We will commenece the meeting and I will now hand over the Chair to Deputy Fitzmaurice.
Agricultural Schemes, Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis and Compensation: Discussion
Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice took the Chair.
I welcome everyone. The purpose of today's meeting is to resume an examination of agricultural schemes in respect of the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and compensation. The committee will hear from officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. All those present in the committee room are asked to exercise personal responsibility to protect themselves and others from the risk of contracting Covid-19.
I bring to the attention of witnesses that giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts is protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action arising from anything said in a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the directions of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse comments should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who choose to give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in committee meetings when their participation is within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance in respect of participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of this when contributing.
The agenda of this meeting is the resumption of discussion on the agricultural schemes. The officials attending today's meeting to deal with the schemes are Dr. Mary Carey, principal officer, basic payment and rural development scheme; Jack Nolan, head of organics division; Fran Morrin, principal officer, CAP entitlements and financial controls; Peter Harte, assistant principal officer direct payments section; Josephine Brennan, principal officer agri-environment and on-farm investment; and Pat Morrison, agricultural inspector, agri-environment and structures. On bovine eradication and compensation we have Dr. June Fanning, deputy chief veterinary officer; Dr. Damien Barrett, senior superintending veterinary inspector; and Conor O'Mahony, principal officer, ERAD. I call now upon Dr. Carey to read her opening statement to be followed by Mr. O'Mahony. On conclusion of the opening statements we will have a questions and answers session.
For the information of the meeting, when questions are put by the committee members, they will cover all of the topics here today and the members can question different witnesses in attendance, be it on the eradication of tuberculosis, TB, or on the schemes themselves.
Dr. Mary Carey
I thank the Chairman and the committee for the opportunity to address it this evening on a number of schemes under the Department's remit. I am head of the Department's basic payments and rural development schemes division in Portlaoise. As already outlined by the Acting Chairman, I am joined by my colleagues Fran Morrin, Jack Nolan, Peter Harte, Josephine Brennan and Pat Morrison.
The basic payment scheme, BPS, is an income support paid to farmers. The payment is conditional on a range of good agricultural and environmental conditions and statutory management requirements being met. The basic payment scheme is 100% EU-funded.
Payments under the basic payment scheme are delivered in two instalments, with an advance payment issuing in mid-October and a balancing payment issuing in early December. For the past number of years, we have, with EU Commission approval, paid a higher advance rate of 70%, instead of the standard 50%. We also make the advance payment on the first day allowed under the EU regulations, that is16 October.
In October 2022, an advance payment of 70% was paid to 94% of all eligible applicants. The balancing payments commenced on schedule on 1 December. To-date, 120,705 farmers have been paid €786 million for the 2022 basic payment scheme year, bringing the total direct payments spend to more than €1.14 billion. More than 99% of all eligible applicants have received their BPS payment. The Department continues to process, as a matter of urgency, all remaining cases for payment as any outstanding queries are addressed.
In 2023, the basic payment scheme will be replaced by a new scheme under Ireland's Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, strategic plan.
The new scheme is called the basic income support for sustainability, BISS. Applications for BISS and other area-related schemes will open in February 2023 and close on Monday, 15 May 2023. Since 2018, all farmers must apply online for their basic payments. To help farmers, the Department organises basic payment scheme, BPS, clinics around the country, where farmers can go in and a Department official will submit their applications for them. The Department ran 20 of these BPS clinics in 2022, and we hope to do the same in 2023.
Turning to organics, the programme for Government has a target of 7.5% of all land to be farmed organically by 2030. The allocation of €256 million in our CAP strategic plan, CSP, is testament to our aim of achieving and hopefully exceeding this target.
The 2023 organic farming scheme, OFS, budget sees funding of €37 million for the organic farming scheme - an 80% increase on last year. There has been a 20% increase in applications to join the organic farming scheme in 2022 as compared with 2021, bringing in an expected additional 17,000 ha. Overall there has been an increase of 35% of land being farmed organically over the past two years. The indicators for success and platform for further gains are already evident.
The current scheme closed on 9 December 2022 and there has been a total of 2,100 new applicants. The scheme will reopen in 2023.
Turning to the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, this scheme opened for applications on 17 October 2022 and closed last Wednesday night. More than 46,000 applications were received, which demonstrates the commitment by farmers to avail of supports to assist them to meet climate, biodiversity and environmental needs.
In ACRES, there are two approaches: the ACRES co-operation approach, which is targeted at certain high nature value lands; and the ACRES general, available nationally outside the eight co-operation zones. It is considered that these twin approaches will achieve broader environmental and biodiversity benefits.
Learnings from previous schemes, including the green, low-carbon, agri-environment scheme, GLAS, the European innovation partnerships, ElPs and the results-based environment agri-pilot programme, REAP, informed the design of ACRES. The locally-adapted and hybrid results-based agri-environment scheme delivery model evident in ACRES has been successfully tried and tested in the EIP projects. The ACRES co-operation is a scaling up of those initial projects to enable as many farmers as possible to participate in collaborative measures to contribute to long-term environmental improvement at a landscape level.
The development of the ACRES co-operation approach was also the culmination of extensive engagement with those previously involved in ElPs and Government bodies such as the Nationals Parks and Wildlife Service. The principle of the co-operation approach, and the associated eight project teams, is that they will facilitate the effective implementation of locally targeted and adapted agri-environment measures in identified high environmental priority areas across the country.
The Government has committed €1.5 billion to ACRES over the duration of the scheme. There was a range of actions from which farmers could choose when applying for ACRES and those actions, and associated payment rates, have been designed to contribute to our efforts to address climate, biodiversity and environmental issues. A key objective was to design actions that were understandable and implementable by farmers, and thereby contribute to the ongoing development of sustainable farming practices.
As members of the committee will be aware, the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, which was included in the Rural Development Programme 2014 - 2020, will end on 31 December 2022. The scheme came into operation over two tranches in 2015 and 2017. In total, €300 million was allocated to the scheme from the rural development programme, RDP. Approximately 22,500 farmers participated in BDGP I during the period 2015 - 2020 while just over 1,500 farmers participated in BDGP II, which commenced in 2017. The numbers participating in BDGP I during the transitional scheme years of 2021 and 2022 fell to approximately 17,000. The Department paid out €28 million in BDGP I and II payments in recent days.
