Matt Carthy
Ceist:1. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his proposals to support sheep farmers. [11759/23]
Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions
Agriculture Schemes
I have to register my disappointment that the Minister is not here to take questions. I know he is out of the country but we had agreed to a rota swap on this occasion to facilitate the Minister. I do not think it is acceptable that another rota swap was not offered in this instance. My first question is to ask the Minister his proposals to support our sheep farmers, who are under enormous strain at the moment and are facing what could potentially be an existential crisis.
Apologies from the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, for whom I am filling in today. Both I and the Government are fully committed to maintaining a viable sheep sector as an integral element of a balanced regional economy. Sheep farmers are very committed to producing a world-class, safe and sustainable product, and the Government recognises that. Market prices are a commercial matter between suppliers and buyers, and the Government has no role in determining commodity prices in the sheep sector. I recognise the pressure sheep farmers are under as a result of the downturn in the markets over recent months.
I have met sheep farmers and representatives throughout the country in recent weeks and have heard their concerns at first hand. My Department provides significant support to the sector under the new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, strategic plan, or CSP, both through a targeted scheme for sheep farmers, called the sheep improvement scheme, and through the broad range of schemes in the CSP. More than 19,000 applications have been submitted to the new sheep improvement scheme. The scheme replaces the previous sheep welfare scheme but shares the same aim of improving animal health and welfare in the sector, with a 20% increase in the ewe payment, from €10 to €12, compared with the previous scheme.
More broadly, the CSP provides almost €10 billion in supports for farmers over the period to 2027. Sheep farmers are well placed to avail of several other schemes in addition to the sheep improvement scheme, including the organics scheme and the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, for which we have secured places for all 46,000 farmers who applied.
Working with the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, we have asked our officials in the Department to examine what potential supports, if any, could be put in place to support sheep farmers in light of the recent challenges. Budgets for 2023 have been set and locked in place. Changes to this will require careful assessment as well as diverting funds from previously agreed areas. We have a sheep sector in Ireland, both lowland and upland, that we can be proud of and the Government is determined to ensure there is a long-term and sustainable future for that sector.
The Minister of State says the Government has no role in the market, but the Government absolutely has a role in ensuring our primary producers are protected in that market and that there is fairness and transparency across the supply chain. The €2 additional payment per ewe in the new sheep welfare scheme is clearly insufficient. It does not even cover the increase in costs sheep farmers have faced. The Minister of State mentioned other payments. He specifically mentioned ACRES. That is a payment for a service for farmers who do environmental works. That does not recognise whatsoever the particular challenges of sheep farmers. I welcome that the Minister of State says he is examining and exploring options to support farmers. I put it to him that one of those options must be the Brexit adjustment reserve fund, which has not been utilised sufficiently for farmers, who have been directly impacted by Brexit. Is that a route the Department is examining?
This is an important issue and I am delighted it is the first priority question. I will answer the Deputy's last point first. We are looking at every option but, pardon the pun, the bar to qualify for the BAR, the Brexit adjustment reserve, is very high. You have to prove a direct link to the impact from Brexit.
The Deputy's earlier point was about markets. As Minister of State with responsibility for new market development, we have made huge strides in making sure we continue to gain more access to more markets around the world and increased access in the markets we are in. Last year, we gained access to the US market. I will be in Washington in May to look at progressing further how we build relationships with key customers across the sector. We have important markets like China where we continue to do important work on increasing access. Markets are a key priority for us. We can talk about all the schemes we want but, ultimately, sheep farmers want to be paid a top price for their product, which they deserve and for which we continue to strive in the Department.
I agree with the Minister of State on that point but I also contend that sheep farmers urgently need direct financial support. A difficulty when it comes to prices is that one of the products sheep farmers produce, wool, is currently worthless. I raised this question on numerous occasions with the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, and he told me to wait for the wool feasibility study. Rather than answers, that study produced questions and now we have to wait for a number of other bodies to complete more deliberations. Will the Minister of State outline the timeframe for the implementation of the recommendations in the wool feasibility study and direct actions the Government intends to take to ensure farmers can receive a price for that important, valuable product, which is the wool of their sheep?
The wool council is an industry-led approach. I understand it met before Christmas and is due to meet again soon. We will continue to work closely with it in its deliberations and on recommendations that come from there. Other work we have done in this area, including the support for early stage producer organisations, which will be introduced later this year, will strengthen the position of sheep farmers in the supply chain. As we both agree, this is ultimately about doing everything we can to strengthen the hand of farmers and getting the best price for their product. We recognise the pressures on sheep farmers' margins are largely because of the input costs, with those costs being high as a result of the invasion of Ukraine. This is a time of year when sheep farmers, in the middle of a busy lambing period, are facing significant costs for feed and fertiliser in particular. Those are the challenges and we are examining every opportunity to support sheep farmers through this difficult time.
