Culling the National Herd: Motion (Resumed) [Private Members]
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann:
notes that:
— farmers are angered by the Government's plans for tougher measures that will drastically reduce emissions in the agricultural sector, leading to downsizing and closure of otherwise viable farms;
— Ireland has a proud tradition of clean and green grassland agricultural production, with farms often being managed by the same families for generations;
— over the last decade, successive Irish Governments have recommended, promoted, and encouraged farmers to increase the Irish dairy herd;
— in 2014 and 2015, the then Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine openly promoted and actively encouraged the expansion of the Irish dairy herd by more than 20-25 per cent over the following five-year period, claiming that such an increase would not result in commensurate emissions from the agricultural sector;
— the Government's promotion to increase the national herd, coupled with the abolition of milk quotas in April 2015, has led many farmers to take out large loans to invest in their respective enterprises;
— according to the latest Central Statistics Office (CSO) data, the number of dairy cows in Ireland today stands at 1.63 million, showing a rise of approximately 40 per cent over the last decade;
— Ireland's total cattle number, as per CSO data, is approximately 7.4 million;
— the conflicting messaging from successive Governments over the last decade, first promoting expansion and now advocating a reduction or culling of the national cow population, has been disingenuous, misleading, and unfair to farmers and rural communities dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods;
— the current Government has made a complete U-turn in its policy by prioritising "green activist policies" that run counter to supporting farmers, agriculture, and rural communities, according to recent media reporting on internal Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine documents;
— the documents recommend the culling of 65,000 cows over the next three years, to meet emission reduction targets set by Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Green Party;
— this recommendation, if implemented, could potentially force many farmers out of business, undermine food production, food security, and lead to increased food prices for all consumers;
— further evidence of the Government's lack of support for the dairy sector is the establishment of a special working group or task force within the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, explicitly examining the feasibility of a dairy cow cull;
— the establishment of this committee, with its stated objectives of implementing a dairy cow cull, clearly demonstrates that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Charlie McConalogue TD, and the Government have turned their backs on farmers and are now actively pursuing a national cull of Irish dairy cows; and
— the Government's push to reduce the national herd, despite farmers accumulating high levels of debt to ramp up production, represents a glaring betrayal of Irish agriculture in favour of meeting climate change targets that will do little or nothing to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions;
further notes that:
— the Government's target of cutting agricultural emissions by 25 per cent by 2030 is overly burdensome and unachievable, posing a threat of financial unviability or bankruptcy for many otherwise viable farms;
— the Government's calculations on reducing emissions in agriculture fail to consider the potential for carbon sequestration or the use of new technology to mitigate emissions and maintain the national herd;
— under the current Government, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, in conjunction with the Green Party, are scapegoating rural Ireland and forcing farmers to cull their herds, either directly or through covert means;
— the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine estimates that culling 200,000 dairy cows would cost the taxpayer approximately €200 million;
— new analysis by the Irish Farmers Journal estimates that culling 200,000 dairy cows would result in an additional processing cost of approximately €39 million under a herd reduction scheme;
— the Irish Farmers Journal also estimates that those farm families remaining in milk production would face increased processing costs of €2,500 per year, or €25,000 per decade; and
— cutting Ireland's dairy output by around one billion litres, or 11 per cent of capacity, would have a major negative impact on the entire rural economy, leading to job losses and the loss of hundreds of millions of euros in revenue each year, further compromising already vulnerable rural communities; and
calls on the Government to:
— categorically, once and for all, declare that they will not pursue a compulsory or voluntary cull of the national herd, with no introduction of any caps on Irish dairy cow or beef numbers;
— review the process of calculating methane emissions, considering the cycle effect, and provide funding to farmers for implementing greater efficiencies, embracing new technologies, and any other measures as an alternative plan to reducing the national herd;
— undertake an independent comprehensive financial impact assessment of reducing the national dairy herd, considering the impact on each farmer, the rural economy, and broken down to show the potential negative financial consequences for each county;
— cease their climate attack on Irish farm families, who are the backbone of the agri-food sector, to prevent future generations from being driven out of the sector and compromising the sustainability of rural communities;
— instruct the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to publicly announce a pause on discussions or considerations of a dairy or beef sector cull until a full financial impact assessment has been published, considering the views of all affected farmers;
— ensure the prompt payment, without further delay, of the €28 million approved under the beef welfare scheme as part of Budget 2023, to suckler farmers;
— extend the current nitrates derogation for Irish farmers until at least 2030, and submit a compelling case to the European Commission in support of this proposal;
— explicitly state that there will be no capping of cow numbers through tighter water quality controls and changes to the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC); and
— explicitly state that there will be no capping of cow, sheep or pig numbers through a backdoor approach by stealth, linked to the Basic Income Support for Sustainability Scheme, or any other agricultural payment type.
I thank Deputy Mattie McGrath's office for helping us with this motion. This is Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in action together at the behest of the Green Party. They want us to cull cows, rewet land and reduce production by other means through the nitrates directive. Last year, the Taoiseach at the time, Deputy Micheál Martin, was violent when I asked if the Government was considering reducing the number of or culling cows. The Minister denied it. Here we are today because the Green Party kept the pressure on and ensured the Government would go through with this proposal.
I always thought a Minister from rural Ireland would stand by the people of rural Ireland but I am disappointed to see this proposal coming forward because this will mean a reduction in farmers' incomes and a reduction in communities at large - the rural communities that are under pressure financially as it is. After all the support Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael got over the years in rural Ireland, this is what they are doing to it. They are giving in to the Green Party even though this is not fair at all because we are giving no cognisance at all to sequestration and the amount of carbon farmers are already sequestering. They are sequestering way more carbon than a lot of them, or even most of them, are admitting. We are being told now that even growing green grass sequesters carbon.
The Government is threatening food security. We are trying to get young farmers going and keep them going but they are saying this will be the kiss of death for the dairy industry. Farmers' incomes will be cut. The Government denied this last year and kept it from the farmers even though it knew that with the 25% cut in emissions, it would have to do something drastic like this. It was told that 16% or 17% would be enough but that is not even what other countries are doing. The Government is going ahead with this because it wants to pacify the Green Party and stay in power for another few months.
Farmers all over the country and in Kerry have spent fortunes inside their gates, slaving in the green fields and the glens and valleys of Ireland doing hard physical work where they injure themselves and hurt their backs and spend the second half of their lives physically impeded. They have worked so hard and strived so hard and they have become the most sustainable, environmentally friendly and efficient producers of beef and dairy products in the whole world. I can see that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have little appreciation for what they have achieved and what they are doing.
This will also mean a threat to our food security. It will mean an increase in the cost to the consumer and to the housewife. The Government does not have any regard for that. Who will take up the slack? Is it going to be like the peat and the briquettes from Latvia and Germany? Are the South Americans, the Brazilians who are cutting down forests, going to supply the market? We have produced food to such a high standard and have supplied food all over the world as well as feeding ourselves. There are 750 million people starving in the world. Our population is increasing and here we are suggesting we cull the cows. Indeed, Elon Musk is laughing at this. He cannot understand it. The USA is making cartoons about us and laughing at us because the Irish are cutting cow production. This is laughable. This is what they are saying. Whatever the Government does and whatever hardship it puts the people of Ireland and the farmers under, it will not change the weather. I can ensure that. The Government is hurting people. It is leaving the people who supported it over the years behind. I am very disappointed with the Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, and with the Minister.
Tá áthas orm labhairt ar an rún seo ar maidin. Tá sé an-soiléir go bhfuil na feirmeoirí faoi fhód. Tá siad faoi fhód ag an gComhaontas Glas, Fianna Fáil agus Fine Gael. Ba chóir d'Fhianna Fáil agus Fine Gael seasamh suas do na feirmeoirí agus tacaíocht a thabhairt dóibh chun iad a chosaint agus chun an eacnamaíocht áitiúil agus náisiúnta a chosaint chomh maith.
There are many sectors that experience occasional instability and fluctuations around pricing and controls but most of the time, those sectors settle back down to long periods of calm and relative certainty. None of that can be said, however, with respect to the Irish agriculture sector over the better part of the last decade. In fact, the only certainty it has had is the presence of uncertainty. There was Brexit, with all the destabilisation that brought to the Irish export market. Then there was the Mercosur deal, which still threatens the importation of 99,000 tonnes of South American beef, which is inferior in quality and which will never match or surpass the standards of our Irish beef. Why are Irish livelihoods being threatened? Why are the livelihoods of Irish farmers being threatened? Why has this deal not been kicked to touch once and for all? The Minister can call for sustainability guarantees from Brazil all he likes but how will those so-called guarantees protect the Irish farmer?
The Minister recently confirmed CSO trade data on beef imports, which show that 14,000 tonnes of beef were imported into the country between January and March of this year. This comes on the back of 54,000 tonnes of beef imports in 2022, according to data previously reported by agriland.ie. That is 70,000 tonnes of beef coming into the State. That may not be such a terrible thing in terms of open international trade, which we benefit from, if not for the fact that this Government is all the time sending out the message that we need to reduce our meat consumption, change how we eat, eat more plants and less meat, more insects and less animal-based protein. For the Green Party in particular, it is a case of grasshoppers before grass-based beef. It would be a joke if it were not so serious.
The almost subliminal messaging on these issues from lobby groups is unmistakably clear. I have been calling for a definitive commitment from the Government that it will not impose any mandatory cuts to the national herd as part of its efforts to reduce agri-based emissions since 2021, when the Mercosur deal emerged as the major threat.
After that, it emerged that Brazil's exporters predicted an estimated increase in the country's national livestock numbers of 24 million cows, and here we are contemplating a reduction of anything up to 200,000, which, in relative terms compared to Brazil, is likely to be far more damaging.