In 2023, the BDGP scheme will be replaced by the suckler carbon efficiency programme, SCEP. Applications for SCEP, which is a multi-annual scheme, will open in March 2023 and close in May 2023. There are four mandatory actions in the scheme, namely replacement strategy, genomics, weighing and surveys.
Turning to the beef environmental efficiency programme, BEEP, the Department also operated the Exchequer-funded beef environmental efficiency programme - suckler, BEEP-S, programme in 2022, as it has done since 2019. Applications for the scheme opened in March 2022 and closed in May 2022. In early December 2022, 23,764 participants in the scheme were paid a total of €38.7 million.
In 2023, the Exchequer-funded beef welfare scheme will replace the current BEEP-S, as one of the main elements of the current BEEP-S, namely weighing, is now an integral element of the SCEP. The final make-up of the scheme is currently being decided with the scheme expected to open for applications in late July 2023.
The targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, continues to be a hugely successful and beneficial scheme that will continue in 2023. As TAMS funding for 2023 will remain under the RDP, an amendment was required to be submitted to the European Commission. The proposed changes were formally submitted to the European Commission for approval on 29 October 2022.
The proposed changes relate to a higher grant rate of 60% in respect of investments under the low emission spreading equipment, farm safety scheme, organic capital investment scheme and the solar scheme, in line with Government priorities. Young farmers and women farmers will be also provided with grant aid for capital investments at an enhanced grant rate of 60% providing they meet the necessary eligibility requirements.
Changes to the investment ceilings are also proposed, including that the ceiling for investments will be reset at €90,000 per holding for the remaining years of the RDP, a stand-alone investment ceiling of €90,000 for solar installation will be put in place, and the ceiling for investment for the pig and poultry investment strand of support will increase to €500,000. The low emissions slurry-spreading equipment investment ceiling will remain in place.
It is also proposed to include equine investments in TAMS 3, such as facilities for housing and training of horses, manure storage, horse-specific safety items and equine fencing.
The terms and conditions of the scheme and the investment list for grant-aided items are currently being finalised. All reference costs for new and existing investments are also being reviewed.
My colleagues and I would be happy to take any questions the committee may have. Mr. Morrin and I will answer any questions in relation to BPS. Mr. Nolan will answer any question in relation to organics. Dr. Brennan and Mr. Morrison will answer any questions in relation to ACRES. Mr. Harte will answer any questions in relation to the BDGP and BEEP, and Dr. Brennan will answer any questions in relation to TAMS.
I thank Ms Carey. Dr. Fanning will give make an opening statement on the tuberculosis, TB.
Dr. June Fanning
I thank the Chairman, Deputies and Senators for inviting the Department to appear before the committee today to contribute to discussions on bovine TB eradication with stakeholders.
The Department is acutely aware of the financial and emotional stress associated with a TB breakdown. It causes significant hardship for farmers and farming families, and the Department is committed to the objectives of the bovine TB eradication strategy, which aims to reduce and ultimately eradicate this disease in Ireland.
The importance of Ireland’s TB eradication programme in underpinning farm family income should not be underestimated. As a country that exports 90% of our livestock produce, access to international trade markets is fundamental.
It is a requirement of EU trade law to have an eradication programme in place. This enables Irish farmers to access the EU Single Market for our cattle, including calves, meat and milk.
It is also a requirement to access a number of third country markets. Our export markets have grown substantially in value and volume in third countries in the past ten years, and TB is a significant consideration in the context of trade and certification requirements. A cost-benefit analysis report of the TB programme carried out by Grant Thornton in 2021 estimated that in economic terms 78% of the benefits of the bovine TB eradication programme relate to private goods while 22% accrues to public goods.
It is important to stress that in recent years we are at an historically low level of TB prevalence. The focus of everyone engaged in dealing with TB is to reduce these levels even further, and move towards eradication of the disease.
However, bovine TB is a challenging disease to control and eradicate due to a number of factors, including movement of cattle with undetected infection; residual infection in cattle previously exposed to TB; the inherent limitations of the tests; a reservoir of disease wildlife, including a protected species, the badger; and inadequate biosecurity practices.
The relative contribution of each of these factors varies from farm to farm. As such, it is important that farmers are empowered to make the best choices for their own circumstances to protect their cattle from TB. It is critical that they are given practical advice based on scientific research about how they can reduce their TB risk. Farmers need relevant, useful information about their own herds and their own cattle so they themselves can make any management changes which may be necessary if they wish to avoid the costs and stress of a TB breakdown. This involves making informed decisions about the purchase of cattle and maintaining good overall herd health. The advice on how to reduce TB risk in a herd has remained generally consistent over many years and we continue to encourage farmers to act on it, using a broader range of communication tools. Stakeholder endorsement of this advice, through the TB forum, is very important in encouraging farmers to take active steps to reduce their TB risk.
Vaccinating badgers reduces the transmission of TB within the badger population and thereby reduces transmission to cattle. This protects cattle and reduces losses to farmers while safeguarding a native protected Irish wild species. Scientific research carried out in Ireland over many years has demonstrated the effectiveness of badger vaccination. We are providing information and advice on the practical steps farmers can take to reduce the risk from badgers. We can greatly mitigate the risk of TB at the wildlife-cattle interface by combining practical farmer-led risk reduction actions with the policy of vaccination to prevent breakdowns, and targeted licensed badger removal where necessary in response to spillover from badgers to cattle.
In response to the developing disease situation and to improve stakeholder involvement in achieving TB eradication, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine established the TB stakeholder forum in May 2018, in line with international best practice on the governance of animal health programmes. Its mandate is to develop evidence-informed policies that can eradicate TB. These considerations ultimately resulted in the Bovine TB Eradication Strategy 2021-2030, which was published in January 2021. The key actions in the strategy are: preventing spread from herds with a high risk of recurrence; enhanced actions to clear infection from extended breakdown herds; addressing the risk from inconclusive animals; action plans for areas with increased localised TB levels; aligning with changes in the EU animal health law TB regulations; reducing the risk posed by badgers and deer; tailored, simplified communications between the Department and herdowners; clearer messaging of the risks of TB transmission and how to address these; and biosecurity advice delivered to farmers, with a focus on practical, clear and effective actions to reduce risk and incentivise risk-lowering behaviour.