Question No. 2 taken after Question No. 3.
Question No. 3 taken after Question No. 4.
Agriculture Schemes
Seán Canney
Ceist:4. Deputy Seán Canney asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will initiate a review of cases where farmers failed to tick the areas of natural constraint, ANC, box, did not receive the payment and were subsequently unsuccessful on appeal, as this was a simple administrative error which resulted in a 100% penalty and came at a time when his Department had recently introduced the need to do applications online, and many farmers forced to do these applications online first ticked a box stating there was no change to their application and then subsequently did not receive their ANC payments; if he accepts that part of this problem stems from the change to the online system, and the poor design and phrasing of questions in the new system; if he recognises that because these payments were for marginal land, predominantly in the west of the country, the farmers affected were mostly in poorer agricultural regions and therefore more heavily reliant on these payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9696/23]
I am deferring Question No. 2 for a minute. Deputy Carthy is next or I can give him a break and go to Deputy Canney.
I will let Deputy Canney go first.
Deputy Carthy needs a break. The issue I want to raise relates to the areas of natural constraint, ANC, payments. Will the Minister initiate a review of cases where a small cohort of farmers were given a 100% penalty for the fact they had not ticked a box when they made their application? Bear in mind this application process began as a manual process, then reverted to an online system. Will the Minister initiate a review? There are not many farmers involved but they are suffering badly because they are getting a 100% penalty.
I thank Deputy Canney for raising what is an important point. The ANC scheme is one of the most important supports for farmers. It helps to support and sustain agriculture in all four corners of Ireland and in the constituency the Deputy represents, as I am sure he is well aware. Those benefits trickle down to farmers' local communities as well. As a Department, we work closely with farmers to ensure they maximise all available payments for their farm.
It must be noted that CAP payments, including those made under the areas of natural constraint or ANC scheme, are governed by EU regulations and are subject to rigorous audit and are controlled by the European Commission. The mandatory use of online application was introduced in 2018. The online application process in Ireland has been streamlined over many years to ensure quick, efficient, and responsive processing and prompt payment to farmers. The application process is reviewed annually to make it is as clear and straightforward as possible. Every effort is made by the Department to improve the quality of applications with the aim of lowering errors and allowing payments to issue in good time.
The "no change" option was introduced following years of experience and consultation with farmer representative organisations. The wording was settled on to avoid farmers mistakenly not applying for the ANC scheme. Farmers cannot proceed with their application unless they declare they are either applying or not applying for the ANC scheme. It is an EU requirement that farmers must make a declaration they are applying for the scheme and that they will comply with the terms and conditions, and that is at the nub of this and why we have to have farmers tick that box. If applicants do not tick the box to apply for the ANC scheme initially and if they have received a payment under the scheme in previous years, they are presented with an additional pop-up warning on screen under the heading “Do you wish to apply for ANC?”. This warning advises applicants that they had received ANC payments in previous scheme years and requests them to select from one of two options, either to apply or not to apply for the ANC scheme.
That response does not give any help to the farmers I know in my constituency. There are probably about ten I have on my books at the moment who are getting no money. They are elderly farmers who are computer illiterate and they did not tick the box. In fact, three of those farmers never said a word that they failed to get their grants until their accountant discovered it because they were ashamed of the fact they failed to get their grant. There are rules and regulations and all of that but there also has to be some sort of what we would call fairness in the system. When somebody genuinely makes a mistake and genuinely did not realise what he or she did or did not do, all the rules in Europe give that person no comfort when he or she is being 100% penalised. For the sake of making sure the farmers who need this are treated properly, I ask that a review be done. It would cost very little within the overall budget within the Department.
I take on board the point and can only imagine how stressful it is to deal with individual farmers who missed out on this. On the Deputy's request for a review, I reassure him that we constantly review the system and how we do it. However, we have to work within the constraints of EU regulations as well. The ANC tick-box screen was displayed before the farmer could select the "no change" option. If the farmer did not tick the box to apply for ANC and then selected "no change", the ANC pop-up warning would have appeared for the farmer. I understand that is cold comfort to the farmers the Deputy represents.
