Vol. 1036 No. 7
86. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the current status of the application to secure EU protected geographical indication, PGI, status for Irish beef; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16918/23]
I have questioned the Minister previously on the PGI status for beef. As he knows, my view is that we should have been looking for this status for premium Irish suckler beef rather than throwing in everything bar the kitchen sink with the term "grass-fed beef", which suits the beef processing industry. Having said that, 12 months ago the Minister gave me a commitment that the Commission was actively looking at this and seeking feedback from member states. What has happened and where is this application now?
I thank the Deputy for raising this As he will be aware, in December 2021, following scrutiny by the European Commission, the application for PGI for “Irish Grass Fed Beef” was published in the Official Journal of the European Union for a three-month opposition procedure that was open to both EU member states and third countries. Following the submission by the United Kingdom through the member state third country consultation procedure, the Commission invited both parties to engage on the application. After extensive engagement between my Department and its UK counterparts, particularly in Northern Ireland, the consultations were successfully concluded with agreement that the geographical area covered by the application will cover the island of Ireland. There had been a lot of engagement between myself and the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture, Environment, and Rural Affairs, Mr. Edwin Poots MLA, and between our two Departments in the run-up to that, to facilitate the process and achieve that outcome. It was our intention from the outset.
In early August last year, the revised product specification was sent to the European Commission. The Commission recently advised that its scrutiny of the revised application is ongoing. As the Deputy will appreciate, it is not possible to state when that scrutiny will be completed. However, my officials are in regular and proactive contact with the Commission with regard to progressing the scrutiny. These matters are governed by EU regulations and the process can be complex when there is a cross-border element with regard to the geographical area. We will be guided by the Commission's interpretation of the legal requirements when they have completed their scrutiny. I want the PGI for Irish grass-fed beef to be of real benefit to the suckler and beef farmers on the island as proper recognition for their hard work, commitment and dedication to producing a world-class beef product. It will be a really positive step forward and we are doing all we can to make sure it progresses in the best timeframe possible.
Can the Minister explain why the original application did not include the island of Ireland? We have a common veterinary scheme on it. It was logical that it would be the island of Ireland. This time last year the indication was that it was full steam ahead. The Department was looking for feedback from the various member states. It seems it has been pedalling backwards since then. No progress has been made to date. Is it not the case that there is a feeling, definitely among some officials in the Department but particularly within Bord Bia, that this really will not cut the mustard and there is not recognition of the value of grass-based beef, despite the fact that the Minister is spending €6 million promoting this across Europe?
That is not accurate. All of us, including the farming organisations, representatives, the Department and Bord Bia, see the value. That is why this is being developed. It will be of real benefit to have a PGI grass-fed designation for beef. It will make it more marketable and more valuable in the markets we are selling into. It is due recognition of the quality of the product. I engaged with Minister Poots throughout this. The intention was always that it would be an island of Ireland application. We had a lot more of the preparatory work done than was in place in Northern Ireland. We started the process and got the application in so it could kick off, with the intention of Northern Ireland joining as the process went on. It was to try to do it within the best possible timeframe but always with a commitment that it would be all-island.
When I argued for the promotion of grass-fed beef at European level, the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Creed, sitting in the chair now occupied by the Minister, told me Bord Bia had stated there was not a resonance with the European consumer with regard to grass-fed beef. Is it not the case that, as I have advocated in the past, we have a unique product in Ireland and that is suckler-reared grass-fed beef? It is a unique product on the European market. Will the Minister, even at this eleventh hour, consider revising the PGI application, targeting it at Irish suckler-reared beef and putting behind that the support which would have resonance with European consumers if it was marketed by Bord Bia, which has a questionable commitment on this issue?
According to the Deputy, the former Minister, Deputy Creed, stated there was not a resonance with grass-fed beef. I doubt he said that but the problem may have been-----
I will furnish the Minister with a copy of the Dáil record.
There is a very strong resonance with grass-fed beef. It is widely understood in the marketplace. Grass-fed beef and grain-fed beef are two distinct products and that resonates with the consumer in most markets. It is the key selling point of our beef and it is something on which we go on the front foot when it comes to selling it internationally. The research carried out by Bord Bia indicates there is less of a resonance and cut through to the consumer on suckler beef. It is unique to Ireland. It is a wonderful product that we have but------
Yes. It meets the PGI criteria.