It is time for the equivocation and ambivalence to end. We need a definitive commitment from Government that it will protect the economic interests of Irish farmers. We cannot and should not allow a situation to develop whereby the strongest sectors in Irish agriculture are effectively sacrificed for what amounts to a minuscule and irrelevant contribution to the global reduction in emission numbers.
Indeed, there is now a very real chance that this Government is going to make Irish farming the laughing stock of Europe and beyond because of the imposition of an absurd economically self-destructive policy that has no chance whatsoever of making the kind of difference for which farmers are being pursued. The rationale is reckless and shaky. It does not make sense. We have already seen the negative prospects for beef farmers outlined in the Government's own independent assessment of the economic, social, environmental and human rights impacts of the EU-Mercosur trade agreement.
Irish farming is the best in the world. We deliver premium products that are in great demand combined with a farming community who are excellent stewards of the environment and protectors of the land. They need to be protected and not dictated to.
I thank the members of the Rural Independent Group for putting forward the motion today. I always welcome the opportunity to discuss agriculture motions and policy in the Dáil. Whenever a motion is put forward by the Opposition, it is always a good opportunity to emphasise and communicate the work the Government is doing to support our farming families and, of course, to examine the policy and proposals that have been put forward by the Opposition and tease those out. It is important the public get an opportunity to have a thorough examination of what exactly those who are opposing Government policy are proposing themselves.
The key headline today is the motion on culling the national herd. First of all, I want to be clear. As I have said consistently, the Government has not put forward any proposal to cull the national herd. However, we have been engaging with farm organisations and all stakeholders on how we continue our great tradition and important role in this country of food production while reducing the emissions footprint of how we produce that food and achieve the 25% target by 2030 in the agrifood sector, which will contribute to the overall 51% reduction in the economy generally. We are working very closely with farm representative organisations in that regard. I will point out to Deputies that the farm representative organisations have said that we can meet that 25% reduction and that they are up for doing it and want the Government to support them in doing so. The Government is fully committed to that and to working together to achieve it. We are working collaboratively in that regard.
I put together a Food Vision 2030 strategy, working with all the key stakeholders in the agrifood sector, including all the farm representative organisations, to plot out the strategic plan for the agrifood sector up to 2030. We have developed that collaboratively. We are also working to develop our climate action plans collaboratively. As I said, the key objectives and the key commitment from the Government are that we will work alongside farmers to achieve that, with voluntary measures only. Farmers are up for doing that and want to do that. They are often very poorly served by the narrative that is out there and the discussion that often suggests they are not up for it. The reality is they are up for it and we, as a Government, are working very closely with them to support them in doing so.
It is not so long ago since I sat on the Opposition benches, the same as Deputies on the opposite side of the House. I always wanted to get into Government so that I could work to back farm families, put money in their pockets, improve their incomes and set forward a strong, solid policy platform. Those in opposition, as independent Deputies not in Government, do not or have not put a penny in farmers' pockets at any stage over the last number of years. Only by getting into Government and working closely with them can Deputies do that. That is where I want to be and that is why I am in government working with three Government parties to deliver on that.
With regard to what we have delivered, I will outline some of the key measures we have put in place over the last three years which have really had the objective and impact of supporting farm families. We introduced a new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, which has seen the largest ever increase in income and support from the Government to the CAP in its history. We increased the Government core funding for CAP by 50% in this term, meaning that many of the schemes are in place and farmers can avail of 50% extra income coming from the national Government to support that. That means, for example, between €5,000 and €6,000 with 50% extra funding for the new agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES. All 46,000 farmers who applied, for the first time ever in the history of environmental schemes, got in at the one time, representing the Government's commitment to that.
The suckler cow programme provides €150 per suckler cow. That compares to the €90 per suckler cow, which was in place up to last December. Now, it is €150, again, a key demonstration of the Government's backing for our beef sector and farming families. The targeted agriculture modernisation schemes, TAMS, deliver 40% to 60% grants depending on the category of farmer. Up to last December, there were 200 investment items ranging from slatted houses to tanks and storage facilities to various farm investments for which farmers could get a grant. We increased that to 300 items. In a few months, it has gone from 200 items to 300 items for which farmers can get a grant investment. For young farmers availing of the young farmer top-up, up to last December, the top-up was €70 per hectare for young farmers to encourage them into the sector. That is now €170 per hectare under the new CAP.
We made sure the CAP was fair. We reduced the maximum amount any one farmer can get from €150,000 in the outgoing CAP to €66,000. It is down from €150,000 to €66,000 in order that we spread it around and make sure as many farmers as possible benefit, particularly smaller and medium-sized farmers, and to make sure farmers across the country get a fair deal. We also front-loaded payments per hectare for entitlements so that up to the first 32 ha, which is the average size farm in the country, farmers get an additional payment, again, to make sure it is as fair as possible. We increased organic payments fivefold. I am sure Deputy Michael Collins would support that payment.
We increased the forestry programme significantly in terms of the new payments with a 40% to 60% increase in premiums. We are currently getting the approvals.
We are talking about culling cows.
That means, for example, Deputy Healy-Rae-----
Culling cows, for example.
That means, for example, somebody planting 1 ha of native broadleaf trees now will get €1,100 per year tax free for 20 years compared to 15 years previously. That means €22,000 over 20 years in tax-free premiums for somebody who plants.
(Interruptions).
We introduced many new schemes for the first time, such as the new genotyping scheme, which will see every animal based in this country genotyped to give full traceability. It is the first in the world. I just announced that a few weeks ago. That will really keep our sector at the forefront of the world beef sector.
With regard to responding to particular challenges, the fodder scheme provided €1,000 per farm family last year and will do so again this year. The tillage incentive scheme pays €400 per hectare for each new hectare of tillage. The liming scheme is a new and innovative scheme that is very much oversubscribed and I am working to get additional funding for that.
That is a reflection of what this Government is doing. It is unprecedented in terms of the investment we are putting in and the additionality and increased investment from one CAP programme to another. We are working in government to back farm families and give a substantial policy-based future direction to Irish agriculture that will see it sustained into the years ahead and provide real options for income to farmers in order that they have very viable farm incomes. This is building on many of the schemes that are in place and, importantly, working with farmers in that regard.
Going back to the key point Deputies put forward regarding culling, under Food Vision 2030: A World Leader in Sustainable Food Systems, I set up the dairy vision group as well as the beef and sheep group. The dairy vision group, which includes farm organisations, such as the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, and Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, recommended that we explore the option of a voluntary reduction scheme. That is no more than what is happening at the moment. I am exploring it with them and I have asked them for further feedback in that regard.
Regarding the beef and sheep scheme, the farmer representative organisations recommend very strongly that there should not be any voluntary scheme in the beef sector. I was very clear in responding because I know we have to work together to set out how we go forward. I made it very clear there would be no reduction scheme in the beef sector. I would recommend that the Deputies opposite would talk to the IFA and the ICMSA. They were part of the stakeholder groups with which I will be working very closely to consult further.
I know the Deputies opposite will refer to farmers they have met here or there and what they told them. That is the key anchor for their argument today. However, representative organisations are the ones I am working with to set out the future on how we can back farmers, how we can get clear policy direction, how we can ensure that income is delivered to farmers through the schemes we have and through ensuring, for example, that for the first time ever we have a statutory independent food regulatory office put in place to provide transparency in the food supply chain.
We also need to ensure new opportunities to deliver income to farmers through ecosystem services and energy production, including, solar and anaerobic digestion. All the way we need to back farmers to ensure that we lead out nationally. They are meeting and will continue to meet the challenges of today - the challenges relating to biodiversity and ensuring we provide space for nature. We need to pay farmers properly for the work they are doing so that they can continue the massively important work at the core of their profession which is producing top-class, world-beating sustainable safe food, not just for our own country but the rest of the world as well.
What about cattle culling?
I wish to put on record my gratitude on behalf of all our group to Deputy Mattie McGrath, Mairéad McGrath, Brian Ó Domhnaill and the people who did a lot of work in the research of this very important motion we have brought before the Dáil today. I am particularly glad to be speaking after the Minister spoke because I am very glad to have heard what he had to say.
Since I was 18, I have been a paid up number of the IFA and I am glad to be so. A short number of weeks ago members of Macra na Feirme, under Elaine Houlihan their current president, marched here. If all was so well in the garden why did Macra na Feirme members march here a couple weeks ago? If everything was fine and they were happy with the Minister and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine, why did they march here? It was not for the fun of it. They came here because they want to voice their concerns over the future of young people in farming. If everything was as rosy in the garden as the Minister just said, they would not have been marching here and we would not have farmers up and down the length and breadth of the country so concerned.
I listened very carefully to the Minister saying that farmers were poorly served by people in the Opposition. I challenge him directly on that. People can only speak for themselves. I have been in local and national politics for a while now. I will put it up to the Minister any day of the week that the farmers I work for, the people I represent, are not happy. I am not a Johnny-come-lately. I have been here for a while and I hope I will be here for a long time more if the people are good enough to keep me but predominantly if farmers keep me. I will tell the Minister why. I have always defended farmers, whatever sector of farming they are in, whether it is dairy, suckler, sheep, forestry, the pig sector or the poultry sector. I have always defended them because I would like to think I have a thing called common sense.
Unfortunately, this Government under the direction of the Green Party has sold its soul. I have said it here over and over again and I mean it. I do not get satisfaction from saying this. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have lost rural Ireland and the Green Party never had rural Ireland. These are the facts. This will be shown next year when there will be local elections. The Government will see the tsunami of opposition to what it has been doing. I really mean this.