The challenge we have is that experience at EU audit level has shown that Ireland's classification of mistakes as obvious administrative errors can only apply after an application is made by the farmer. The auditors decided that, if no application was made, as in the box was not ticked, obvious error cannot be invoked. In the instance where an application has not been made, this must be treated as a late application rather than an obvious error in an existing application. That is the challenge we have. We cannot deal with it under a mistake because the application never actually happened because that box was not ticked. I will give more detail in my further supplementary reply about what the Department has done to work proactively with farmers.
I hear what the Minister of State is saying. It is of little comfort. The funny thing about it is I have been to agriculture appeals with these people and the people who do the appeal do everything manually. They do not do it on computers. They take their notes manually. It it important we realise we are dealing with human beings: small farmers, who may be elderly and some of whom are bachelors living on their own. They have very little income. There is a way around this and that is to review how we can bring these farmers back into the net. The penalty should not be 100%. I can make a mistake by not ticking a box but does it mean I do not get paid for five years? If we think about it, it is not fair or rational and we have to find a solution for it for the few farmers who are affected by it. Especially on the west coast, down along Kerry and up towards Donegal, there are farmers along that area because the ANC was designed to help these farmers in the terrain they live in.
I take on board how serious this is for the farmers affected, and that is why we have so many safeguards in place between the extra pop-ups on the screen to point out to the farmer that they are potentially about to make a significant mistake. In the 2022 application process, my Department issued an information letter in April of that year. We also reviewed applications on an ongoing basis, and in the run-up to the 2022 closing date, we contacted farmers if it appeared they were eligible for ANC but did not apply. My Department directly contacted farmers who had applied for the ANC scheme in 2021 but did not tick the box to apply for it when submitting their basic payment scheme, BPS, application in 2022, despite having declared ANC land in their application. The purpose of these calls was to confirm that the applicants had correctly indicated that they did not wish to apply for the ANC scheme in 2022 and to advise those who had incorrectly ticked the box to amend their application. Approximately 150 farmers subsequently amended their BPS application to include an application for the ANC scheme following the receipt of a call from the Department. My officials went to great lengths to identify the farmers that may have made this mistake and to try to help them with it. Nonetheless, I take on board the Deputy's point of view and I reassure him that we constantly review these schemes and the interactions of farmers with them.
I passed over Deputy Carthy and I will come back to Deputy Barry after that.
Forestry Sector
Matt Carthy
Ceist:3. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the amount of new afforestation in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and to date in 2023. [11760/23]
Our forestry sector is in absolute disarray and turmoil. I would appreciate if the Minister of State could confirm to the House that she finally recognises that fact, that measures are being taken to address it and, specifically, that the new forestry scheme has been submitted to the European Commission.
I thank Deputy Carthy. His question on my listing was to ask about the new afforestation from 2019 onwards, so I am happy to address that and the rest of his queries and comments.
New afforestation planting in the years 2019 to 2023, inclusive, is as follows: in 2019, there were 3,550 ha; in 2020, there were 2,434 ha; in 2021, there were 2,016 ha; in 2022, there were 2,273 ha; and to date in 2023, there have been 114 ha. The Deputy will be aware that new planting numbers have decreased in recent years due to various factors, including Covid-19, licensing issues and the wait-and-see attitude adopted by some applicants in the last years of the outgoing programme in anticipation of the higher grant rates that are now available under the new programme the Department announced late last year. The Deputy will know that the substantial issue with licensing has been resolved and that I launched an interim afforestation scheme to enable those applicants with valid approvals to opt into a scheme offering the new grant and premium rates contained in the draft forestry programme to bridge the lacuna between the old and new forestry programmes. To date this year, nearly 1,120 ha have been approved for planting in 2023 under those new interim arrangements. This planting is currently taking place and it is also important to note that non-grant-aided replanting, or reforestation, continues to take place every year, as is evidenced in the recent national forestry inventory.
It is my expectation and the expectation of Minister, Deputy McConalogue, that the proposed increases announced for the new programme will encourage increased uptake in afforestation numbers and that the ambitious targets of the new forestry programme can be met over the next five years and achieve the economic, environmental, climate change, biodiversity, and recreational and social benefits of this vital land use option.
Again there is a recognition of some of the failures but not of the failure of the Minister of State's Department. The prevailing failure was very stark when, on 8 February, the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, told the agriculture committee that 1,000 ha had been planted in January.
