Michael Fitzmaurice Warns EU Is Shifting Costs to National Budgets

What, how much of the budget are we talking about here in this comm? So there's not a specific budget associated with the CMA. Yeah, I know there's a budget, but if you go back on what it was used, it said the money that was coming in, how much money of the budget was being used? I see we're referred to school mid-budget, we're referred to, say all the, you said the 100% in producers' groups was being funded. So what is that budget that you're talking about? So the producer organisations would have been funded under our capital, under our... It was 100% supported from Europe. Yeah, but it would have been funded under our CSP. In terms of the school schemes, 2.7 million per annum. What I'm saying is how much, when you add all them bits together, what's that budget? I don't think we... Don't have those. Don't have those figures. Wouldn't that be a fair thing to know before we start making decisions with Europe? Yeah, it's... Yeah, I just don't have those figures for you at the moment. Right. You might get that budget for us, the way that the committee will know. In the line of producers' groups, it's basically what it's doing in the producers' groups. It's not talking about the producers' group, whether it's successful or not successful. It's the funding that Europe paid out of the cap budget is now going to be 30% on this proposal funded by national government. Is that fair to say? Yeah, it's where you have operational programmes for your producer organisation under your national plan. Would that not tell you straight away that Europe is trying to duck from giving out money? That if you look at our budget in the Department of Agriculture, in the last budget gone by, we haven't got a red rake. Other departments have got money. TB got money. But TB is a problem, do you understand me? It's not extra money going down other farmers' pockets, but what I'm saying to you is, this is Europe trying to basically push this 30% over to national government. And what we're talking about here in this, in the school milk, in hemp, I see, which there's no help for hemp farmers at the moment, in food safety and in all the different parts of it, but you are talking about going into the different parts of it, trying to pull money out of it, fighting with every other department that gets money from Europe. Would that be fair to say? I think, Sean, you touched on it earlier. No, so just to take it back a little step. Some of these changes are about aligning the CMO and the provisions in the CMO with the Commission's proposal for the new multi-annual financial framework. So these changes are, I suppose, a by-product of the broader structural changes. I presume that you're not supporting Europe, what they're trying to do with the multi-annual framework at the moment, where they are cutting 24% in the first proposal. I know it's not the last, but on the first proposal at the moment, it's like 24% of a reduction. Yes, there is a fight into another bit of a path for what we can get, but if you look at the history in the last year of agriculture, what we did get out of the budget, it wouldn't give you a lot of hope to be fighting with deeper, trying to get money out of them. So the multi-annual financial framework is not part of the CMO regulations. It's part of separate regulations, which I understand you had officials in talking to you about these a couple of weeks ago. Right. And in relation to, Europe has said that they want more autonomy on things, on your statement there. What do you mean by that? So that relates to protein crops and the concern about our reliance on imports of protein crops. So I see where, say, on it that they're basically for better diets and whatever, they want autonomy on that as well. Is that right? Autonomy? If you look at what you've said there about to have better diets is wrote on your statement. Better quality diets, going by what I read. Sorry, yes, the Commission have said the amendments seek to improve market resilient, enhance sustainability, increase EU strategic autonomy. That relates to the protein crops and the imports of protein crops, respond to food crises and promote healthier diets. So in terms of the school schemes, previously they were voluntary, they were optional for member states. They're now making them mandatory. In Ireland, we would have done the school schemes. We did them both through school milk and through the fruit and veg schemes. And the fruit and veg schemes in particular was about incentivising healthier diets. So they're now requiring that all member states have to do those. And what will pay out of that? It's not the cap budget they're saying, oh, it's going to be this other one. To be part of your national plan rather than a separate... So what they're doing, Slippily, if you look at what they're doing, is trying to offset money. They're trying to justify the cush to their cap. And they're saying, oh, sure, look, there's another purse over there. And sure, national governments have to do this. And whether they get out of their own pocket or that national purse, where everyone is fighting, we are now going to be in a dogfight to hold some of them schemes. They're going to make them mandatory. But the national government will be obliged to do it wherever the money comes out of it. But it's not out of cap, but it'll be out of this other fund. And it's going to cause... Sorry. Unless I'm reading it very wrong, Europe is basically shoving more stuff across to pay for by national government rather than what was in the original budget. Well, it's a structural change, OK? So currently on our school milk schemes, we get 2.7 million per annum from Europe. But we spend broadly the same amount ourselves in national funding in that regard. So we were already funding it significantly. The change is you now have to provide 30% co-funding. But we're already providing, on an optional basis, a significant level of funding. This is a question for you. In the line of the meat and the labelling, you talked earlier about the origin and all that. At the moment, the department said there's a lot of Brazilian meat even coming into this country. My understanding is that if you want to check meat for hormones, you've got to get the eyes, the kidneys, or the lungs. If we're getting cuts that's not them, should we're in the hope of God of knowing whether there's hormone beef in it or not? OK, now I really think you would need to talk to one of the vets on our