Approximately 4,400 herds are currently restricted with TB. Data analysis suggests the reasons underpinning current levels of TB incidence are the expansion of the dairy herd and the resulting increased levels of intensive cattle farming and the increased movement of cattle. These conditions are associated with heightened susceptibility to disease. We have seen a positive reduction in herds entering restrictions in the past two years, but the figure on reactors is not so positive and has increased, with just under 22,000 being disclosed so far this year.
In driving strategic change in the bovine TB programme in Ireland, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, has consistently highlighted the critical role of stakeholder collaboration. Reflecting this, implementation of the TB strategy is being facilitated by a governance structure designed to ensure all perspectives are considered. The TB stakeholder forum is supported by three working groups - scientific, financial and implementation. Each group has an independent chair to deliver on the specific terms of reference and the working groups all report back to the TB forum.
In 2021, there were more than 9 million individual animal TB tests in more 100,000 herds. Delivering the TB programme in any given year represents a massive logistical operation achieved through the co-operation of farmers, private veterinary practitioners and Department officials across the country. It also represents a significant financial commitment from farmers and taxpayers. The overall cost of the programme has increased from an estimated €97.3 million in 2020 to an estimated €104 million in 2021, a €6.7 million, or 7%, increase in just one year. This rate of increase is not sustainable. For many years, Ireland’s TB programme has been financially supported by the EU but this is currently being phased out and will cease in 2023.
The new TB strategy sets out how the Department and stakeholders will continue to engage on the issues impacting on TB levels in Ireland. By building our policies on a foundation of science and by providing practical science-based advice which farmers can act on to reduce their risks, we can together focus our efforts to protect cattle from infection and protect farmers from the stress, uncertainty and costs of a breakdown. This will involve difficult choices and stakeholders have a responsibility to engage with these difficult choices. If additional measures to reduce TB are not supported by stakeholders, this will likely have an adverse impact on future TB trends and the drive towards eradication.
Most actions set out under the current TB strategy have either been implemented or are advancing well towards implementation. To make substantial further progress on TB in the 2023-2025 period, additional steps to build on the current strategy will be needed. Options were presented by the Department to the TB forum and we discussed these options with farming organisations for consideration in October 2021 and again in February 2022. The options presented were: voluntary or mandatory informed purchasing; voluntary or mandatory risk-based trading; incentivising risk lowering behaviours and disincentivising risk elevating behaviours; reducing spread between areas using contract rearing risk mitigation and restrictions on movements from high to low TB areas; dynamic risk estimation at herd and animal level; supporting quality TB testing using gamma interferon blood testing and spatial tools to identify each group of cattle; and reducing spread from high-risk herds by restricting older breeding cattle and confining TB-exposed cattle to controlled finishing units. Based on these stakeholder discussions, the scope of what the farm organisations are prepared to accept as next steps from 2023-2025 has become clear. While more progressive measures, such as informed purchasing, risk based trading and increased restrictions on high-risk herds and animals, would be expected to lead to a sharper reduction in TB, these do not currently have stakeholder support.
We now have the building blocks in place to implement additional measures to the existing TB programme that can lower disease incidence and result in fewer farm families having to endure the challenges associated with a TB restriction. We are committed to constructive engagement with all stakeholders in helping the farming community. I sincerely hope the next time we address the committee on bovine TB, we will be in a position to outline a positive picture of reducing TB incidence and a trajectory towards eradication. I and my colleagues welcome any questions from members of the committee.
Deputy Jackie Cahill resumed the Chair.
I welcome the witnesses. As politicians, we are good at giving out or highlighting issues, but a few things have to be acknowledged. On the organic scheme, we have to acknowledge it when people roll up their sleeves and put in the work. I have seen Jack Nolan at 12 midnight in town halls, and it showed in the number of people who were there. It is very important to bring the information to farmers.
With regard to the section dealing with the single farm payment or basic payment, or whatever we want to call it, in fairness, over the past few months, the Department has put out to everyone the areas covered by the eco-scheme next year, which is a huge help, so the Department is fairly well ahead of itself in that way. It is good to see that 99% of the payments are out there at the moment. While I might not agree with all parts of it, any time I contact Pat Morrison, Jack Nolan, Fran Morrin, Peter Harte or Paul Dillon, I must commend them for how they deal with the issues. We are good at giving out but when something is done fairly right, it needs to be acknowledged.
I will go through the different parts and I ask any of the witnesses to respond. On the eco-scheme, there was a piece of farming for nature where, with regard to mountains, it showed that although it would be a fairly eco-friendly area, there was a lack of drains, bushes or trees.
Is that being fixed? It is down to 2% or 3% of all farmers. Some 97% have one measure. Will the witnesses bring me up to speed on that? I do not know which of them will be dealing with the forgotten farmer. I saw the proposals that came out up until now. Even the witnesses who were here earlier raised that there were six different things, of which they might fit into five but were caught on one. I could not get anyone who would fit into it. Is the Department tweaking that?
Regarding the organics check, more than 2,000 people are involved. There has been talk about budgets. I presume that all of those people will be accepted, provided their plans are okay. Will the witnesses comment on that?
On the matter of ACRES, I thank Mr. Morrison for answering queries on numerous occasions. Some 16,000 or 18,000 extra are involved. I know it will involve extra work for the Department to get everyone in. It is imperative that funds are available to make sure all those farmers are looked after. One thing which I have spoken about before regarding ACRES has cropped up on numerous occasions. Ms Carey mentioned working with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. There is a significant problem with special areas of conservation, SAC. If I was not on an SAC, I could fence off an area in a riparian zone of up to 2 ha, which would get me €3,000. If the land is designated, people cannot put down this fence and are caught and unable to get that money. That has cropped up in several places. I am not talking about mountains but about lowlands around the country. I sent an email to the NPWS, the Department and to other bodies. It will not be solved this minute but when ACRES 2 opens, we need to make sure that is resolved.
On top of that, as I am sure every other Deputy will say, breeding waders, swans, and every other type of bird is coming up in places where people have never seen birds in their life. I do not know if whoever has done that for the Department was dreaming. We have proof from different areas. I have talked to people in Mullingar and Tipperary. Apparently, there are breeding waders in my own area. I do not know where they are. We had cranes along the river years ago. In my opinion, some of this is anecdotal evidence. The Department needs to have a company that does not have a vested interest looking at these surveys. The NPWS needs to be able to back them up. Dr. Andy Bleasdale needs to be able to show us how these figures stand up. I am not blaming the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, because it can only go by the information given to it. All the witnesses can go by is the legislation in front of them. Tweaking on fencing in designated areas has to be done before the next ACRES. It is making it virtually impossible for those farmers. They might comment on that.