The members of the committee were pleasantly surprised but the figure surprised them as that would mark a sea change. When that was put to the Minister he said, "Yes, there has been a sea change". However, it turned out that the figure was actually 66 ha. The Minister of State, Senator Hackett, was in the room with Deputy McConalogue when he made that statement. All the senior officials dealing with afforestation in the Department were in the room and not one corrected him, to say he was out by several hundred percentage points in his assertion. My question again is, what is going to happen in the immediacy in regard to the new forestry scheme? At the moment there is a bizarre situation whereby if somebody has land and wants to enter into afforestation, he or she cannot even submit an application. That is how ludicrous the situation is at present.
I thank the Deputy. At the committee to which he refers, I believe what the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, was referring to was the number of afforestation licences approved at that time. That would have been in the region of 1,000 ha. That is the intent for people to plant. They requested these afforestation licences under this interim phase with the intention of planting those trees. I hope, and indeed expect, that all 1,000 ha and more will be planted under the interim arrangements. In the meantime my Department officials are incredibly busy. To get this State aid approval piece concluded is an incredibly complex process. Officials were in Brussels yesterday meeting with the European Commission on this. I am hopeful we will be making our formal submission in a matter of weeks. A great deal of work has been done behind the scenes. That work needs to be done. We need to make sure this is right, that it fits the criteria, the environmental requirements and the fit-for-purpose programme for farmers. However, mark my words, farmers are interested in it. Anecdotally, Teagasc and other advisers indicate that farmers are reaching out and engaging with the new programme.
It is the middle of March and so far we are unable to process any new applications because our formal application to the European Commission has not yet been made. In January the Minister was asked specifically how many hectares were planted. He said 1,000 ha. That is important because the 1,000 ha the Minister of State has cited might be virtually all of the planting that will take place in the first half of this year. Just 1,000 ha when the target is 8,000 ha per annum; that has been missed every single year, wildly, since the Minister of State has been in Government. The only notable thing we can say she has achieved is putting her signature to a Letter of Expectation to Coillte that allowed it to engage in the Gresham House joint venture. That is the only thing we can credit her with in her term as Minister of State with responsibility for afforestation. As a Green Party Minister of State, she needs to take her share of the blame for the absolute debacles we have. We are missing our climate action targets in regard to tree planting by miles.
Go raibh maith agat. We are over time.
That will have serious implications for generations to come.
I am fully aware of the need to meet our afforestation targets. In fact 8,000 ha per year may not be enough. In the future we may have to go to much higher levels.
The Minister of State expects someone else to do it for her.
I am fully aware of that. My Department is fully aware of that and my party colleagues are fully aware of that. That is why we are doing everything we can to get this programme off the ground from within my Department. We engaged extensively on this with the public in advance over the past year and a half. Forestry is not a matter of quickly doing it and that is it. Forestry is a long-term, permanent land use change. We have to get it right. I accept the frustrations and indeed the Deputy’s frustration with the rate of progress. Mark my words, the effort in the background to get this state aid approval across the line is immense. I have every faith in my officials that they will do that as soon as possible.
Fishing Industry
Mick Barry
Ceist:2. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine noting the deadline for decommissioning of the vessels under the Bord Iascaigh Mhara decommissioning scheme expires in April 2023, and the entitlement of crew to avail of a share of compensation if they have worked 90 days on the vessel that is due to be decommissioned in the course of 2020 and 2021, if that entitlement is lost if the fisher has ceased working on the vessel between 2021 and the present; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12085/23]
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for her indulgence this morning, and the indulgence of her staff. At the time when I was meant to be walking here to ask this question I ended up on the phone with Áine Lawlor. That does not happen very often.
My question is, noting that the deadline for decommissioning of the vessels under the Bord Iascaigh Mhara decommissioning scheme begins in April 2023 and the entitlement of crew members to avail of a share of compensation if they have worked 90 days in the course of 2020 and 2021 on the vessel that is due to be decommissioned, is that entitlement lost if the fisher has ceased working on the vessel between 2021 and the present. Will the Minister of State make a statement on the matter?
