Danny Healy-Rae
Question:61. Deputy Danny Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if dribble bar slurry tanks will be included for grant aid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47191/23]
View answerThursday, 26 October 2023
Questions (61)
Oral answers (6 contributions)
I ask the Minister if dribble bar slurry tanks will be included in grant aid; and if he will make a statement on the matter
As the Deputy is aware, the targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS, 3 provides grants to farmers to build or improve a specified range of farm buildings and equipment on their holdings. There is an indicative budget of €370 million available for the period 2022 to 2027, whereby all investments are linked to climate, environment or animal welfare. Following the success of TAMS 2, I have increased significantly the number of investments available to in excess of 430 items. There is analysis taking place on the emission factor of the dribble bar compared with the trailing shoe. I am awaiting the outcome of this analysis before making a decision on the inclusion of the dribble bar in TAMS 3. Investment items and ceilings for grant aid are under constant review, and additional investment items may be included for consideration when evaluating further updates to the TAMS 3 investment lists.
I will be considering it and I have not ruled it out. However, in making State investments and in providing the very significant support that is available, we want to make sure it supports farmers and that it is an effective long-term investment. I increased the grant aid available for the trailing shoe to 60% in TAMS 3 compared with 40% last time around, so that the cost to the farmer will be similar to what the dribble bar would have been. Certainly, some of the early advice indicates the trailing shoe is a lot more effective than the dribble bar from an emissions and nutrient point of view, but I am getting that reviewed. I have had many farmers approach me on the issue. In some parts of the country, farmers feel the dribble bar is more navigable. My mind is open on this. I am waiting for the advice so that I can consider whether to include it in the next tranche.
I thank the Minister for his response. I recently met with representatives of the Irish Farmers' Association, who discussed the issue of the dribble bar and the fact that grant aid needs to be increased. They were saying the use of the dribble bar actually does help reduce emissions, and there is substantial research to support that. While the increase in the grant aid for the trailing shoe has been welcomed by some farmers whom that suits, there are other farmers with small and medium-sized holdings who may not have a tractor with sufficient power. It is my understanding the trailing shoe will only work with a high-power tractor. Therefore, those farmers are pressurised into getting an agri contractor. I am asking if the analysis can be concluded. I got a response to a parliamentary question from the Minister on 10 October that stated the analysis was still ongoing. However, when I asked the Minister six months ago, at the beginning of April, it was under way. It has gone on and on. When will the analysis be concluded? I urge the Minister to take on board the asks and requests of the IFA in particular, whose representatives I met with, who have asked for increased grant aid. I welcome the fact the Minister has not ruled it out yet, but I feel the analysis needs to be brought to a conclusion. Surely it is done. I do not know what is going on in the Department.
It will be concluded in time for the next opening and I will make a decision in advance of that. That is what I have requested. There is massive work going on in the Department. The comment the Deputy made at the end of her response was a rather flippant one. There are a record number of applications in at the moment for TAMS 3, which shows the appetite for on-farm investment. We are working through getting approvals for them. We have front-loaded the applications for work that needs to be done this autumn and winter to make sure people can get on with it and can get those approvals.
How farmers and the State spend the money is important, particularly in really long-term investments like investment in dribble bar low-emission slurry spreading machines or trailing shoes. We must ensure we are spending it wisely and appropriately because they will be around for a long time. We took a pause on the research available because we wanted to make sure it was actually achieving the objective it set out to achieve. I will conclude the analysis and we will make a decision based on the scientific evidence and other considerations as well.
My concern is the can could be kicked down the road on this. I hope that is not the case. I ask the Minister to give absolute certainty to farmers that this research will definitely be concluded by the opening of the next TAMS.
Will the Minister give certainty regarding that? It is important because we have to make sure also that we have practical measures in place. It is my understanding that the trailing shoe costs in excess of €50,000. Not every farming family with high input costs will have that type of money, particularly now when they are under pressure more than ever in terms of nitrates and everything else. I do not think it is fair and another measure has to be found. The more solutions that are there the better to help farmers and assist them. It is important that certainty is given today that there will be a definite conclusion by the opening of the next TAMS.
I already laid out the position that it was and remains my intention in terms of tranche two. Both the trailing shoe and the dribble bar are very expensive pieces of equipment and are very long-term investments. They are significant investments from the State's point of view in relation to TAMS, and a significant investment from a farmer's point of view as well. It is important we take steps now that will stand the test of time because these machines will be around for a long time. Many dribble bars and trailing shoes have been purchased over the last number of years. There has been a very strong uptake that is making a real difference at farm level. Based on new research on the emissions value and efficiency value in terms of nutrient uptake, particularly the efficiency value, I am having that reassessed and have paused the dribble bar. What I did do was increase the grant aid that was available for the trailing shoe from 40% to 60% so that the marginal cost to the farmer of purchasing a trailing shoe now as opposed to a dribble bar is the same as what it would have been if they had been purchasing a dribble bar under the previous TAMS. I take the Deputy's point in relation to tractor size, which is a challenge. I am considering it all in the round and will bring clarity as soon as I can.