They might also address the young farmers' scheme. It is increasing to 50 ha next year.
Regarding the BDGP and BEEP, in fairness to them, they went round the country for the CAP and organics. Some of the Department's people went round local areas for ACRES. A lot of information is available, with a lot of money to draw down. It is important that the information is getting to farmers and that they understand it. I encourage the witnesses to look at this over the next months, even before finalising the CAP payment. I know they have looked at Tuam and other areas around the country. It is important to keep the momentum of bringing this information to various areas to help farmers. When we meet them, they say that they did not know something. The more information is given, the better farmers understand it, and that is important.
I welcome the TAMS. Ms Carey mentioned equines as well. Do people involved in the equine sector need a herd number or just an equine number to get TAMS?
I thank the witnesses for their presentation on tuberculosis. Under this new proposal, cattle over 36 months will need extra testing for TB. Is the other testing coming down the road or has it gone? Farmers do not want drip-fed information today with another bid being announced in 24 months. How long does this go for? I refer to farmers whose cattle get TB. Most farmers across the country have a job, which is like two legs of a stool. Their job and a bit of farming keeps them sustainable in a rural area. If they are working when the TB hardship money comes available, they do not get the money. They are as much entitled to it as anyone. The job might be feeding their houses, but the hardship money is for the cattle. I cannot understand why that has not been addressed.
The witnesses talked about moving tests forward. How far forward can it be moved? Farmers say that if they have tests in April or May, it can be moved forward. Is that six months forward or backwards, whichever way it goes? How flexible is this without costing farmers extra money?
Deputy Fitzmaurice has asked numerous questions of various panel members.
Dr. June Fanning
I will let Dr. Barrett answer the first and third questions. Mr. O'Mahony will speak on hardship.
Dr. Damien Barrett
We are talking about phase 1 of this. This regulation was brought in under the animal health legislation. The original proposal was for this regulation to be for a 30-day test. We successfully increased that to a six-month test, so the herd test will, in effect, last for six months. We are implementing this on a phased basis. It will apply in the first instance to bulls over 36 months of age and all adult cows. We do not have plans-----
I am sorry to interrupt Dr. Barrett. Are cows which are under 36 months and in calf included?
Dr. Damien Barrett
It includes animals that have calved.
So pregnant animals are not in it.
Dr. Damien Barrett
No. A cow is an animal that is defined as having calved. It does not apply to a pregnant heifer. We do not yet have plans to put phase 2 into action because we want to see how phase 1 works out. On moving the test forward or backwards, there are no limits to bringing the test forward if the farmer wishes to. We will give people a once-off dispensation to push the test back by up to three months.
Dr. Conor O'Mahony
On the hardship grant, there are a number of subgroups in the TB forum, one of which is the financial working group under the chairmanship of Gerry Kiely. That was tasked with developing a sustainable funding model. Within that, we are looking at existing compensation schemes, the income supplement, the depopulation grant and the hardship grant. The specific issue the Deputy raised about off-farm income is being discussed.
When will all this kick in?
Dr. Conor O'Mahony
There has not been full agreement on these yet. We have made much progress.
What I am saying is that the schemes of the people behind are kicking in in January. Mr. O'Mahony's scheme is not kicking in that quick. When does the TB scheme kick in?
Mr. Conor O'Mahony
As soon as the financial element is agreed, it will kick in. There is no closing or opening date. Those discussions are still ongoing, so I do not want to talk about it, but it is one of the issues that has not been discussed.
Could Mr. Nolan speak about the various schemes?
Mr. Jack Nolan
We have approximately 2,100 applications, which is a doubling of what we had. We have 4,000 now, hopefully from the start of next year. We are going through them at the moment, looking at the areas and at the budget. I hope we will be able to write to people in the springtime to say whether they are in or not. In the past, they would not have received any notification until later on in the year, but we will tell them early in the spring because they have to change their practice. We are aiming to bring in everybody we can. I do not know right now, because we do not know the areas, but the scheme will be open again, as planned, at the end of next year. It will open every year because there is a huge appetite there. As Deputy Fitzmaurice said, and as we saw when we went around the country, a lot of people are interested. We hope we will increase every year. We may not double next year in the way we did this year, but we are definitely going to go up by 1,000 or more every year for the next couple of years.
Could Dr. Carey speak about the various schemes?
Dr. Mary Carey
I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice for the very positive comments. They are very much appreciated. We do intend to continue with our communications and engagement with farmers next year. That will commence and ramp up in January, and then we will have the clinics when we go out in the spring as well to help farmers to submit their applications.
I might pass over to Mr. Morrin to speak about the forgotten farmers and the young farmers.
Mr. Francis Morrin
If it is okay, I might deal with the forgotten farmers first and then move on to the young farmers’ scheme afterwards.
The proposals we heard the Minister announce at the Macra conference a couple of weeks ago in Ballykisteen are not finalised or fully developed yet. We are still working through those at the moment. What members have seen in the design so far is about identifying those people who are truly forgotten, the ones who would ordinarily have been there to receive money back when the downturn happened and to make sure that the money is concentrated on those people who did not have something to apply for then but who normally would have.
We must bear in mind that some of those people that were forgotten or who lost out early in 2001 and 2002, when they got nothing, they were left high and dry and some of them had to go out to work. They would not have got the opportunity to do the green certificate. Does Mr. Morrin understand me? I have looked at a lot of cases and there is one or two things in every one that is catching people. We must be flexible in regard to them. We might talk about it if the Chair allows. Would the committee be allowed to make a submission to the Department about it?
Mr. Francis Morrin
Absolutely. Any suggestions or commentary would be more than welcome.
I thank Mr. Morrin.
Mr. Francis Morrin
If I have the Deputy's question on the young farmer's scheme correct, it is to give an update on what is happening next year in particular. The young farmer's scheme at the moment is a support particularly targeted at farmers under 40, who are starting their farming enterprise. At the moment, they receive a benefit of €68 as a payment per entitlement held. That is what they have received all the way up along in the current CAP programme up to this year. That changes next year to a benefit per hectare, and also a higher amount of money, which is a higher proportion of the overall direct payments budget of some €35 million per year. We estimate that those young farmers applying from next year onwards will receive an average of €175 per hectare declared on their application. That is subject to a maximum of 50 of those. In total, that means that over the course of five years a young farmer can draw down a maximum benefit over those five years. Essentially, it is a start-up grant over five years of approximately €40,000.