I thank Deputy Barry for raising this matter. In its report "Navigating Change" the seafood task force included in its recommendations the introduction of a voluntary permanent cessation scheme. A condition specified by the task force was that the premium paid to vessel owners under this scheme would include crew costs. These crew payments were based on a provision in the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund Regulation, Regulation 2021/1139, which outlined that fishers who have worked at sea on board a vessel concerned by permanent cessation for at least 90 days per year during the past two calendar years preceding the year of submission of the application for support, may be granted support. In the final scheme developed from the task force recommendation, for crew members to be eligible for compensation they must have worked at least 90 days at sea per year for both 2020 and 2021 on the vessel to be decommissioned. In calculating the crew payment due, the vessel owner must fully consider the verified prior service of the individual on board other Irish registered fishing vessels. The required evidence of prior service includes, a sworn declaration of prior service certified by a solicitor, a commissioner for oaths or public notary; an employment detail summary, previously known as a P60, for each year for which prior service is being verified and a contract of employment for the period for which prior service is being verified. In cases where the crew member is no longer working on the vessel but is eligible for payment, agreement is to be reached between the parties on the level of compensation. In the event that agreement has not been reached a mediation service is provided to find a resolution between the two parties. The vessel owners receive payments under the scheme in two instalments. For each crew member the vessel owner must upload a copy of their safety card and a signed agreement agreeing the amount of compensation to be paid, together with the required evidence of prior service, if applicable. The safety cards, the signed compensation agreement and evidence of prior service do not have to be uploaded at the time of application but must be uploaded before the first payment can be made. Proof of payment to crew members must be submitted to the scheme's implementing body, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, within 4 weeks of the initial scheme payment to the vessel owner. The vessel owner cannot receive the second payment until all terms and conditions of the scheme have been met.
Since last year the International Transport Workers Federation has been trying, unsuccessfully, to obtain answers from BIM on behalf of migrant crew members who are unsure of their entitlements under this provision. For example if crew members served those minimum 90 days in 2020 and 2021 and perhaps years before but left the boat post-2021, are they included or excluded from a share in the compensation? If the boat has changed ownership at any stage while the crew member has remained on the vessel, is the latter owner liable to compensate the crew member for all of his or her service? If the crew member meets or exceeds the minimum requirement but was undocumented for some of the time on the vessel, is his or her full service reckonable? Hundreds of undocumented crew members have been granted permission at various points from 2016 to the present day. Are they to lose out to the benefit of the owner who engaged them on an undocumented basis? These questions have been sent to the Minister of State and forwarded to BIM at the start of the year. The response from BIM has not yet arrived. I am hoping we will have some answers today.
In regard to migrants, the scheme is, as I outlined, whether the crew member is a migrant or otherwise, fishers who worked at sea on board a vessel concerned by the permanent cessation, for at least 90 days per year in the last two calendar years. I will revert to the Deputy on the very specific nature of his questions. I do not have the response to that now. There are a number of terms and conditions. The background here is the seafood task force which comprised the stakeholders that came together to come up with this scheme and had to work within the constraints of the cessation scheme. This obviously is the outcome of the EU/UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and the voluntary permanent cessation scheme was one of 16 recommendations made by the task force in October 2021. In regard to the very specific points the Deputy raises, I will revert to him. However, being a migrant or otherwise the fact is this applies equally to all crew members who can prove they worked the required days in each of the two years.
There are significant questions outstanding in regard to migrant fishers. The fact we still do not have clear answers either from the Department or from BIM is incredible, given how far advanced we are in this process.
To describe the provision for crew who worked on these vessels to be decommissioned as an afterthought on the part of BIM would not be inaccurate. The International Transport Workers' Federation, ITF, has been in touch with BIM officials since last autumn seeking answers to detailed questions rather than the broad specific points which are understood. Many of the potential beneficiaries among the crew may not have an entitlement to statutory redundancy if they were on a shared catch arrangement as opposed to being directly employed, because shared catch is viewed in official quarters as a form of self employment. Therefore, the crew compensation provision of the decommissioning scheme is potentially only all they have.
It is fair to say that if we were not talking about migrant workers in the main, BIM and the Department would have felt greater pressure from the outset to be clear about this. A generous and inclusive interpretation of the crew entitlement in this scheme and proactive measures to inform crew of their entitlement in their own languages is what it will now take belatedly to repair this negligent approach.
The Deputy has made a couple of important points. I will go back to BIM, raise his points with it and ask for a response. There is no public record or register of fishermen in Ireland. Most are employed as share fishermen, that is, they are self-employed. In administering the scheme, BIM cannot check whether or how long any individual crewman has worked on a specific fishing vessel. However, having in their possession a valid safety card which is valid for five years is taken as evidence they are bona fide fishermen.
Another important point of relevance to the workers the Deputy has mentioned is that the task force recommended, regarding payments to the crew of commissioned vessels, that, if possible, the restriction set out in EMFAF Regulation No. 1139, that bars crew from re-entering the sector for a period of five years, be excluded. This was achieved and nothing is preventing any crew currently employed on a vessel intending to be decommissioned seeking employment on a different fishing vessel. On the specific points raised by the Deputy, I will bring them back to BIM and make sure he receives a response.
Question No.5 taken with Written Answers.