I am coming to the culling of cows because that is what our motion is about. The Minister mentioned forestry a few minutes ago. If I were in his shoes as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine, I would be ashamed to mention the word "forestry". He knows that since 1946 the record in forestry has not been as bad as it is now under this Government. That is the fact. It has lost that game completely and just to mention forestry is totally ridiculous.
I am coming back to the motion because the culling of the cows is the important thing. The Minister knows the term "liquid gold" was mentioned by a former Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine. Farmers were encouraged to increase numbers. The Minister is now telling those very same people they need to reduce their numbers. He is praising the schemes that are in place now. He has been around long enough to remember - he has a memory as good as any of the rest of us - that 20 years ago, we had good schemes in agriculture. We had a good scheme to bring young people into farming. We had a good scheme to let people leave farming, a retirement package. They were good schemes that were meaningful. The schemes we have now are overburdened with bureaucracy and red tape and at the end of the day mean very little to people in a financial way. The environmental agricultural schemes that are there now are woefully inadequate. They are a pittance in comparison with what they should be and they are hard for people to get.
Coming back to milk, we are now being told that our suckler herd must be diminished because the Green Party want us to do so. What will the alternative be? We are better at farming than anyone else. The damage to the environment by our agriculture is far less than anyone else's in the world. It is the exact opposite. We are leaders in producing milk, beef and lamb at what I would call the minimal disruption to the countryside because we base it on growing grass. It is the most natural thing in the world to do - to grow grass for grazing, to grow grass to cut for hay or silage and then to feed it to our animals. Let us consider what they are doing in Brazil where they are doubling and quadrupling their herd. They are forging ahead because they see the stupidity of what people like us are being told to do under the Minister's direction. They know that if they cut down more of the Amazon rainforests and turn that ground into grazing ground, they will be able to supply more beef around the world. That is what they will be doing but that is what the Minister is encouraging them to do while he is saying to our people, "Ah lads, conduct yourselves now. We must give this up. We must reduce our herd." That is what he is doing. It is wrong for him and the Tánaiste to deny it. It would be a fine thing for them to come along and tell the people the truth.
I listened very closely to what the Minister said. He as good as said that the IFA and the ICMSA are happy with what he is doing. I disagree with that because I know fine upstanding people in these farming groups and organisations who have their heads on the right way around. They represent farmers on the ground in all parts of Kerry. I am talking now specifically for a moment about Kerry. I am talking about the IFA branches in Kerry. I know the people in the vast majority of the different branches. Whether it is south Kerry, east Kerry, north Kerry, mid-Kerry or west Kerry, I know every one of them.
We are all glad they have agricultural shows, which are our social events. If he cares to come, the Minister would be very welcome to the Kilgarvan agricultural show over the August bank holiday weekend. I would welcome him there. I am sure the farmers would be delighted to meet him and have discussions with him. He would be welcome to come there. The Dingle agricultural show will be on in a couple of weeks' time. He would be welcome to come there and meet farmers. However, if he comes, the one thing they will tell him is that they are not happy. They are not happy with this Government and are not happy with what the Minister and his Department are proposing for them.
They are not happy with the mixed messages the Government is giving. Before it was a case of increase, which is what people did. They reclaimed land at an awful cost to themselves. They worked very hard to turn brown and wet ground into green ground. They built sheds and expanded their slurry storage capacity. They did everything right. They are the real green party. They are the real custodians of the countryside.
They are the people who nurture the countryside, who work there, who keep it green, who keep it right, who maintain it and who maintained our family farms.
What is the Minister doing? It is like death by a thousand cuts. That is what he is doing to agriculture. He cannot get away from it. I heard him making his speech for the ten minutes that he spoke, and I will give him my honest opinion that I actually do not believe he believes what came out of his own mouth because he cannot. If he did, he would not say it. He is saying it because he is the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is put in front of him and it is a case of going out there to tell the Rural Independent Group “This is our stand. This is what we are maintaining. This is what we are standing by.” I think it is so wrong.
Time will prove that the Minister is wrong. Time will prove that our motion today is right. There are a number of points we are making and we want agreement on that. We want people like those in Sinn Féin and all of those in the smaller groups to support us but we also want the backbenchers in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to do so. Forget about those in the Green Party; they are irrelevant. What we want those people to do is to realise that if they are interested in standing up for the electorate who put them here in the first instance, they will not vote on a party line and they should vote with us. They should vote for our Private Members’ motion, which is so important to the future of Irish farming. They should remember we are the one crowd who stood up here and told the Government that what it was doing was madness when it went to shut down Bord na Móna. That is mad. We are selling briquettes and we are bringing in peat. It is completely opposite to what the Government told us would happen but it is happening. The same thing will happen with beef. The Minister wants us to cut back on our exports and, instead, we will be importing from Brazil and other places. Will he be happy then? Shame on the Minister.
I welcome the motion and commend the Rural Independent Group on bringing it forward. We are happy to support the motion. There is a great deal in it and it is important we have this debate and this conversation.
As I have said many times, farmers are ready, willing and able to act in regard to climate action. It is farmers who have protected our land for generations. The vast majority of farmers have been farming with the environment in mind for generations and, of course, that was to their benefit, as well as to the benefit of the environment in which they farm. The issue here is that they have never been compensated for that work, and that is very much where the focus needs to be now. Everyone in this House will acknowledge the action all of us have to take but, in particular, the action farmers have to take in regard to climate action is going to be a massive challenge. I believe it is a challenge farmers are well up for and it is a challenge that can be achieved, but the way in which it is achieved is the question.
We also have to be mindful in regard to climate action targets and what we ask farmers to do, given everything they do is going to have an impact on our rural communities. Agriculture and farmers are the backbone of rural communities. To protect and support one, we also have to do the same for the other because we do not get one without the other.
The target of 25% was set last July so we are approaching a year now and we still do not have that roadmap and plan as to how we are going to get to 25%. Teagasc has done some very good work in this area and has shown us how to get to about 18%. I believe agriculture will potentially be the only sector that will reach or come very close to reaching its target. I am not sure about other sectors but Teagasc has done a lot of work in this regard. The roadmap setting that out is crucial. We need to give farmers certainty and we need to give them a plan. They need to be able to see what they are going to be required to do and what they are going to get as regards remuneration for that.
We need to do that for the future of farming, especially for young farmers who may be considering agriculture and-or have grown up on a farm and are looking at farming in the future. For them, it is a question. We are in a situation with agriculture in Ireland where many farmers, such as my father, who have farmed all of their lives are coming to the point where, probably for the first time in many generations, it is not the case that it is guaranteed the son or daughter will take on the farm. In many cases, farmers are wondering if they should be encouraging their children. It is hard but, in many cases, farmers are not getting a fair income for their produce. That is a challenge, along with climate action.
I really resent the immediate and automatic jump to cutting the national herd. It is particularly there in the media when we talk about reducing and meeting our targets, as if cutting and reducing the national herd was the only option and there was nothing else to be done. Of course, that is not the case. We have to use our imaginations and be innovative in how we are going to reach our targets. They can be achieved without the cut in the national herd. I welcome what the Minister said because putting it on the Dáil record again is important in this debate.
We are at a loss in regard to research. Teagasc is doing a lot of work in this area and it is badly needed. However, in many cases when it comes to agriculture in Ireland, we are relying on and hearing about international research. Ireland is unique in how it produces high-quality produce and we need to protect that but, unfortunately, we are behind in regard to research. Every decision made in regard to Ireland and meeting our targets has to be based on Irish agriculture and how we produce food in this country. We need to look at that plan.
Teagasc has done a lot of work on showing us how we can meet our reductions without impacting the competitiveness of the agrifood sector, which is what we need to achieve. It has talked about incorporating clover, reducing the age of first calving and the use of 100% low emissions slurry spreading, LESS, for which there is direct demand. Ahead of the budget, the Minister needs to look at a greater grant to meet this demand. There is a target of 90% for low emissions slurry spreading by 2027. That is a target that has been set and we need to make sure the funding is in place to ensure farmers and contractors can access that grant to ensure LESS is available and accessible to farmers and we meet the target.
I have been contacted by a number of dairy farmers, especially in the south of the country, who have said they are seeking a retirement scheme. This will only be for some farmers. That is the way of life and it will be across farming, where farmers do not have a son or daughter and maybe have nobody at all in the household to take over the farm. For that small cohort of farmers who are seeking this, the support should be there because they deserve it.
I want to raise with the Minister what he calls Ireland's flagship agri-environmental scheme, ACRES. There are a number of issues that have been raised with me in regard to co-operation zones. Again, this is a scheme which has had major buy-in, which is welcome, but we need to ensure we get it right. As far as I can see, a number of double standards have been created with regard to co-operation zones. We know there are different scoring timeframes in regard to how soon the scorecards have to be put in place. We know co-operation teams for commonage have been given extra time. They have been given an extra month but will, in fact, have two years to submit their scorecards, while farmers in the same zones who have their own advisers, as many do and have had for many years, will be required to meet the deadline of August and are given no additional time. Will the Minister look at this? He has clearly given the additional time for commonage to acknowledge the time pressure that exists, which is welcome, but I ask that there would be a level playing field for all advisers in these co-operation zones. That is only fair and I ask the Minister to look at that.
In regard to finances in that scheme, I see double standards within the co-operation zones whereby those in commonage areas will receive a payment regardless of whether their land has been scored on time, whereas those on lowlands will get no payment at all if their land is not scored. That is not fair.
Again, when these issues are raised, the Department needs to be far more flexible, and where an issue is identified in the co-operation zones, it should be dealt with. The Department should show some bit of flexibility to farmers. We all want this scheme to work. We want to have a good agri-environmental scheme. I ask the Minister to look at those two issues.
