2026-01-29

13. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if his Department has undertaken any analysis on the scope of potential job losses or profit losses which may be faced by farmers in Ireland as a result of the Mercosur trade deal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5981/26]

We all know that Mercosur will have a significantly detrimental effect on farmers throughout the country. The Minister mentioned the headline figures for the damage it will do to the sector. What kind of modelling and research has the Department done in relation to the downward pressure it will have on farmers’ incomes and the loss of jobs that Mercosur, if implemented, will create in the sector?

In 2019, the then Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment commissioned an independent economic and sustainability impact assessment, ESIA, which both my Department and Teagasc fed into. As part of the ESIA, and specifically on the macroeconomic impacts of the agreement for Ireland, it was noted that shifts in employment across sectors were forecast to be marginal and to mirror changes in production across sectors. Employment was found to generally increase in manufacturing and decrease slightly in the agrifood and services sectors. The forecast change in employment in the agrifood sector is minimal. The main impacts were found to be in other processed foods and extraction, where a 0.3% decrease in employment by 2035 is noted. For beef, sheep, other red meats and other primary products, the decrease in employment by 2035 is predicted at 0.1%, whereas dairy and other meat products see no change. In terms of the agrifood sector market impacts, the study primarily focuses on the impacts on beef producers. Assuming that additional imports would be in high-end cuts only, and depending on other factors, it states that producer returns in Ireland could fall by about 2% due to the increase in imports to the EU. This would translate to a maximum reduction in the value of Irish beef output of between €44 million and €55 million based on export figures available at the time of publication. I put on the record of the House earlier the impact on farmers who have attained higher environmental standards but then see food coming in at a lower environmental standard given a preferential tariff rate. This is not about blocking food. The nature of global supply chains is that they are highly integrated, and we need to explain that. In the context of other rows that are happening here at the moment, there is a lack of honesty in this debate. However, giving preferential access to 99,000 tonnes by Europe was unacceptable to me, and I continuously articulated that. We all have a responsibility regarding the challenges we face in agriculture, and we have talked about bluetongue this morning, CAP reform, CBAM and different things. It is important that we do not catastrophise this. Our farmers are the most resilient businesspeople in this country. They have faced many headwinds in the past, and they will face and deal with this as well. We did our best to try to stop it with the Government vote. There is still a way to go as to whether it will come in or not, but irrespective of what happens, farmers have proven their resilience in the past and will prove it again.

The Minister talks about resilience. A third of farmers are making their living off the farm, according to Teagasc, a third are only making a living because someone in the household is working off the farm, and a full third are currently either going into debt or are in poverty. That is an incredible figure. Every year, the number of farmers is reducing in this country. The Minister is saying there will be an extra reduction in employment as a result of this particular deal, and he refers to a €55 million reduction in income in the sector over this period of time. That is catastrophic for farmers, who are already clinging on to economic survival. Last week, my colleague, Deputy Paul Lawless, was in Strasbourg lobbying MEPs. Luckily, he and others won the vote there. Incredibly, MEPs in the Minister’s party voted against farmers in Strasbourg last week, which is shocking. Is it going to be a situation where the Minister makes sure this deal is not implemented unless it gets the democratic assent of Europe, or is he going to allow this deal to be implemented before there is even a proper vote or judgment on it?

I have been very clear in my role since 23 January last year on every given occasion. Four days after I became the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I was in Brussels at my first Agri-Fish Council, and I put on the record my concerns and opposition to the Mercosur trade deal. I have worked very closely with individual like-minded countries to build a coalition and try to get a blocking minority. I have also worked to get the safeguards improved so that if the blocking minority failed, the safeguards would better protect the very farmers the Deputy is speaking about. The change in the safeguards from 10% to 5% will be very significant if this deal comes in. Nonetheless, our view was very clear: that is not enough for us and we oppose the deal. I would challenge the Deputy’s catastrophisation of the issues. We have seen record year-on-year growth in the value of our agrifood exports. I have no doubt that when the CSO figures for 2025 come out in the very near future, they will again show another year of record growth to over €21 billion in the value of the agrifood exports that our farmers produce, compared to €8 billion or €9 billion a little over ten years ago. Teagasc income surveys last year for every sector proved very significant percentage increases for each sector as well, and those percentage increases are income going into our family farms on the ground all across rural Ireland.

The problem is that anybody can pick an individual year and say, "This year is above the previous year." The fact is that in the previous year Irish farm incomes were extremely low. In the beef sector they were a fraction of the average industrial wage in this country. Most beef farmers in this country were making a fraction of the average industrial wage two years ago. Plucking last year as an example of movement in income does not give a long-term trend with regard to the figures. The figure I mentioned, that one third of farmers are in poverty or in debt, is a Teagasc figure. One third of farmers are operating in another job off the farm to be able to make sure the farm works. That is a Teagasc figure. The Minister said he has been very clear but I still do not know what he, as Minister, is going to do to prevent Mercosur being implemented before there is a court judgment or a final vote in the European Parliament.

I am sorry but I think the Deputy is mixing me up with the Minister for trade and that sector. The Deputy is welcome to put that question down. What I talk about is the role I have played. I have said very clearly on the record of the House, in response to the Deputy's first question, exactly what I have done over the last year and what I continue to do to advocate for our sector. I would pull the Deputy up on the fact that he is catastrophising here. We face loads of challenges and I will always defend the agriculture sector for the best interests of our farmers and our agriculture sector first. That is my job. It is my job in the Department and at the Cabinet table. I do it to the very best of my ability and I will continue to do it. I will also protect our farmers who feel vulnerable to being told that any one thing, whether it is this or the bluetongue virus, is the end of the road. We grew up as young children on farms hearing that there would be no future in farming because Maastricht was going to change everything. We have heard that the Fischler reforms, Covid, Brexit and the high cost of input following the Ukraine war were going to change everything. Farming has endured and continued and it will continue to do so in the future with the support of the Government, like it always has in the past.

It is not the same. Why can the Minister not push back against-----

Please, Deputy-----

Why can the Minister not push back-----

Sorry, Deputy-----

Why can the Minister not push back against the deal being implemented?

We voted against it.