Will women in farming get that as well?
Mr. Francis Morrin
It is all young farmers. There is no discrimination.
What about women in farming who are older? Is there a new scheme coming in? My understanding is that they can make an application.
Mr. Francis Morrin
The young farmer scheme is limited to farmers who are no more than 40 in the first year of application. Regardless of gender, it is young farmers only. That is set down and hard coded in the regulations.
Can farmers who have already been on the scheme for two years switch? Can they get the automatic top-up?
Mr. Francis Morrin
For existing applicants, if we take a young farmer who first joined the scheme in 2021, he or she would have got €68 per entitlement, the same in 2022 and in 2023 if they apply for next year, they will receive the higher rate per hectare declared. In Commission-speak, they say, the old people get paid the new money. They can continue on for the rest of their five years in the new scheme.
What about ACRES and the BDGP? Could the witnesses elaborate as well on the women in farming scheme if there is more information on that?
Dr. Mary Carey
I think the women in farming is the higher grant rate that is being provided under TAMS. I might pass over to Dr. Brennan to answer the TAMS question on the equine area. She will also take one of the ACRES questions and Mr. Morrison will take the other two.
Dr. Josephine Brennan
In relation to the ACRES question, as Deputy Fitzmaurice is aware, the scheme has been oversubscribed. It was designed to take participants in on a tranched or phased basis. It was designed to take 30,000 in the first tranche. It is oversubscribed by approximately 16,000. The question is whether we can take everybody in. That is a policy question and it is not one I can answer here tonight. There are a number of challenges if we take everybody into the scheme. The budget is just one of those challenges, but it is something that is being looked at and reflected on.
I can address the TAMS question on equines as well. The proposed minimum eligibility criteria for equine investments would include that a participant would have to have a relevant application and a minimum of 5 ha.
Mr. Pat Morrison
I will address the first question on the riparian buffer zone on designated lands. As a background to it, to get the CAP strategic plan approved, part of the process was carrying out a strategic environmental assessment. As part of the assessment, we had to give a commitment that any of the actions and interventions in the CAP strategic plan would not have any detrimental or potentially negative effects on designated sites or important habitats. Riparian buffer zones on grassland involve permanent fencing. In many of the designated sites, fencing is an action that would require prior consent. The way the scheme is designed, we have a short window for applications. Some 46,000 applications came in, so we would not be able to deal with those individual requests to get prior consent on fencing in these designated sites. As a precautionary action, we had to block those actions. Unfortunately, it was an operation-----
I am familiar with the designation and the consent to which Mr. Morrison referred. The problem is that it is the NPWS that needs to come to the table here to facilitate those farmers. I fully understand that the Department must go by the rules and regulations, but there is a problem in that regard that the NPWS will have to address.
Mr. Pat Morrison
I will move on to the second question regarding breeding waders - geese and swans, and the hot spot maps which we would have used. The Deputy is correct that they are the maps that were available to us at that resolution. Initially, the Irish Heritage Council instigated a project to get the hot spot maps. A contract was awarded some years ago, pulling all the data together. There is a lot of data on where the sites may be and from different sources, and it was about pulling them all together and producing a hot spot map.
Those hot spot maps were provided to us at a certain resolution and we used them for the scheme.
It is important to note that for farmers with land that came under the provisions relating to breeding waders, geese and swans, it was an advantage in many instances as they were able to get tier 1 access to the general scheme. There was no action that was compulsory because they were in those areas. In respect of the geese and swans action, there was voluntary uptake. The actions in regard to breeding waders could get farmers tier 1 access and they were voluntary. However, in respect of breeding waders, as part of that SAC, we had to block certain actions that might be damaging to the nesting birds. Tree planting and hedgerow planting would have been-----
A lot of breeding birds use trees to nest. I have talked to people, including people in the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, about this idea of blocking certain activities. It flies in the face of what we are about with breeding to stop people from sowing hedgerows. Those two aspects need to be teased out for phase 2.
I compliment the witnesses on their presentations, which were very informative. I will start by talking about bovine TB eradication, which we have been trying to do since 1954. We had the pleasure some years ago of having an engagement with Dr. Margaret Good, who is a formidable lady. She told us about her 30-year strategy to eradicate TB. We all sat in a committee room like this one and listened to her. Years have passed since then and we now know we will never eradicate TB. However, we still have an eradication programme. We should be fair to the farming community and call it a control programme rather than an eradication programme. Nearly 70 years after we first tried to eradicate the disease, we have made progress but we are now in an environment involving many different interfaces, whether they involve moving stock, interactions with wildlife or whatever else. Do we honestly believe we will arrive at a scenario at some stage whereby bovine TB will be eradicated from the island?
Dr. June Fanning
I am confident we can eradicate bovine TB. It can be done. However, as I said, there are a number of difficult decisions that have to be made. It is not a disease that is easy to eradicate. We have done very well to sustain the low levels we have in light of the significant expansion of the dairy herd and the things that go along with that, including increased movements and increased intensification, all of which are factors that lead to more susceptible animals. A huge body of work has been done, including in initially getting down to the low levels we had in 2018, which was the lowest level we ever had, but also in more or less maintaining that level since then. The reactor numbers are up slightly but herd incidence is down. That shows we are having fewer herd breakdowns but there are more animals going down within those herds.
TB can be eradicated. The TB forum and the working groups that go along with it have made huge progress in getting all the stakeholders involved. Previous studies and audits prior to 2018 showed that one of the things the eradication programme fell down on was in respect of the involvement of stakeholders. When there are difficult decisions to be made, we must have everyone at the table. We must have the hard conversations around what options to choose. If we were to be very draconian about it, decide the measures ourselves and just say we are going to do this and this is how it is going to be, the curve in eradication would be a lot easier, quicker and sharper. However, with the model we have now, involving the TB forum and the working groups, I am confident the disease can be eradicated. It needs the buy-in and involvement of all stakeholders.
More than six years ago, Dr. Good gave us a 30-year timeline for eradication. Will Dr. Fanning give me a timeline today for eradication?