In regard to carbon audits on farms, we had this in our pre-budget submission last year. It is important we look at this on a farm-by-farm basis. This work is very important. It has been raised with me by a number of farm organisations that if a farmer goes ahead and installs, for example, solar panels on sheds, the credits will not remain with that farmer.
We need clarity on that because if we are asking farmers to take these measures, it is important they are remunerated and the measures they take are acknowledged in the first place.
There is much more we need to do. We need to grow the organic sector and grow the tillage sector in particular. Much is said about the Mercosur deal and importing tonnes of beef into Ireland. Of course, that should not go ahead, but similarly we are importing 6.5 million tonnes of feedstuffs into Ireland every single year. We should be standing on our own two feet far more on this. We need to look at the tillage sector as an area that can grow, particularly when we see feedstuffs coming here from very different parts of the world.
The Minister mentioned the increase in the forestry programme. That is welcome but it would be more welcome if we had a forestry programme. That is something we are still waiting on and it is of great concern to the forestry sector. We should get far more updates on where that programme is at and when we can expect to see it. Foresters and farmers need to hear from the Minister when we will see the forestry programme in place. That is really important and I encourage the Minister to provide those updates into the future. The sector is in big trouble and has no idea when the forestry programme will be in place, and people with land who are looking to plant cannot get a licence. It is a major issue. The funding is there, which is great, and it is hoped the programme will have a lot in it and be welcomed, but we need to see it and for it to be done considerably more quickly than it has been done.
I also thank the Rural Independent Group for putting this motion before the House. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this today. Many aspects reflect on the inconsistent way this Government has treated our farmers and the contradictory message it has been sending rural Ireland in what is almost a traditional approach by the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Green Party Government.
Everyone in the House will be well aware that, not long ago, farmers were advised to expand their dairy production capacity. Quotas were abolished and there was a doubling down on the need to invest and the benefits that would come from that. There was widespread investment. Investment was encouraged to expand the dairy herd and increase supply. The debt taken on since remains with many farmers today. They did it because they were advised to. They were told it would benefit them, our economy and our exports. Rural Ireland has been farmed under advisement for many years and I have just given an example of this.
Times change, however, as do priorities. Climate change mitigation measures led the charge given the substantial increase in temperatures. Our farmers, as ever, are ready to play their role. They are the custodians of our countryside and the powerhouse of every rural community. Many have farmed the same land for generations. They know the land, are committed to it and are already working to lower their carbon footprint. They have been acting to sequester carbon for some time as well as to limit emissions, reduce run-off and enhance their farming practices in line with what we all, as a country and globally, must do to stave off future climate change. Farmers are meeting a range of measures as part of their payment requirements, so to give the impression they are not already shouldering a lot of the burden is to misrepresent them profoundly, and to float an idea that causes them such anxiety for their future livelihoods is reckless. Of course, we all need to do more but the conversation has been allowed to develop recently to unfairly make family farms an easy target.
Maybe that is useful for the Government, which has a relationship with the EU that often excludes the very sector of society that this policy will affect. Most recently we saw this in the so-called forestry programme which has been delayed because the Department did not seek to address state aid rules. As with the forestry sector, it is the farmers who are affected by the Government’s lack of engagement. What about organics, which successive governments have left wither on the vine? Is that the fault of our farmers or is it more political? We know exactly where the fault lies and it is not with the farmer.
It took a freedom of information request to confirm the Government is looking at a reduction in the national herd as part of a proposal paper on addressing climate change. In typical style, any information has to be forced out of it or is drip fed, igniting speculation and fear while adding to the mistrust of the farming community of the Department. This is no way to govern properly nor is it any way to support our farming families, who are losing faith in the Government day by day in relation to the future of the family farm.
We need to move away from the narrative that a reduction of the herd is the only way to address greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture. What do we really know when we talk about the carbon footprint of family farms? Should we not delve into that? Sinn Féin's proposal in our alternative budget of a farm-by-farm carbon audit may give farmers a real insight into exactly what is needed on their patch and could assist in purchasing a range of measures to meet our targets in a way that supports our farmers. Despite the existence of this gap in knowledge, our farmers are still taking action. They are still ready to engage in measures to combat climate change. If we are talking about herd reduction, just look at how the suckler herd has reduced in recent years. Macra na Feirme has spoken of the importance of succession that works for farmers who may want to exit dairying while assisting young farmers to adapt to a range of climate mitigation measures. They must be listened to and not left to feel sidelined and targeted while discussions on their very future go on behind closed doors.
We need to move away from this binary and damaging argument that a reduction of the herd is the only way to address greenhouse gas emissions and the Government needs to step up to that. Measures include solar, low-emission slurry spreading, addressing urea spreading and possibly a function of the forestry industry. There are many options if the political will were there. Yes, we have emissions targets to beat but what are needed are tangible plans. We should not forget that our family farmers have invested heavily and continue to do so. They have bills to pay and their communities rely heavily on their prospering. For this to happen in a way that can allow for prosperity in agriculture, the Government must be transparent about the proposals it is looking at. If it has proposals in mind on this, it needs to be open with farmers and rural communities rather than the media having to force information from it through freedom of information requests. Farmers are the backbone of rural economies. If the Government is being less than transparent with farmers, it is being less than transparent with rural communities. If it has plans that will damage farmers, then it will also damage those very rural communities.
Sinn Féin has long called for a commission on the future of family farms. It would bring together stakeholders and experts to bring forward proposals to strengthen the position of farmers and develop opportunities for diversification. We have also called for measures to adequately support our family farmers and to ensure they can thrive into the future, such as the delivery of the suckler payment of up to €300 per cow calf pair and for an increase in the sheep improvement scheme of €20 per ewe. As I said earlier, many farmers are already playing a valued role and have a proud tradition of this and of supporting their communities and caring for the land. There are many ways to reduce the carbon footprint on farms beyond this obsession with reducing the national herd, which is rightly causing anxiety for families for their livelihoods which are already under huge pressure. They deserve better than how they have been treated on this to date and they need absolute clarity from the Department on the possible proposals being explored. Farmers are willing to work on the measures that are needed. I ask the Minister to work with them and give them the certainty the sector needs that family farms can survive. We have heard this repeatedly from the different farming organisations at meetings of the agriculture committee, and the Minister has been at them too. They will tell the Minister their voices are not being heard. They need to be heard and the Minister needs to work with them.
I will start with forestry. The Minister referred to the forestry programme. I was listening carefully to him and think he was about to make some statement on the approvals process and the EU Commission process. He may have been interrupted or may have lost the flow and moved on to something else. The forestry programme is non-existent. The programme for Government target is 8,000 ha per annum. The benchmark for the programme for Government is whether it will reach 8,000 ha this year and next year. We cannot deny facts. The simple truth is the Government will not reach its afforestation targets this year. It will come nowhere near those targets.
The forestry dashboard clearly shows that the number of licences issued this week was 78, and 40 of those were issued to Coillte. I do not have a sense as to what the landmass involved is, but the number is still too low. The private forestry companies are at the edge of the cliff because, from what I can see, there is still no certainty in that we have already missed one planting season and we are about to miss another. We still do not have sight as to what the forestry programme for the coming years will be. We have no certainty within the private side of the sector as to what the future will look like and, objectively speaking, one would have to say that the forestry sector is now in rag order.
If the motion is tied into the area of reducing nitrates, ultimately, and the idea that Ireland will play its part in reaching targets and that, arising from that, agriculture has a 25% target as a contribution to the overall 2030 target, without an afforestation programme we are at nothing. If we cannot hit even the 8,000 ha programme for Government target, and if we do not have a forestry programme, where is the potential to sequester carbon as part of that national effort?
Very often, as has been stated, we get stuck into binary arguments as to whether to cull or not to cull. I agree that is not where the conversation is per se. I take some solace in the fact that the new CAP scheme provides enough incentives for farmers to move towards land stewardship, but that then raises questions as to where the balance or the tipping point is between land stewardship and viability of the typical family farm. What I see in agriculture is an increasing consolidation of land. We see more and more commercial interests becoming involved in the sector now and we see a lot more feedlots. I worry that, while we are saying all these schemes such as the eco schemes will be developed, on the one hand there are the eco schemes and, on the other hand, there is what I would call increasing desertification of agricultural productivity, which is centred on a policy of massive feedlots. I am not sure that does anything to enhance biodiversity and I am not sure if it is fair on those farmers who actually want to sign up to those schemes when they see what is happening around the increasing commercialisation of agriculture, whereby it is now corporations that are moving into the market because they see where the opportunities are.
On the practicalities of those eco schemes that the Minister elucidated in his contribution, I wonder whether or not the component under the eco scheme that deals with the space for nature is ambitious enough. My understanding is that at least 7% of a farmer's holding must be devoted to biodiversity, habitats or landscape features, building on the 4% requirement for all farmers set out under good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, 8 as part of its conditionality. Where the farmer commits to at least 10%, that counts as two actions under the eco scheme. Could people be incentivised further, beyond that 10%, if we are really serious about restoration of biodiversity in a way that ensures that we can maintain the viability of the farm, that the payment comes inside the farm gate and that people feel they can switch over? They will have to reduce the burden in respect of beef, in particular, but it is a matter of allowing people to transition easily into those schemes and, where some farmers may want to go beyond the 10%, allowing that to happen.
