Dail Éireann · 2025-10-14
Party shown is the one held on 2025-10-14, frozen at parse time — not the speaker's party today.
Ireland has serious concerns on the preferential access being given to Mercosur if South American farmers are not subject to the same sustainable farming standards as our own farmers. This is after the Mercosur agreement comes in. It is very clear, as I sit on the AGRIFISH Council, that some of my colleague Ministers for agriculture speak glowingly of the Mercosur agreement and what it would mean for their farmers and agricultural sectors.
The fact is that a minimum of four countries is needed for a blocking minority for the Mercosur agreement, if and when it comes to a vote. Is it true that, as part of the deal, the European Union will pay Mercosur countries quite large sums of money, which would normally go to farmers in Europe, to bring their farm produce up to the standards of the European farmers? Will the European authorities have inspectors in the Mercosur countries?
Built by scoring every sentence in the debate on how distinctive its language is, then quoting the highest-scoring ones back word for word and in the order spoken. Nothing is paraphrased or invented — if a sentence appears here, it was said in the chamber. Drawn from 628 words across 7 contributions by 3 speakers.
How often each word appears across the whole debate, ranked by how distinctive it is to this debate rather than common to all parliamentary language.
All 7 contributions, start to finish, in the order they were made. The one you came here for is highlighted.
The Minister knows there has been huge concern for many years about the potential impact the Mercosur trade agreement would have, in particular for Irish farmers. I would appreciate if he could outline to the House the engagements he has had at an EU level in respect of the Mercosur trade agreement.
Along with the Tánaiste, who has lead responsibility for trade policy, I have actively engaged with both the European Commission and other member states across the EU to voice Ireland's concerns on the EU-Mercosur agreement. Ireland has serious concerns on the preferential access being given to Mercosur if South American farmers are not subject to the same sustainable farming standards as our own farmers. We have repeatedly emphasised that beef in particular is a very sensitive sector which is vulnerable to negative impacts from the Mercosur agreement. During these engagements, the Tánaiste and I have also repeatedly emphasised Ireland's requirements for credible, legally binding commitments on matters relating to trade and sustainable development, including climate, biodiversity and deforestation protections.
Since my appointment as Minister earlier this year, I have raised these concerns at AGRIFISH Council meetings and with like-minded member states through bilateral meetings on the margins of Council meetings. In recent months, I have met with my French, Austrian and Latvian counterparts, in addition to Polish and other counterparts, to exchange views. The Commission recently announced its proposed approach to ratification and its proposal for a regulation implementing the bilateral safeguard clause within the agreement on agricultural products. Our officials are currently examining these proposals in detail to see if they provide any of the additional assurances required.
Pending that examination, Ireland's position on the EU-Mercosur agreement remains as clearly outlined in the programme for Government: "[To] Work with like-minded EU countries to stand up for Irish farmers and defend our interests in opposing the current Mercosur trade deal." That is what we continue to do.
The difficulty is that a predecessor of the Minister's agreed at European Council level to opening the negotiating mandate. It was at that point that the original sin in respect of Mercosur was committed because, since then, we have been on the back foot. Even now, as the Minister rightly outlines, he has to work with others across the European Union. There is a very real threat his voice will be a minority one and, because of the qualified majority voting rules, he will not be in a position to block this.
There has been a Commission proposal for a regulation to strengthen protections for farmers. I do not believe it does what it says on the tin because it requires that there be a threat of serious injury to the sector before an investigation is even launched. This is after the Mercosur agreement comes in. Is the Minister using any other leverage? There are other things countries that might not be as concerned about Mercosur might want and need Ireland to vote with them on other issues. Is the Minister using those levers to ensure that we kill this deal dead?
It is very clear, as I sit on the AGRIFISH Council, that some of my colleague Ministers for agriculture speak glowingly of the Mercosur agreement and what it would mean for their farmers and agricultural sectors. There are some countries that are very strongly of the view that this an agreement that should have been agreed ages ago. Not every country is opposed to it.
We work with like-minded countries. I will be the chair of the AGRIFISH Council from 1 July next year when Ireland takes over the Presidency of the EU. I am meeting with many colleagues in bilateral meetings on what their priorities are for renegotiating the CAP and other issues. In all of those meetings I am highlighting my specific concerns around Mercosur. Because of the fact that we will be in the chair next year as a country, when they tell me what their priorities are, I will take the opportunity to highlight what our priorities are on the CAP, how we have to maintain the nitrates derogation and our serious concerns on the Mercosur deal. The fact is that a minimum of four countries is needed for a blocking minority for the Mercosur agreement, if and when it comes to a vote. There would not be a vote at the AGRIFISH Council. It would be either a vote of the trade or of the ambassadors. We know what qualified majority voting means as well.
I would love to hear an argument being put forward by an agriculture Minister anywhere that would suggest that the Mercosur trade agreement would benefit farmers in any part of Europe.
This is more about auto parts and the car industry rather than anything else. In terms of what it means for Ireland, this allows Mercosur states, which do not adhere to anywhere near the same level of regulations and restrictions with which our farmers must comply, to import 100,000 tonnes of additional beef into our market. We know the impact that would have on the Irish beef sector, which is trying to diversify and find new markets post Brexit. It also allows for 180,000 tonnes of poultry. That will have a big impact on my constituency, which has a vibrant poultry sector. I am not sure where there would be a net export from any particular region. Some wine regions may see some benefit in it but the truth of the matter is the economic rationale for supporting Mercosur is not based on support for farmers. In fact, it is counterintuitive from an environmental perspective and also in the context of a situation where the CAP budget itself is under threat. This could be existential for the family farm model as we know it.
I will ask one short supplementary question in that regard. One of the key problems with Mercosur is that we are bringing product into Europe that does not meet the same standards as European farmers have to meet, and are happy to meet because of the high quality of the product we have in this country.
Is it true that, as part of the deal, the European Union will pay Mercosur countries quite large sums of money, which would normally go to farmers in Europe, to bring their farm produce up to the standards of the European farmers? Is something happening in that respect behind the scenes to try to ensure that the product coming from the Mercosur countries will meet the standards?
The other issue I want to raise relates to the inspections that will take place. How and when will they happen? Will the European authorities have inspectors in the Mercosur countries? Will they be checking the product before it leaves those countries? Will it be checked on farms or in abattoirs when it comes to beef and chicken? We need detail in respect of that.
I will not waste lots of time talking about it. A number of EU countries, such as Spain and others, and their ministers for agriculture speak glowingly of Mercosur. That is a fact. Those meetings are public and open for people to see. I do not need to list the countries in question. We are in the minority at that Council in terms of continually raising concerns around this space. However, we do it because of the sensitivity for our beef sector and others. Previously, others that were in that space with us were the French and Polish, while the Austrians and Italians also have concerns. It requires at least four member states working together as a bloc and that combined they would constitute at least 35% of the population of the EU. If that falls away, there is not that ability to block in that space.
In relation to points made about standards, we should recognise there are two different types of standards here. The SPS standards are our food safety standards which are absolutely non-negotiable. We do not allow hormone-fed beef into Europe. It is the environmental standards that are going to be at odds, and that is what we raised the issues about.