Dr. June Fanning
I cannot give a timeline because, as I said, there are a number of options on which we do not yet have buy-in or agreement from stakeholders. In the TB forum and the working groups, we have the mechanism to improve on the job that was done previously. The advice has not changed and the evidence is there. We have a huge body of scientific advice and we are world leaders in TB research. However, the eradication programme will not be without pain.
I have never met a vet in private practice who believes we will eradicate bovine TB from the island. I have no problem with the Department. I nearly have to declare an interest in that I have been locked up more often than not and I found the Department officials to be top-class, as are the private vets. I have no issue with any of the people involved or with the eradication programme. My question is whether we are being fair to people by calling it an eradication programme.
The Chairman and I, along with other colleagues who are in attendance today, listened six years ago to Dr. Good going through her 30-year strategy. She is a really serious operator and a formidable person. Unfortunately, eradication has not happened. The scheme has been changed since then, including through the introduction of blood testing, which has been very helpful with the process of taking out the next line. It has worked to some degree. However, what is the next step regarding closed herds that are continuously going down? There are scenarios in which a stock bull is probably the only animal that has been brought in, but the herd is continuously going down. That is a wildlife issue or could be considered to be a wildlife issue. We are not operating in a laboratory or another controlled environment. If we had such an environment, I could see how it could be controlled. However, we are dealing with farmers operating on an island.
Dr. June Fanning
We are not working in a laboratory but that does not mean there is nothing that can be done to address, for example, the cattle-wildlife interface. We have looked at the future risks. A previous TB breakdown, for instance, leaves a higher risk of a future breakdown. There are measures farmers can take in regard to badgers. Fencing off setts is a very practical and effective step they can take. I will hand over to my colleague, Dr. Barrett, to answer the more scientific points.
Dr. Damien Barrett
In mentioning that a herd was closed, the Senator has addressed one of the potential sources of purchase. He also addressed the second, namely, interactions with wildlife. We have a wildlife programme, which involves a very effective combination of removal of infected badgers and vaccination. The third source is residual infection within herds. This type of infection is difficult to detect. As Dr. Fanning said in her opening statement, the tests we use have limitations. Residual infection can be fairly difficult to root out. The Senator mentioned the blood test, the purpose of which is to detect this type of infection. However, even with the interferon gamma blood test we are now using, we are still finding episodes in which there is residual infection remaining. We are currently looking at developing new tests, in collaboration with University College Dublin, UCD, and a number of private companies, that will offer increased sensitivity.
Those are the three elements impacting the purchase of the disease. The Senator is obviously very well informed about the control measures that are in place. However, infection can be difficult to detect and bovine TB is one of the diseases that causes difficulties in that regard. If we have learned one thing from Covid it is that biological entities like viruses and bacteria can outwit man. TB is very good at outwitting man.
My general feeling is that the farming community has bought into the programme. In fairness to the Department and the private veterinary practices, they, too, have bought into it and have done a really significant job in dealing with 22,000 reactors, which shows the level of infection there is. However, I question the continuing idea of the programme being an eradication programme.
It is a terminology that should be looked at in time. There are other issues around it.
Regarding the process and where we are going to go in respect of TB testing, do our guests anticipate significant changes in the TB testing regime? We are on a yearly rate at the moment. Do they think changing to every six months would make a difference? Where do they anticipate real and significant advances that will reduce numbers from 20,000?
Dr. June Fanning
The final few hurdles are the hardest to get over, especially with a disease like TB. The end of the eradication piece is hard to achieve. I will come back to the point that all the stakeholders involved have done a great job to keep rates as low as they have been, considering the expansion that has happened in the national herd. The Senator asked about changes to the testing regime.
There has not been a huge expansion of cow numbers. The overall national herd was larger in 1984 than it is now.
Dr. Damien Barrett
Our TB levels were also higher in the 1980s.
That is true. We had more cows then. There has not been a huge expansion in cattle numbers.
Dr. June Fanning
Overall, numbers may not have changed significantly but individual herds have increased significantly, which involves intensification. There have been increased movements to facilitate the numbers increasing within herds. That has been shown to leave animals more susceptible to disease, which is why we are seeing larger numbers of reactors within the fewer herds that are positive.
Dr. Fanning's opening statement focused very much on stakeholders. It is the farmer this has cost over the years. The commitment of farmers to the eradication of TB should not be questioned. There was only one very brief mention of deer in the opening statement. There was an outbreak within ten or 12 miles of my home and deer were roaming the fields. There has been an enormous increase in the numbers of deer. Farmers in Wicklow have stopped keeping bovines because they could not get clear of TB because of deer. We talk about eradication in a bovine herd but I do not see any strategy for focusing on the deer herd. Have we census figures for how many deer are out there? We are focusing on the badger, which I accept is probably the primary source of infection. However, there is most definitely TB in the deer herd. I do not see nearly enough focus on that point. We require some control of the deer herd. We can talk about lifting water troughs and everything else but no matter what height we bring them to, deer will drink from them.
Dr. Fanning also spoke about fencing off a badger sett. The badger will find somewhere else. Badgers will roam. That is fine when badgers are healthy and we should leave them be. The badger sett that is causing the problems might not be on one's own land. They do travel.
Dr. Damien Barrett
I can answer that. We have evidence that deer are involved in the epidemiology of TB in County Wicklow. We have whole-genome sequencing that links the TB in cattle, deer and badgers. Post-mortem tests have been carried out on deer in County Wicklow which show TB levels at between 12% and 16%. In the rest of the country, the level of TB detected is of the order of 2%. We do not see that clear epidemiological link in County Wicklow, or we have not seen it yet, nor do we want to. We have not seen evidence of the clear epidemiological link between TB in deer and TB in cattle. We are anxious that if anybody has any suspicions of TB in deer that those plucks are brought to the local regional veterinary laboratory to be tested so we can follow up. That will be at no cost to whoever brings in the sample.
The Chairman mentioned the advice to fence off badger setts. That is not so much to keep badgers in as it is to keep cattle away from the badgers. As the Chairman rightly pointed out, badgers can travel. The badger may be toileting in the environs of the sett and the trees and pasture in the area may be contaminated. It is not realistic to think it is possible to keep badgers trapped.
One thing we remind people who have suspicions is that technology is now a lot cheaper. People can set up wildlife cameras in their yards. These are nocturnal animals and people might not be aware that the badgers are coming into their yards. It may be easier said than done to badger-proof or badger-fence a yard but there are some practical things people can do. They are a wild species and are not easily managed. There is no doubt about that.