I will go back to forestry because I have a minute and a half left to speak. It is a fallacy to say there are enough incentives for people to move into forestry at present because it is like any scheme, and most farmers farm to schemes. Why would a farmer move into forestry now when confidence has been shaken by, for instance, the lack of a scheme around ash dieback? The Minister will acknowledge - let us call a spade a spade - that we do not have an afforestation programme. Until such time as there is an afforestation programme and some facing up to the reality of the ash dieback scheme, how can any farmer or landowner who planted ash be expected to move into another afforestation scheme when they have been burned by the ash dieback scheme? As regards the creation by Coillte now of this entity that allows for land acquisition by private entities, my fear is that we will not recognise our own landscape in the future and that we will not be able to access the lands we could once freely roam because they will all be owned by private entities. I therefore urge the Minister to focus on forestry. That is vital.
The climate and biodiversity crises are the single biggest threats to the world and to farming, but not in the way that this motion would have us believe. The only way farming will remain a viable livelihood for generations to come is if we take immediate measures to safeguard and protect our natural environment. The politicians who wrote this motion and those outside the Chamber who are pushing the same anti-environment narrative underestimate farmers. We desperately need to open up the conversation about the future of agriculture in this country, and the farming community knows that better than anyone else. There is an opportunity here for an exciting transformation of our farming model, but we have to be brave, we have to be honest and we have to have an open conversation about it. Honesty is key in this debate. It is no wonder farmers are afraid of what might happen to their family farms and their businesses, because the Rural Independent Group Deputies are failing to be honest with them. Scaremongering about culls is not honest. There is no proposed cull on cattle. It is a cynical political fiction designed to ramp up fear and drum up votes. I am from one of the most rural constituencies in the country, I grew up on a farm, I still live on that farm and I was working on the farm until I got into politics and came into the Dáil. I, and many others like me, do not feel represented by the views expressed by the Rural Independent Group Deputies. I was raised on a small farm with a small dairy herd, which would be impossible now due to decades of failed policies, which is one aspect of this motion I do agree with.
Pushing farmers into more and more intensive models of farming has resulted in not only the destruction of our biodiversity and our water quality but also the destruction of so many small family farms around the country which were once at the heart of our agricultural model. The Government's current policy prioritises economic output over environmental protection and still fails to provide proper compensation to large parts of the farming community. We need to have a sustainable and successful agricultural sector to fight the threats of the climate crisis, and to have that we have to fix this imbalance. We cannot continue to focus on headline-grabbing national herd numbers and not talk about beef prices and the impacts and the cost of fertilisers. If farmers were guaranteed fair prices for the cattle they raised to the highest quality, there would not be the same need for more cattle. We need to reform the meat processing sector, including a statutory beef regulator, for which many of us have consistently called and who could clean up the industry once and for all.
The beef tribunal in the early 1990s highlighted widespread improper relationships between the beef industry and the Government. It also stressed the lack of regulation and the massive impact that had on the sector. Today, 30 years later, what has actually changed?
The system is still designed to enrich the beef barons while small farms fade away and young farmers have no choice but to pursue other careers.
We need to shift to a more sustainable model of farming, and part of that is the need to reduce the number of cattle gradually and in a way that does not reduce farmers' incomes. The same Department that incentivised farmers to increase their herds exponentially must now incentivise them to reduce those herds. Farmers have to be compensated as part of a just transition. There need to be a guaranteed income stream and alternative profitable schemes available to them, such as forestry and horticulture, that produce food in a fair way, sequester carbon and protect biodiversity. There are alternative types of farming that are profitable and more sustainable. We are genuinely lucky to have so many options to turn to in order to reduce our agricultural emissions without reducing our income, if we do it right.
Ultimately, we have to reduce our emissions. It is the overwhelming view of the scientific community that the agricultural sector will need to reduce emissions by 30% before 2030. Pushing back against that in order to keep the status quo will only cause extreme harm to the farming community in the long run, a reality that the Government and the Rural Independent Group seem to refuse to acknowledge. If we do not take difficult decisions now, they will inevitably be made closer to the 2030 target date. That will mean a sudden and difficult transition for family farms around the country. To avoid that, we must start now. Why would we choose to walk farmers to that cliff edge?
We all recognise the potential of forestry in addressing our climate targets. However, farmers and landowners continue to be swayed by Government policy into emission-generating areas of agriculture. This is evident in the sectoral targets of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and how it prioritises same. The ambitious milk target in Food Harvest 2020 was met in 2017 and the beef target was met in 2011. At its highest level, though, only 50% of the forestry target was ever reached. Today, it is closer to 20%. There are already cultural and logistical barriers to planting trees on farmland. Instead of working with farmers to overcome them, the Government and the Department actively continue through other policies to push more families towards dairy while the same incentives are not there for the likes of tillage and horticulture. This is despite the fact that forestry provides a better financial return than livestock on marginal land. More than half of the cattle and sheep farms in the country would be better off with forestry, but there is a drought of ambition in the Government to encourage that transition.
Tillage farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to rent land as other farmers, especially those adjusting to changes in the nitrates derogation, have the capacity to pay much more to lease it. Tillage farmers cannot compete and are being priced out, yet we are importing feed for cattle from South America and food from all over the world. We need interventions to enable the tillage sector to compete in renting land. The Government needs to address the policies that are forcing farmers to rent more and more land, not necessarily to use it, but to apply more nitrates on the land they are already using.
We need to have a candid and honest conversation about the nitrates derogation. There is a false assumption that it is an essential policy for rural Ireland. My focus is on ensuring the viability of family farms and promoting sustainable agriculture. In many ways, the derogation is an obstacle to these goals. The nitrates derogation needs to be phased out in a fair and orderly way. Ireland is one of only three countries with this arrangement. It is likely that the European Commission will not extend the derogation past 2025. The Government should be putting in place plans now to help family farms that may be adversely impacted. I am concerned about small farms. The farmer with 40 or 50 cattle should not be treated the same as the farmer with more than 400 or 500. The Department needs to put in place targeted supports to help family farms whose viability may be affected by changes to the derogation. Unless the Minister takes responsibility for the decision to ensure a fair transition now, he is taking the risk of leading many farms to a cliff edge in 2025.
The Government needs to support more sustainable farming models rather than forcing farms into more intensive methods just to make ends meet. This results in farming communities being blamed for poor Government policy and being pitted against one another and a major negative impact on the environment. It is disgraceful that, in 2023, elected representatives are debating whether we should take the necessary climate action rather than trying to figure out how to do it in a fair way. Farmers deserve better. They deserve more engagement and more honesty.
I call Deputy Bríd Smith.
We will stand up for the farmers anyway.
Donkey and cart farmers will not survive. This is the real world.
The definition of "cull" is "a selective slaughter of animals". I am not sure what a "voluntary" cull is, but the motion speaks of 200,000 dairy cows being culled. That would indeed be a shocking sight and policy, if it were true. The problem is it is not true. From what I can see, no amount of anger, conspiracy theories or mixing up the idea of a slaughter with the idea of a reduction over time makes it true. There is much to be angry about, but yet again, these Deputies prefer to get angry about an imaginary policy and ignore the real dangers to urban and rural Ireland.
There is much in agricultural policy that they should be angry about, and the motion hints at it, correctly pointing out that the reason we have a dairy herd of this size is deliberate Government policy over the past decade or more. It is why we as a nation have created markets for dairy products abroad that did not hitherto exist. We have not fed the world and we have not created lucrative markets for anything other than a small cohort, often directly in competition with local and indigenous food suppliers in other countries. Such markets have been lucrative for some processing and large agribusiness interests. They may have awarded a small cohort of dairy farmers as well, but they most certainly have benefited the Goodman Group, which Agriland reports saw a 27% increase in profits in just one of its firms in 2022 and whose revenues increased by 75% to €620 million. The continuation of the status quo means continuing with a policy under which, for example, just nine companies in the Goodman Group can make a profit of €170 million, have assets worth more than €3.4 billion but file their accounts in Luxembourg and ensure that the bulk of the profits are largely untaxed. They are not alone.
The vast majority of farmers have not done well from the policies of the State – those in the Beef Plan Movement or the tens of thousands whose incomes are so low as to be illegal if we applied the minimum wage criteria. If we look at the significant discrepancy in farm incomes and farm sizes, we can see why there would be a great deal of anger in rural Ireland. If we look at the figures for the decline in family farms, we understand the sense of decline and threat that many feel.
As such, it is odd that the Rural Independent Group and Government Deputies who tell us that they represent rural Ireland are the ones who most staunchly defend the status quo. They are resisting change of any sort, but what in the name of God are they doing defending the current policies and positions that have led rural Ireland into the situation it finds itself in today? The decline in biodiversity and the pollution of our rivers and waterways are not the only issues worth getting angry about. Over the years, I have seen debates in the Dáil about rural post offices shutting down, services and transport links being cut and villages being left isolated. These are worth getting angry about. Last week, we heard of women who had to search across several rural counties for GPs willing to provide reproductive care, with many having to travel to cities and towns to find that care. That is worth getting angry about. Are the profits of the Goodman Group and others, when looked at side by side with the struggles of poverty that many farmers experience, not worth getting angry about? No, it seems that the anger is reserved for any attempt to stop polluting rivers and lakes or any suggestion that climate change is real and something must be done to reduce our emissions in the face of the greatest threat to humanity. It is extraordinary to have a motion that proposes we continue to allow nitrates be used at current levels when later today we will be discussing an Environmental Protection Agency report that directly links the use of nitrates, especially in the south and the south east, to the decline in water quality and significant environmental damage that has ensued. This affects rural Ireland and its population most, yet the representatives of rural Ireland in the Dáil want to maintain that policy and allow the continued pollution of rivers and lakes.
This motion speaks of anger and fear in rural Ireland. It tells us of policies-----
We are polluting no lakes or rivers. We will not let-----
-----that have led to that anger and fear.
