent votes that have happened in the meantime. Those subsequent votes have added value to them in the context that if we get rid of her, we will get rid of the whole Commission, including Michael McGrath and the work he is doing in the whole area of justice and the responsibility he has in that regard. There has been some progress of late. It is moving in a far better direction than it was previously. I remain committed, as do my colleagues of all parties and none, to voice the concerns, worries and aspirations of the Irish people in relation to what they can see is just appalling and disgusting. I could not give Members the words that are needed to describe what I think of Netanyahu as a person and the way in which he carries out his duties supposedly in the name of his people, which I doubt very much would be the case if it were put to a democratic test. --- 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