I thank the Deputy for raising this point. Of all the big issues we are dealing with and will discuss in this House, be it the budget just passed or all the other challenges, nothing is as central as the CAP, because it sets out the framework for the seven years beyond 2027. At the most recent Agriculture and Fisheries Council meeting, held in Brussels in September 2025, I took the opportunity to outline that the proposed governance and structure of the post-2027 multi-annual financial framework, MFF, or the overall European budget, represents a major change in how the CAP will operate, with national and regional partnership plans, NRPPs, replacing the existing two-pillar model, which has worked so well for the Irish farming system for so long. I emphasised that the CAP must remain a policy that works in practice – one that delivers stability and predictability for farmers while remaining manageable for national administrations. We do not want loads of resources to be used for the administration of the schemes; we want appropriate simplification of administration, which benefits the farmers. We also want appropriate simplification for farmers in real terms, which previous CAPs have failed to deliver despite the best of intentions.

The failure was not deliberate, but in Brussels since January I have seen that things that the best of intentions would lead people to believe are simplified can be very different in practice. What suits one country may not suit another and that is why elements of subsidiarity and national flexibility are very important. This is why I highlighted the need for sufficient flexibility at member state level to design schemes suited to their own agrifood systems, while preserving the integrity of the CAP as a common EU policy. We do not want to lose commonality or to have member states competing with each other, with all the associated state-aid implications. Undermining the common element of the CAP will actually undermine the genuine benefit Irish farmers have got from being part of the Common Market. On the other side, we need flexibility that leads to the recognition that farming in Ireland is very different from that in Slovakia, Slovenia or Spain in many instances. We need flexibility in the design.

I will have more points to make in response to the supplementary questions.

We are all very conscious of the proposal on the table whereby we face a 22% cut in respect of the CAP. That will have a very serious effect on Irish agriculture in addition to the entire food sector and farm families. The vast majority of our food is produced by small farm families the length and breadth of the country who depend on their CAP payments to remain sustainable. We have had decent prices recently, in fairness. This is attributable to supply and demand and the fluctuations in the market, but for years, many farmers would say it was the other way around in that they were producing food and not getting a good price for it. They had to struggle. I have always said that the best way farmers can make money is to have a decent price for their produce. At the moment, they are getting a decent price but it is very much at the whim of the market. They need to ensure there is a base in place. The removal of the two pillars is very dangerous. Many farm organisations and farmers are very concerned that it could mean that much of the money ring-fenced in the past for agriculture could be raided for other purposes. That is what we need to ensure does not happen.

I concur. It comes down to brass tacks, or money, and that is why I stress the budget dimension is of central importance. I stressed this to Commissioner Hansen. I welcome his efforts in securing a €296 billion ring-fenced EU-wide CAP envelope.

This is a significant achievement in the context of there being no commitments to ring fencing beforehand. It has been very clear there was not going to be ring fencing. To get a specific amount ring-fenced, not just a percentage but €296 billion, was a significant achievement. Ireland's indicative allocation of €8.16 billion represents a significant reduction from the current €10.7 billion. This is a substantial change and one that raises concerns around maintaining an effective level of support for farmers and rural communities. The Deputy is right that we do not want to be going back to national envelopes and having fights nationally. I am really clear that we need to fight for more money for this in Europe as a starting point and that is something I am really keen to do.

While I agree, at the same time, we need to recognise - I brought this point up at a meeting in Brussels recently attended by Commissioner Hansen - that this has the difficulty of undermining people's confidence in the EU itself. The vast majority of people across the length and breadth of this country have done well out of the European Union, as have the vast majority of farmers from the perspective that they have been able to expand and grow their farm and have good markets for their produce. Now, though, they see that the CAP budget, which in the 1980s was about 70% of the EU budget, is now down to less than 30% of it. This is a major problem because it is being pushed back all the time. We need to stand firm on the need for Irish farmers and agriculture to have a decent CAP that will make payments to them.

I know it is premature to suggest the national budget could be used at this stage to ensure farmers maintain their income and have those supports in place. We need to see an indication given to farming communities that the Government will not let them down and that payments will not reduce, regardless of what we end up with from the negotiations. A lot of farmers are very concerned that, in the coming years, they will not get the level of support they had in the past. I will ask a question later about farm regeneration and young farmers coming into the field. They are not going to do so if there is not a sustainable future. The CAP is an absolute priority in making sure that future can be sustainable.

In my first nine months in the job, I hope I have demonstrated that I have good, sharp elbows. In my recent budget negotiations, I secured a 9% increase on the Department of agriculture's overall allocation, whereas the summer economic statement indicated that the overall increase in Government spending would be only 6%. I think the Department has received the second largest percentage increase in current allocations compared with last year's budget. I have, therefore, demonstrated an ability to put forward a credible plan, look for money and get it for the right reasons. That is possible when you have a clear plan, as I have around bovine TB, supporting the tillage scheme, generational renewal and the need to support our ACRES farmers and others who have also been through a rough time.

Similarly, at this point, my focus here is on fighting for more money in Europe. I will have sharp elbows there if we are fighting to get money out of a national pot, but we do not want to be in that space. Ireland is a net contributor to the overall EU budget and 75% of the receipts we get back from Europe have come through the CAP. If we lose that and if there is a reduction in what we get back from the CAP, there will be a reduction for the Exchequer overall and the taxpayer will lose because we will get less money coming back in. I am not willing to leave that money behind me. Ireland will have the Presidency of the EU from next July and, God willing, if I am still there, my role as president of the AGRIFISH Council will give us a great opportunity to build alliances with our European partners and to fight for more money at a European level for the Common Agricultural Policy.