This motion tells us that the answer is to keep on doing what we are doing, to keep on with the policies that enrich the Goodmans, the Dawn Meats and the large agribusinesses, threaten the future of family farms and sustainable agriculture and add to the climate chaos that we face. As large parts of humanity experience record heatwaves, record temperatures, floods and droughts - and records are broken daily - we are told in this motion that things are grand and should continue as they are. The motion tells us that reducing nitrates is a bigger threat to rural Ireland than climate change. It tells us that cutting dairy herd numbers is an unimaginable horror, just as we see real unimaginable horrors across the globe from climate change. Under the guise of defending ordinary farmers, it wants to defend the status quo that has proved so lucrative for a tiny minority and threatens the majority of farmers, workers and humanity.
Farmers must be at the forefront of deciding what changes we need and how they are implemented but what we have here is a Trojan horse, a motion that pretends to have concern for the fears of ordinary farmers but that in reality is about preserving the status quo, the inequality and the precarious living that farming communities may experience. We need a new deal on food and farming and a new just transition for the farmers affected. The status quo in a time of crisis cannot hold and neither can allowing food policy to be dictated by large business interests who have no concern for ordinary farmers or the environment. Their only concern is for their own profit margins.
We need to pay and reward farmers for adopting sustainable food production and we need to prioritise food sovereignty in this State. I have no doubt that is what ordinary farmers want too. I know they see through the Green Party's policies that try to target ordinary people's behaviour while leaving corporate and business elites untouched. I urge all those who are concerned by the crisis we face to differentiate between the fake moralism that we see here, the class snobbery of the Green Party and the fact that climate change is real, is here and is happening. Dealing with that should mean greater security for farmers and rural communities, not less. It should mean a real future for family farms and sustainable agriculture. It should not mean business as usual and the continuation of a system that yields millions and millions in profits for the Larry Goodmans of this world and others in the food processing industry, while leaving rural communities and farmers at the mercy of continued precarity and uncertainty.
Agriculture has been the backbone of the Irish economy for many decades now and it continues to be the largest economic sector in rural and regional Ireland. Ireland is a world leader in beef and dairy production. If we take 2019 as a reference year, our total agrifood exports were valued at €14.5 billion. Of that impressive number, dairy accounted for €5 billion and beef accounted for €2.3 billion. I thank the Rural Independent Group for tabling this motion because it allows us to focus on the important issues facing agriculture. Our export markets in agrifood total over 180 countries. With a 50% multiplier being a conservative figure, we can see over €10 billion per annum being delivered to the Irish economy. The beef sector alone accounts for more than 80,000 jobs on farms and in processing.
The nitrates directive, along with multiple competitive land uses, is placing further pressure on dairy and beef farm incomes in particular. Climate legislation calling for increased management of bovine gas emissions is also going to bring its own pressures. These pressures must be managed through a controlled dairy cull scheme with the assistance of farmers. The scheme must provide for an equitable dairy farmer retirement plan and for succession planning. The logic behind reducing dairy cow numbers as a means of reducing our overall agriculture emissions must be balanced against the financial risks for smaller farm holdings. Many of these will become unviable if they are forced to reduce their herds by between 10% and 20%. Beyond this, a cull scheme could also have the undesirable effect of consolidating activities, particularly in the dairy sector, with more intensive farming methods being used as a result while reducing the number of farm families in the sector, with all of the consequent economic loss to rural communities. A cull scheme must be well managed. Such a scheme may also add to the cost of milk processing fees and this must be borne in mind in the context of the future competitiveness of our exports.
The idea of a cull scheme is also largely based around some portion of a greenwashing agenda as we have not yet managed to properly analyse general farm emissions. Two dairy farms of a similar size can have very different emissions based on bovine species, soil type, pasture land, nutritional additives and lactation scheduling. It is not the case that one size fits all. In addition, carbon sequestration on farms has not yet been properly characterised in Ireland. The proportion of hedgerows, wetlands and forestry on individual farms has a significant impact on reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Ireland is one of the most efficient producers of grass-fed dairy and beef. Being asked to reduce our output is hard to understand in terms of what is happening in South America, and Brazil in particular, as they ramp up production. This must be borne in mind. We also need to look at the other pressures besetting farming including slurry containment and the nitrates directive. Many farmers are already singularly invested and very exposed to the banks in terms of the capacity that they have added in the last few years. The Minister needs to be careful about how his policy will affect those exposed to bank lending. We need to be very careful of where we are going here. The Minister has said that he has the support of farming groups. I welcome that in terms of the management of any managed cull. A lot of the advice that was given here earlier around other forms of farming, particularly forestry, have to be looked at to offer mitigation to farmers and to give them other income streams to offset any cull that may happen.
I welcome the motion from the Rural Independent Group focusing on this really important issue. Agriculture is currently in a crisis state in Ireland. I do not make that statement lightly. Every year farmers are leaving the land. The number of farmers is reducing each year according to Teagasc. The Minister may smile at that but it is a fact. According to Teagasc, one third of farmers are making a complete loss and many of those are going into debt and into poverty. One third of farmers are only making a living because someone on the farm is working in another job off the farm. Only one third of farmers are making a living from farming. Again, these figures are from Teagasc. It is an incredible situation.
One of the most important sectors in society, the sector that produces our food and that is the backbone of the rural community, is collapsing as a result of Government policies. If the family farm dies, so too does rural Ireland. Food lots and industrial farms may keep up production but they will not send children to the local school, buy in the local shops, play for the local football team or socialise in the local pub. If there are no farmers, there is no food, no rural Ireland and no future for us. We have a responsibility to ensure that we have a healthy, functional farming sector where families can make a living from their farms. The way to do that in the first instance is to address the issue of price. This is something that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have refused to do. The food industry is massive and is extremely profitable. The problem is that the profit is being taken by two elements of the supply chain, the supermarkets and factories. They have been allowed to do so by the vested interests who have been friends of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael for the last number of years. The farmers' share is being squeezed year after year by these two elements of the market. They are squeezing down farm prices and that has been facilitated by this Government.
Climate change is real and it does need to be tackled. However, the manner in which the Government is doing it is absolutely bananas. There is a proposal to cull the national herd by 200,000 cattle in the next year and a half. This will hurt. It will push many families off an income cliff. At the same time, the EU, with the support of the Irish Government, has signed up to a trade agreement with South America that will see huge quantities of beef imported into Europe from the likes of Brazil, where deforestation, overgrazing and forest fires are a trademark of the farming sector. There is also the massive environmental cost of transporting that beef tens of thousands of miles. Brazilian beef imports to the EU are up by 27% so far this year. Approximately 24,500 tonnes of fresh beef have been imported into the EU from Brazil in the first five months of this year.
It is bonkers to lay waste to the Amazon and transport beef thousands of miles from Brazil in order to cull cattle in Ireland. According to the reply to a parliamentary question tabled by Deputy Nolan, nearly 70,000 tonnes of beef have been imported into Ireland since the start of the year. Ireland has an international competitive advantage for producing beef in the most environmentally friendly manner possible but now we are importing tens of thousands of tonnes of environmentally toxic beef instead. That is a crazy policy.
It is not just beef; we also see it in the context of peat. The Government is suppressing the production of peat. According to the reply to a parliamentary question tabled by Aontú, 813 tonnes of peat have been imported from Lithuania since the start of the year, while 4,100 tonnes have been imported from the Netherlands. This is climate hypocrisy. If you are a small beef farmer in Mayo, you can get stuffed but a green light and thumbs up will be given to beef farmers in Brazil. This has to stop.
The next slot is about to be taken by Deputy McNamara, who is making his way into Chamber.
I was not starving this morning. I thank the Regional Group for putting forward-----
My apologies. I thank the Rural Independent Group for putting forward this important motion. There is a lot of talk about cattle culls at the moment. I am sure the Department will say it has no immediate plans for a cattle cull. Regardless of whether it has immediate plans in that regard, it is something that will stay on the agenda. I accept it is probably not part of the agenda of either of the two parties represented by the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Heydon, who are present. It is, however, something that is constantly being discussed in the media. It is regularly discussed in The Guardian and it features in the Irish media as well. It is not the media that is dreaming this up. It is very much reflective of a current of thought that we need to reduce dairy and overall cattle numbers. There is a lot of scientific debate in that regard.
As previous speakers stated, there is the big risk of displacement. There are undoubtedly carbon emissions linked to the production of milk in Ireland but we can produce dairy produce at a lower level of carbon emissions than in other countries. I appreciate there is an advertising campaign on this which has proved controversial. There is a ready market for that product. The big danger is that if we reduce dairy numbers, that market will be filled from elsewhere and that will result in greater carbon emissions rather than fewer. Obviously it would reduce carbon emissions in Ireland, but global warming and carbon emissions are not a uniquely Irish problem. We have to play our part but they are not a uniquely Irish problem. That needs to be dealt with.
Leaving that aside, an interesting and persuasive analysis on the additional cost of processing if current milk output is reduced was published in the Irish Farmers' Journal this week. There is a considerable increase in cost and that will have to borne by producers or consumers or, most likely, both. The reality is that producers are not in a position to bear any greater cost, at least not on the basis of this year's prices, because they are very close to operating at the cost of production. There is no doubt the dairy sector was highly profitable for several years but it has not been highly profitable this year. That will inevitably result in greater costs for consumers. That is even leaving aside the effect of the same number of people seeking to buy a particular product but the supply of that product being reduced.