import side for details. What part do you do of the meat labelling? Well, we're here to talk about the CMO regulations and the two amendments. Briefly, because I need to move to Senator Ledge. So if I was talking about hormone beef, I would be stepping up. Were you on about labelling earlier when I came in? There is a proposal around country of origin labelling, yes. My understanding on country of origin at the moment, there's every type of a hoodwinking going on of foreign imports coming in with pact in Ireland and everything in Ireland where it's not given as a clear signal of what it produced, reared, and delivered out of Ireland. Senator Lynch. Thank you very much. Thanks very much for your presentation today. Just look, I have a few questions in relation to the school scheme. I know that it will be no longer directly covered within CAP funding. In terms of the increased member state contribution, how much are we looking at in terms of the cost of that and from what department will that be coming? I assume it's agriculture, but there's confirmation on that. And how that scheme works insofar as in terms of the milk and the fruit, not every school avails of it. So will this be reviewed in light of this comm? Then in terms of the sectoral interventions, and I know this has been covered by colleagues, so maybe if there's any parts that have just been omitted, in relation to interventions in the protein crop, what kind of interventions are we actually looking at? Because, I mean, obviously we've had various grain and cereal producers in here in front of us, so sectoral interventions to protect and improve, I suppose, the protein crop are obviously to be welcomed. And then also in terms of the minimum national contribution of 30% for producer organisations, that has to come from the member state, whereas previously it was 100% EU funding. Again, how much funding are we looking at here and under what kind of a scheme will that come in? So to start on the school milks, I can't tell you how much it will cost because it will just depend on the scheme that we devise. So we'll be devising a scheme under our national plan so we wouldn't have an idea in terms of the funding for it. What I can tell you is that previously our scheme cost 2.7... We received 2.7 million per annum from the EU and we paid out a similar amount ourselves in national funding. The difference now is it will be mandatory and there's 30% co-financing, but we were already financing it in excess of that. We would hope that the new regulations will give us flexibility to build a scheme to align with the needs of our schools. But they're not prescribing a scheme. It will be for us to work out how that scheme will work in our national plan and the funding available will be dependent on how we decide to allocate the money within our national plan. Do you want to take the protein crops and the POs, please? Yep. Thanks, Mary. Thanks for the question, Senator. Just in relation to the producer organisation, so the term interventions, I think people are normally associating that with, like, CAP interventions and schemes. This is not the same. These are operational programmes. There's a number of headings and it's outlined in the regulation there as to what you can carry out under the producer organisations. We obviously encourage producer organisations to come together for some of the reasons outlined by some of the speakers earlier. And that's with a view to collectively carrying out those actions. So there is a call run by the department, early stage producer organisations, where we do provide some seed funding for those facilitators to come together to see if it's practical or viable for a producer organisation to form. So obviously in the protein sector, what the commission are doing is they're placing a strong emphasis on the protein sector because of the over-reliance on imports that has been highlighted over the last number of years. And that's the stage. It's not that they're going to say, here's a big scheme for the protein sector. The idea is to get producer organisations to come together, to pool together, to improve the supply or the marketing of the products, et cetera. And the actions outlined are, I'll just check and see if they're listed here in this proposal. They're actually, they're listed in the original CMO proposal, or sorry, the regulations that exist about the types of schemes that you can carry out, whether it's for marketing, whether it's for some investments in infrastructure as possible as well. But it depends on what the producer organisation themselves decide what they want to do. So you asked about funding. It's very difficult to say to you what the level of funding would be because it's based, it's voluntary demand-led at the moment. Obviously the commission are looking to make it mandatory in this one for certain sectors. Protein being one of them and apiculture is the other. Thanks very much. I suppose, look, I did have queries in relation to the marketing standards point, but I think they've been largely covered by my colleagues. But I suppose more generally in terms of this COM, as it's largely, you know, facilitating the CAP post-27 and CAP post-27 is very much a working and a moving document in terms of the actual funding allocation due to the nature of the MFF and the very, very early stage of negotiations that we are in in CAP. So as a result of this, this proposal that's being put to us today under this COM, is this also going to subsequently be a working live document depending on what happens with CAP? Because whilst I know it's with the commission and I think the EU school scheme is the only one that has an official date, the rest are just one year post their adoption, I assume that will be at some point post the finalisation of the new CAP. It just seems a bit to me why I suppose there's so much emphasis on this when it has to be a moving document if the very changes that it's bringing about are in light of CAP, which the new CAP itself isn't finalised and is nowhere near being finalised. Yeah, so generally what happens is the regulations are all negotiated at the same time and they're done as a package as such. So my experience from the last time of the CAP is the two CAP regulations and the CMO, they'll all be signed off at the same time. So we can get agreement on various parts of text or whatever, but you're correct to say it'll be a living document until they're all signed off. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you.