Regarding the practical element, one might find a reactor in a herd tomorrow, go through the process and get the relevant animal blood tests. What criteria is in place to blood test the entire herd after that? Are blood tests for the entire herd required?
What is the timeline for moving the infected animal off the farm? What do our guests believe should be the appropriate timeline from when the animal goes down until it goes to its end destination?
Dr. Damien Barrett
The blood test is a risk-based approach and depends on the numbers of reactors in the herd, the size of the herd and the herd history.
Is there a percentage?
Dr. Damien Barrett
I will not give the Senator an answer off the top of my head. I will come back to him with that later. If I give him a number now, it will probably be wrong. We try to take a risk-based approach. In certain instances, and in relatively small numbers, we will go in there sooner where there is a history. The programme must evolve to the circumstances of individual cases or herds. A one-size-fits-all approach will not necessarily work.
Is there an applicable percentage of a herd or is it case by case?
Dr. Damien Barrett
In general terms, there is a percentage.
Dr. Barrett might revert to the committee in that regard.
Dr. Damien Barrett
I will do that.
What about moving the animal? What is the appropriate timeline for the Department to move that animal from the reactor herd to its destination? Time is an issue, as Dr. Barrett is aware.
Dr. Damien Barrett
We are aware of that. Without being facetious, the answer is as quickly as possible.
That does not happen.
Dr. Damien Barrett
It does not happen. There are a variety of things that cause delay. The animal must be valued and the farmer has to accept the valuation. Transport must be arranged and a factory has to be found to which these animals can be brought. There are many steps to the process and there can be delays from time to time.
How many weeks? How many days?
Dr. Damien Barrett
Once the valuation is accepted, it should happen within a week.
That argument is fair enough. I will turn to the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, which is one of the most successful schemes the Department has ever been involved in. I acknowledge the staff involved who have been fantastic over the years. Our guests might elaborate on the solar scheme, when they believe it will be launched and where it will fall into the system. They might also elaborate on the issues relating to trailing shoe, which is a unique machine at this stage.
Contractors are prohibited from drawing down TAMS. Our guests might explain why or how that is happening. The majority of farmers are finding labour the biggest issue they face. Contractors are playing a pivotal role in ensuring farming is moving forward. There has been a real change in how we work with contractors in recent years.
The Department has a different view of how TAMS works when it comes to contractors in terms of low emissions spreading. I ask the officials to give me their view of where they think the scheme is at the moment because I think the scheme has evolved and changed dramatically over the past few years.
Dr. Josephine Brennan
On the solar capital and licence scheme, as the Senator will be aware TAMS III will start in January of next year. There are a number of proposed changes in terms of the ceilings in TAMS and capital supports. For the solar investment scheme the proposed grant aid will be 60%. There is a proposed new ceiling, which has increased from €80,000 to €90,000. There is also a dedicated new ceiling for TAMS, which will impact on other investments that a person might take up. It is proposed to increase the ceiling from 11 KW, which is currently in TAMS II, to 30 KW for TAMS III. Also, the limit for pigs and poultry will remain the same at 62 KW. A solar survey is required to get an estimation of farm usage, and the amount of electricity that is produced and required on the farm. That is just the high-level stuff in terms of the solar scheme.
I will get back to the Senator directly about his question concerning contractors.
I have a question on the new CAP payments and I am not sure what the new terminology is. Every November and December I worry about the number of phone calls I will get about the scheme but this year I did not get one phone call about the scheme, which is a credit to the Department as it has produced a streamlined system. I always fear that in the first year of a new CAP scheme there could be issues. Please outline the Department's preparation for the new payment scheme. Are technological changes required following changes generated by the new scheme?
Please elaborate on the proposals for a new eco scheme, which will be part of the new single farm payment. Please also comment on how the lack of the fertiliser register being passed into law could be an issue when it comes to the roll out of schemes and describe how the Department is set up for that at this stage.
Dr. Mary Carey
I will give a brief overview. There are a lot of details and we are happy to share some of them and documentation after the meeting if anyone has additional questions.
The Department will engage in a fairly intensive information campaign starting in January when we will engage with farmers and advisers concerning the new application process. The scheme will have the usual window for applications so it will open in the middle of February and close on 15 May. The main application will replace the basic payment scheme, BPS, for the single farm payment, area aid or whatever one wants to call it. The schemes will now be called the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, and area-related schemes.
I will outline some of the biggest changes that will happen next year. I have alluded to the first one, which is that the BPS will now become the BISS, which will be based on payment entitlements. All the value of the payment entitlements will change. Convergence will have an impact and the allocation of the ceiling will change the value of the payment entitlements.
There is a new eco scheme. It will replace the greening payment that was based on entitlements in the current CAP. The new eco scheme is not linked to entitlements and will be paid per eligible hectare.
Deputy Fitzmaurice asked about the eco scheme. We do not have an official here who can talk about the eco scheme but we will send, through the Chair, a reply to his question about the space for nature estimates.
Dr. Mary Carey
There is a new scheme called the complementary redistributive income support for sustainability, CRISS, which includes terms that are in the regulation. CRISS is also known as front-loading and is a payment to redistribute funds from larger farms to small and medium-sized farms. The payment is paid to every farmer on the first 30 ha. It is not linked to the entitlement values and is paid per eligible hectare.
Mr. Morrin has already outlined the changes in the scheme for young farmers. Protein aid is the other direct payment that will continue broadly in line with what we have now. It us just an increased budget and additional crops that are eligible for protein aid.
I will get back to the Senator about his questions on the eco scheme and fertiliser register because I do not have information on either of them.
I thank all of the speakers for coming here. We have a great collection of brains in front of us and we are nearly overwhelmed.
I wish to focus on the two issues of ACRES and the so-called "forgotten farmer". Both issues were addressed to some degree by my colleague, Deputy Fitzmaurice. I, too, have an issue with the criteria outlined concerning Macra in terms of the six points of the criteria. I have not had as extensive an engagement with farmers as Deputy Fitzmaurice but I am of the same view because any farmers I have spoken to have the same issue, which is that they would not meet all six criteria. Obviously the expectation and hope is that rather than all six criteria having to be met, it would be a case where one could meet four of five of the criteria.