The environmental lobby states that farmers have to be more honest and that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has to be more honest with people regarding the impact of agricultural production on the environment. The environmental groups have to be far more honest with people regarding the effect the policies they are advocating will have on ordinary consumers, the cost of their shopping and, indeed, food security going forward. I find it very difficult to believe the claims of those who advocate moving completely to a plant-based diet that we can produce enough plant-based food, with adequate protein sources and so on, to feed the world on the amount of land that is currently dedicated to agricultural production. I do not find that credible. There is an underlying assumption that all the land that is used for agricultural production, including livestock production, is somehow suitable for producing cereals and so on, but that is simply not the case. There is a reason large amounts of the marginal land in Ireland is used for beef production, sucklers, lamb production and so on. Good luck growing wheat or barley on much of that land. I accept that there is an absolute need for greater diversity. There was greater diversity of food production in Ireland 20 years ago or 30 years ago, with a strong horticulture sector and a greater level of self-sufficiency regarding cereals and so on. We need to move back to that, but to say we can somehow abandon livestock production in the world or in Ireland is fantasy. Those who are advocating for that need to be far more honest with people.
One of the effects of the Common Agricultural Policy has been a significant increase in food production. That is what it was designed to do to ensure food security. Its main goal has now been switched from food security to it being an environmental benefit. That is all well and good; I do not necessarily have a problem with it once farmers are not being penalised. Inevitably, reducing the number of farmers, driving small family farms out of existence and moving towards the model they have in North America is not beneficial to anybody. It is not beneficial to farm families, who are being driven off the land by the economic policies that were pursued there through several decades, but it is not good for consumers either. There is a much smaller number of producers who are in a much better position to dictate price. It might be bad for the likes of Larry Goodman and the beef processors. We see what they are currently doing with prices. Ultimately, it is bad for consumers and food safety but it is also very bad for the environment. It is easy to have a reactionary policy such as calling for a cull on cows.
I have no problem with ensuring we meet our nitrates obligations. It is essential that we do so. We cannot continue with the water table being destroyed and damaged in the way that is currently happening. That is not sustainable. Agriculture is being scapegoated to a certain extent. It is certainly not the only contributor to that problem. That is evident in areas of east County Clare that are predominantly affected by forestry. We need to look after the environment and the water table and meet our nitrates obligations. The latter is not just the obligation of livestock producers, but also of the forestry sector and, in particular, the State forestry sector, including Coillte, which seems to get away with environmental murder, to use a pun. It seems to be held to different standards from farmers.
We need to be realistic about how we are going to feed the world population and sustain rural Ireland and the best way of doing that. Knee-jerk reactions calling for culls is not the way to achieve it. I very much thank the Rural Independent Group. I apologise for attributing the motion to another group. I thank those in the Rural Independent Group for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I support the motion.
Deputies referred to import figures for beef. On a point of information, the CSO recently corrected its trade data for beef imports in 2022 and 2023. The correct figures are that we imported almost 37,000 tonnes of beef in 2022, compared with Irish exports of 492,000 tonnes of beef last year. To the end of April this year, we imported 11,000 tonnes of beef, compared with exports of 154,000 tonnes in the same period.
When discussing imports, we should always bear in mind that Ireland is an export-focused economy with a small domestic market exporting 90% of the food we produce. We benefit hugely from being part of the Single Market and from international trade. Today is another important opportunity for us here in the House to outline to farmers, to the overall sector and to all stakeholders our commitment to the agrifood sector. The Minister, Deputy McConalogue, set out Government's position on the substantive points brought forward in the motion. The Food Vision strategy identifies a significant opportunity for Ireland to position itself as a world leader in sustainable food systems, and ensure a balance between the three legs of the sustainability stool, namely, social, environmental, and economic concerns, at the core of Government's Food Vision strategy. Farmers, fishers and food producers must be competitive and productive with enhanced well-being and economic sustainability if they are to deliver on any of the overall objectives.
The significant financial resources committed by this Government, as outlined by the Minister this morning, underline Government's commitment to the sector to do what we do best, that is, produce food that is safe nutritious and appealing, which is trusted and valued at home and abroad. Our farmers and fishers underpin the social and economic sustainability of communities across Ireland. This Government absolutely recognises and values the vital contribution of the agrifood sector to the Irish economy and, in particular, to the rural economy and society. Agriculture continues to be at the very heart of rural Ireland, both economically and socially. Our farmers produce top-quality produce all around the country. Their work and efforts keep our towns, villages, and rural areas alive and vibrant. The agrifood sector is Ireland's largest indigenous exporting industry and plays a vital role in Ireland's economy. The sector accounts for almost 7% of GNI but equally as important are the 165,000 people employed in it, representing close to 7% of our total employment in the country and a far greater proportion in our rural and costal areas where other opportunities are more limited.
As we know, Ireland is an open economy which exports most of its agricultural products. The outward and forward-looking approach has brought huge benefits. In 2022, full year exports were €18.78 billion, an increase of €3.2 billion, or 21%, on 2021. These may seem like abstract figures but they represent real jobs and activity in our rural towns and villages. Ireland is a global leader in terms of the safe sustainability and traceability of our dairy and meat production, which has a justified and hard-earned reputation for quality. Food Vision looks to protect and build on Ireland's global reputation as a trusted supplier of high quality, safe and sustainable food. It will provide the basis for future competitive advantage of our exports.
It is the reason it is smart to be bringing forward that point. I will get to the Deputy's point.
Half of the Minister of State's time is gone.
The Deputy is very worried about what I am saying here. It is good to know he is paying attention and I thank him for that.
This also means focusing on our environmental and climate credentials and facilitating the sector to contribute to our national ambitions on climate in a fair and balanced way. That is a road the sector is already travelling and I have seen first hand the steps many farmers are taking to improve their farms and reduce their carbon footprint and their environmental impact.
I recently attended an event in Kildare put on by the local Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, and Teagasc to showcase the adoption of a number of practices by a local farmer, Stephen Byrne, and his family. It highlighted the need for a partnership approach if we are to support farmers on this journey. Stephen was undertaking a number of actions. He was working to reduce chemical fertiliser use through the incorporation of nitrogen-fixing grasses and making best use of organic fertilisers. Despite an additional cost, he was replacing ammonia-based fertiliser with protected urea, and to protect water quality he had created a buffer zone along his farm water course which he proudly identified as thriving with wildlife.
So much of what is happening now on farms is underpinned by research in my Department also. The programme for Government and Food Vision 2030 highlight the need for support and investment in research. It is through research and innovation that these series of actions have been developed. Once implemented, these actions can reduce emissions from the sector underpinned by robust science. Efforts to develop new solutions to reduce emissions must continue. That is why I have significantly strengthened my Department's research budget. In our most recent major research call, more than 53% of the total awards, worth almost €16 million, was directed towards climate-related research. This investment in national and international research covers different aspects, including feed additives, animal breeding and genetics, slurry additives, pasture and soil management, and other emerging areas of promise for mitigating and offsetting agricultural greenhouse gasses, GHGs. Commitments have been made to increase climate-related spending by 60% out to 2025 compared to 2020 which will ensure a solid pipeline of solutions. This research is for solutions to the very problems about which farmers are worried and aware of. Indeed, only this morning, I announced new supports under the Global Research Alliance, GRA, for agriculture and greenhouse gases, which brings together 67 countries to find ways to produce food without growing greenhouse gas emissions. I have allocated €450,000 to support Ireland's participation in two flagship projects on feed additives and ruminal microbiology that are focused on reducing methane emissions for cattle while maintaining productivity.
My Department will also provide €1.2 million to an EU research funding initiative called Green ERA-Hub. This new research call is an opportunity for Irish researchers to collaborate with European partners in areas of fertiliser-use sufficiency, mitigating GHGs from agriculture, increasing European protein self-sufficiency, and sustainable energy production and use in agriculture. These are all strategically important areas for Irish agriculture. We are working as a leading collaborator internationally with other countries to accelerate the pace of research and the solutions we all need. This has created the basis for a solid roadmap for the sector backed by Teagasc's marginal abatement cost curve, MACC, which has identified measures which can, and are, reducing emissions in agriculture. First, we need to drive the adoption of measures which we know now will work. Alongside that, we must continue to develop newer technologies such as methane-mitigating feed additives and updating our breeding strategies. Finally, we must offer the opportunity for farmers to diversify their income with a suite of options where they can chose those that best suit their farms. We have been very clear with farmers from the outset. These measures-----
These measures will be optional. It is my firm believe the best results come from bringing people with you and not by imposing obligations on them. That approach is reflected in the Food Vision dairy and beef reports. These reports were prepared through a process of collaboration and co-operation and represent a broad consensus with some reservations on the key actions required. Contrary to the narrative that is being pushed from one side of this House for a long time, Government does not want to take cows off farmers or force a cull of the national herd. We brought together all stakeholders in the dairy sector. The group came up with a report that was published in full last autumn and was put on our website. It set out a number of options, one of which was a voluntary retirement exit scheme for those farmers who want to avail of it. However, there is no scheme there and no decision has been taken to proceed with such a scheme because there is a lot of work still to be done, and a lot of engagement with stakeholders still to take place, before a proposal is even on the table. Unlike the narrative being delivered by some here today that implies that farmers will be forced to take actions, that is not the case.
This sector is one of which we are rightly proud. We do not farm the same way we did five, ten, or 15 years ago. Change is constant though that does not mean it is easy. One thing I believe is certain is that agriculture will continue to be a major driver of activity in rural communities. Food Vision looks to protect and build on Ireland's global reputation as a trusted supplier of sustainable food to consumers at home and abroad built on steady value growth. In 2022, a record €18.8 billion in exports of Irish agrifood products went to more than 180 markets worldwide. As Minister of State with responsibility for new market development, I continue to work closely with all stakeholders in gaining, maintaining, restoring and enhancing access for Irish agrifood products to a wide range of target markets. Sustainability is crucial to those efforts. We are in front right now. We are in the lead right now but that does not mean we can fold our arms and say we are doing fine, are happy with that and will do no more. That will not be in the interests of the sector long term. It is important we acknowledge and continue to support the significant work that has already been undertaken by all those in the sector, to work towards our emission-reduction targets rather than push simplistic narratives at either extreme.
Is mór an trua an rud seo ar maidin. I wonder if we in the right Parliament or in the right place or if the Ministers have read the motion. I see they did not oppose it but the Minister of State waited until the last two minutes of his reply to address the questions.
It is called context, Deputy.
Our motion called, once and for all, on the Government to declare it will not pursue a compulsory or voluntary cull of the national herd, with no introduction of caps on Irish dairy cows or beef numbers. Furthermore, it calls for a review of the process of calculating methane emissions, considering the cycle effect, and calls on the Government to provide funding to farmers for implementing greater efficiencies, embracing new technologies, and any other measures as an alternative plan to reducing the national herd. It asks that an independent comprehensive financial impact assessment be undertaken on reducing the national dairy herd, considering the impact on the farmer and the rural economy, and broken down to show the potential negative financial consequences for our country.
It also calls on the Government to cease its climate attack on farmers, who are the backbone of the agrifood sector, to prevent future generations from being driven out of the sector and compromising the sustainability of rural communities. Our motion instructs the Minister, if he can be instructed, to publicly announce a pause on discussions or considerations of a dairy or beef sector cull until a full financial impact assessment has been published, considering the views of the affected farmers. What motion did the Minister and Minister of State say there were going to accept? It is clearly not this one. They are in wonderland or Disneyland.
When I look around the Chamber ar maidin, níl aon Teachta ó Fianna Fáil, ó Fine Gael nó ón gComhaontas Glas anseo. Where are they? None of them are here. Where are they?
As for our friends on the left, who come in here and make speeches, I will take no lectures from Deputy Cairns whatsoever. I was delighted to attend the National Produce Stakes at the Clonmel racetrack last Sunday night. It was a wonderful evening in the sunshine. People were enjoying themselves and contributing to the economy with the bookmakers, bookies, restaurants and everything else. Deputy Cairns came in here one time objecting to greyhound racing and she brought a lurcher, so she knows a lot about farmers. I rest my case and I will not take any lectures from her.
Then there is an Teachta Bríd Smith, who is also gone like snow off a ditch, and who has her dog Ben in the back of her white van outside the door. Is animal welfare aware of that? Every person who has a dog should have a herd number like the farmers do. Farmers protect their stock and treat them as well as their children and not like Deputy Smith wants to cull. I know the cull she fought for with repeal of the eighth amendment. We saw the floodgates open with the savagery of that act she ushered in and cannot get enough of. Commitments were made by Government and other parties that there would be safeguards there, but now it wants to fling them all to the wind. How can we have any faith in the Government or the phoney Opposition?
I thank Deputy Kerrane who has been here since the debate began as have some other Members, but it is a sad state of affairs in a country that depends so much on agriculture that this Chamber, with guests visiting for the John F. Kennedy commemoration, has few Deputies in it. It is embarrassing. Níl aon Teachta ó aon pháirtí anseo.
They must think you do not have much useful to say, Mattie.
Minister, please, a bit of respect.
Yes. You can run, Minister, but you cannot hide. Your hiding days are over because you have abandoned the people of rural Ireland. There is the subterfuge and deceit the Minister and the Government goes on with, the blackguarding it does of farmers and the ineptitude of the Department. You are in bed with Mr. Goodman and the big beef barons. You are in bed with the big supermarkets and everything else. I am in this Chamber almost 16 years this month, thanks to the people of Tipperary.
I have to say that such allegations need to be explained.
Excuse me, Acting Chair, but they are obvious to a blind man.
You did not stop anybody else who mentioned names and all.
Yes, but not with an allegation like that. Continue, Deputy.
"In bed" is a metaphor. We have not got a bed here. If we had, the Government would be asleep in it all day and would not get up to see the farmers. The farmers get up early in the morning and get up late at night to tend to their animals when they are young, sick or being attacked by marauding gangs of foxes and deer. We cannot have a cull of the deer population which is running riot around the country. It is causing havoc in every rural area and in urban areas as well. There is danger to life and limb due to car accidents and cars are being destroyed. The Government will not address that at all because of the do-gooders, all these so-called environmentalists who want to lecture us and tell us we are backward, stupid, dirty or somehow not up to it. We are up to it and the farmers of Ireland are well up to it. The Government should just leave them alone and not strangle them with all the red tape and schemes.
The Department is not fit for purpose. We have word now from Europe that it will not provide further funding for TB eradication. That is going on for decades and billions have been spent on it, but a bloody racket is all it is, money for the boys. It has not even been sorted, as TB was never as bad, and yet the Department will not even trace the badgers to see whether they are causing it, nor will it check whether the deer are carrying it or spreading it. It has become an industry.
I have been contacted by pedigree cattle breeders from across the country who tell me they are being blackguarded by the pedigree cattle breeding societies. They are being forced to cull their four- and five-star pedigree breeding animals as regular ones. This has been going on for more than 30 years, since the late Owen O'Neill took a case against the Irish Hereford Breed Society Limited. These societies still hold kangaroo courts to force their members. I have been contacted by Joe Casserly, a pedigree Charolais breeder from Longford, who was forced to sell his cattle and to cull them, and the Department is in on this and knows all about this. I have been contacted by Anne Pounds, a pedigree Hereford breeder from Cork, who told me she has been subjected to a similar fate after raising the issue of governance and auditing practices in the Irish Hereford Breed Society Limited. The society refused to issue certificates for her Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF-certified pedigree animals and she has been forced to cull her four- and five-star cattle as well. What is going on? We have a cull already and these people are trying to push these breeders out. Is this any surprise, because some people in these societies are very closely connected to a female Cabinet Minister who sits beside the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, every day at Cabinet? Put that in your pipe and smoke it and try to defend what is going on.
This is the blackguarding of farmers. That is only one lot of farmers. Every other farmer, be he or she in cattle, sheep or pigs, is getting blackguarded and tied up in red tape. All we want is the truth. RTÉ was praising itself for the truth in the news, but my goodness look at it now, nakedly exposed. The Government will be nakedly exposed. The game is up for the cabals. It is about the good people of Ireland. We are talking about the farmer, who I am proud to represent.
I take no lectures from Deputies on the left who say we do not know what we are talking about. They should come down and see what we are talking about. We have never backed the cabals and the beef barons. We are fighting all the time for fairness and equality for the producers. We are trying all the time to get the fifth quarter and I salute the likes of Seamus Maye, who has done an investigation on this. However, the Government does not want to know because it has a culture of Secretaries General and Departments protecting the system and advancing the big players against the ordinary people. Men like Liam Lynch, Michael Collins, Dan Breen and many others fought and gave their lives for democracy but this Government has besmirched the name of democracy with the way it is treating people.
It is now demonising rural people. This morning the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, was reporting again about septic tanks. Big Phil tried the terrorism there and we are back to it again. The Government will not ask the EPA to check the councils responsible for Dublin Bay. Two farmers recently went out on a boat and they could see the sludge going into the bay on a lovely morning. All the rivers and streams are being polluted by municipal authorities. I do not support anyone, be they a farmer or anybody else, who pollutes. Nobody does it deliberately, but Government is constantly doing it deliberately because it will not fund people to repair the infrastructure or do anything else save go after the daoine beaga and threaten them with a €5,000 fine. We are told people can get a grant to do up their septic tank. We went down that road long ago but the grants are not there and the money is not there. It is not sufficient at €5,000. I know a bit about this as I have installed many septic tanks. It is costly and expensive. We want to mind our environment. All rural dwellers want to mind the environment, not just the farmers. The farmers and the rural communities are in unison. However, we want to have food to eat, jobs, futures and education for our children.
Who is going to pay for it? Who is going to feed us? In his first five minutes or so, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, rattled off all the schemes and said how happy the farmers were. If so, why did Macra na Feirme march 70 km here for its 70 years in existence? Its members came here to tell the Government they are worried they cannot live, cannot work, cannot play and cannot get educated in rural Ireland. Above all, they cannot farm. It is that noble profession that puts food on our tables, including on the tables of the restaurant in Leinster House, and in every other house. It could be bacon, lamb, beef, cereals and everything else and we are going to destroy them. The Minister has gone down this road at the behest of the Green Party and a willing media.
I am not a climate-change denier, but there is no evidence and the Government will not listen to anyone else who has different evidence. We had people here recently from Teagasc, people formerly of Met Éireann and people from other prestigious institutions who have an alternative view. They were not listened to. They were demonised. The Government has played a phoney trick again by accepting this motion, but the Minister and Minister of State did not even read it because they spoke as if they were speaking to another motion. This is a charade. If it looks like a charade and walks like a charade it is a charade.
Your stomach sounds like a charade.
Laugh away. You have something if you have the last laugh.
Tá an díospóireacht críochnaithe, go raibh maith agaibh. There is no amendment to this motion. Is the motion agreed to?
Is the Deputy not voting against his own motion today?
I have a point of clarification. We hate to break this charade. The Minister will not deal with the motion and will not accept it, so it is not agreed.
I asked if it was agreed.
The Deputy is making a habit of voting against his own motions.
You have tabled a motion.
Are you telling me now that you are-----
I am telling you this is a charade. We are not voting against it. I am just expressing my disgust at this practice of the Government agreeing to motions it does not agree with. We are not accepting it today.
He opposes everything. He is only being consistent.
Minister, if you do not mind, it is difficult enough. Can we stop please? We are finished the debate.
There has been a two-hour debate on a motion. Is it agreed?
Does the Deputy want to reflect on that?
I do, because we are not settled-----
The motion is not agreed. I am sure Standing Orders do not even allow for this, but we will come back to it.
Question put and declared carried.