I wish to single out one of the criteria, namely the requirement for a FETAC level 6 qualification. I have raised this issue with the Minister by tabling a parliamentary question that asked why there is a need to have a level 6 qualification. He duly replied: "The list of approved education courses for young farmer supports administered by my Department is based on the list of courses approved for Stamp Duty relief for young farmers. This list of courses is set out in the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act, 1999, and the updated list of courses is published by the Office of the Revenue Commissioners in their Stamp Duty Manual."
The issue is that a lot of the people who are forgotten farmers made other career choices because they were not sure if they would have a viable career in farming. Many of them completed apprenticeships or undertook studies so have a level 6 qualification. Between their knowledge of farming and experience gained in the real world they are probably as eminently qualified as most farmers so the argument could be made that the scheme should not be restricted to a level 6 qualification exclusively in farming, and as set out in the stamp duty manual. I ask the officials to reply to my query. They are probably not going to tell me today that there is discretion to meet just four or five of the six criteria. Please address my query about the education criteria.
The scheme called ACRES has been very well received. I attended a Teagasc briefing in Longford and in the main it was extremely positive. Unfortunately, there are some farmers who have enthusiastically supported environmental schemes since their inception and taken part in every incarnation of the scheme. In particular, there are relatively young or middle-aged farmers who probably work part-time to sustain their farms but, crucially, make a hugely important contribution to agriculture, the environment and the local economy. Tiers 1 and 2 will probably progress but there is a cohort of farmers who will not qualify for tier 1 or 2. There is potential to gain entry into tier 2 if one plants trees. Let me give an example. One of the farmers who contacted me told me that he is already surrounded by forestry on three sides. The only side that is not surrounded is where his house and farmyard are located so forestry is not an issue for him. He has poor land, which I am sure he is very proud of it but it would not be Deputy Jackie Cahill-quality land that one finds in County Tipperary, instead it is hard-worked Longford farmland. The farmer worries that he will be excluded from ACRES now that the scheme will focus exclusively on tiers 1 and 2. Can the officials reassure farmers that their current payment will continue and there will be some mechanism for them to continue the work that they are doing in terms of environmental actions?
Mr. Francis Morrin
I shall answer the question on forgotten farmers and my colleagues will comment on ACRES.
I will start with the criteria mentioned. I can say that they are not finalised yet. However for the Minister to have announced them there has been a fair degree of thought put into them. They have been fairly well developed. We believe it is a comprehensive list that means the money would be targeted at those who are in that true group of forgotten farmers. Naturally you want to concentrate the money on those people who need it most. In regard to the level 6 qualification we consider that a basic requirement. It has been there for many years to draw benefit from the young farmer scheme, national reserve as well as other initiatives. We certainly would argue for it to be a basic requirement to draw down any of those benefits. I am happy to take representation on it. I will bring back the comments made here, as well as Deputy Fitzmaurice. I do not see that changing. It is tied in with the parliamentary question mentioned earlier, with the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act 1999. There is a range of equivalences on which Teagasc make an adjudication where there are similar courses which are not exactly the green certificate as such but are equivalent to it.
That is a reasonable response. I have to make the point however that many people among the forgotten farmers had to make serious lifestyle choices. When they left school they were faced with the problem of how to get anything from their farm and whether farming was a realistic option. We have been a long time looking for the forgotten farmer scheme, to the point that it was a key ask in the programme for Government. For many of those people the obvious thing was to do an apprenticeship, when things were going better, and take up a trade in construction. This has been less so in subsequent years. If it were the case that the set criteria of level 6 were to be an à la carte approach we could do a great deal to appease or assist many farmers if there was some discretion on that educational qualification. We are not looking for it to be minimised below level 6 but it should be a level 6 agriculture or any other area. That is just my observation.
Dr. Josephine Brennan
I thank the Deputy for the questions on ACRES, which is voluntary. It is the flagship agri-environmental scheme and the Government has committed €1.5 billion towards it. There has been an allocation to bring 30,000 farmers into tranche 1. The scheme was designed to bring in participants on a phased basis. Tranche 1 has just closed. Tranche 2 will open next year on a similar timeline to tranche 1. There is therefore scope for farmers who did not get in this time to get in the next time. The number of people we take in on tranche 1 is a policy decision and the Minister and the Department are aware that there may be participants who will not get in this time but there is scope for them next time.
It was to be 30,000 farmers but the figure has probably exceeded everybody's expectations. The figure I saw was about 44,000 applicants. That is great to see. It reinforces what we have frequently said in this committee, that farmers are steadfast in their commitment to the environment and want to do right. There is probably a responsibility on us as partners in Government to impress upon the Minister, which we have done, that the scheme needs to be expanded and more money needs to be secured. As Dr. Brennan rightly said it is voluntary. Underpinning any voluntary effort is an enthusiasm and commitment which we are currently getting from farmers. I would not like to see that being lost. The message we need to send back is that we need to see at least an overture from the Minister and the Department that the opportunity is potentially there to expand the scheme. Dr. Brennan said that tranche 2 will kick in but of those 44,000 farmers it is fair to say that perhaps one third of that number will fall out. They will not be in tranche 2, but perhaps in tranche 3.
Dr. Josephine Brennan
It is something we are looking at. We were glad to see that many people interested in the scheme; it was positive to see so many farmers applying. The scheme is based on a tiered approach. There are three tiers. The scheme was designed to achieve significant long-term environmental dividends. We have to look at the way the scheme was designed. We look first at people who can deliver the most in regard to the environment and we work down from that. Deputy Flaherty’s comments are noted. We will reflect on the matter. The Minister is also reflecting on it.
The IFA has made staunch representations on having a payment front-loaded which would primarily resolve an issue for the tranche 2 farmers. Is there any possibility we could fast-track the scheme and pull something into 2023 to resolve the tranche 3 farmers?
Dr. Josephine Brennan
A timeline has been set out. If we were to open a scheme earlier or try to fast-track tranche 2 there is a capacity issue. The advisers are a key part of this. They will have a great deal of work next year. They will be doing their geographic information systems, GIS applications. We have to be mindful of that. The timeline is set out but it is something we can look at.
We have a vote. Other Deputies were indicating but they are not there now. I thank the officials for coming in this evening. They gave us a good briefing on where we stand with the eradication of TB and the various schemes within the Department. There will be further engagement between the Department and the committee. They have committed to come back on eco-schemes to the committee. We appreciate that.
The joint committee adjourned at 7.17 p.m. sine die.