-----it is not as widely understood in the markets we serve. We have a job to do to translate that wonderful product, which is not yet widely known, and develop the market for it. That is why I, as Minister, have, for the first time ever, specifically allocated €6 million to Bord Bia to develop the suckler brand. There is a committee involving all stakeholders and farm representatives to step that out and try to make sure that wonderful product gets the premium it deserves and we develop a market for it.
87. Deputy Claire Kerrane asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine what measures his Department is taking to address forestry felling licensing backlogs on a longer term basis; if he has given consideration to extending current two-year licences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18494/23]
What long-term measures and proposals are in place to avoid a reoccurrence of the felling licence backlogs we saw previously? Why have some farmers and forestry owners been given two-year rather than ten-year licences?
The Department has delivered considerable reductions in the backlog of all forestry licences, as well as reductions in the time taken to process newer files, and, last year, we had another significant year-on-year increase in the number of licences issued. The backlog of licences on hand more than four months reduced from 6,000 applications in August 2021 to 3,700 at the start of 2022 and 1,840 on 14 April this year. The progress in reducing the backlog is expected to continue through 2023.
My Department continues to issue and accept felling licence applications and, to date, has issued 909 felling licences. In 2022, 817 more felling licences were issued than felling applications received. Furthermore, last year we issued record levels of felling licences, at 3,293 for 9.6 million cu. m of wood, or more than 46,000 hectares. These licences have up to ten-year timelines and are being used by forest owners, providing work for forestry contractors and supplying sawmills.
As of 14 April 2023, there were a total of 2,238 felling licence applications on hand, with 1,199 of these on hand more than 120 days, which is how we used to define a backlog. Average turnaround times are falling overall and this is most evident in files received post 2021. My Department is actively working with applicants to finalise any outstanding information required to allow decisions to be made on their applications. For those applications where other issues arise, my Department has a programme in place to contact applicants to allow decisions to be made on whether to continue to process the applications or close them out.
We remain fully committed to delivering a licensing system that will meet the needs of the sector and society and recent licensing trends for felling applications demonstrate the progress made towards achieving this. To continue to ensure transparency in forestry licensing operations, I intend to publish a new forestry licensing plan once the new forestry programme has been approved.
What are the average turnaround times for felling licence applications? How long are applicants waiting to get those licences approved?
On the wider issue of licences, the Minister of State referenced the fact that the new forestry programme has not yet been approved. I ask her to update the House in that regard. I welcome her remarks on licensing and publishing something in that regard. It is important. Many farmers have lost faith in forestry. It is important that we get the forestry programme right and that all of those licences, whether for felling or forestry, are done in a timely manner. We have to get that right to ensure farmers have faith in the system. The length of time many farmers have had to wait has been frustrating for them. The backlogs have caused significant problems. It is important that we build up faith in the system among farmers to encourage them to plant.
I will get the information on turnaround times to the Deputy. I do not have that specific detail to hand. There has been significant improvement in the turnaround times, which is welcome. I acknowledge the concerns and frustrations of forest owners in recent years at having to wait too long, quite frankly, for their licences. The work that has been done in my Department in the past two years, however, has significantly improved that.
As regards two-year licences, licences are issued based on the requirements of the licence. They can be for up to ten years. If applicants indicate that they intend to fell within a year or so, they will only get a two-year licence, but they can engage with their registered forester if they need an extension to the licence that has been granted. We engage closely with foresters in that regard. If a licence needs to be extended, applicants should engage with their forester and seek that extension.
The Minister of State stated that applicants would not necessarily be given a two-year felling licence unless they intended to fell within those two years but I have been contacted by applicants who do not intend to fell within two years, yet were given a two-year licence. That needs to be considered. The standard licence is for ten years. It is important that be in place and that farmers and forest owners have clarity in that regard. That will feed into what it is hoped will be a much more successful forestry programme than we have had to date and ensure we have buy-in from forest owners and farmers, which will be very important.
Does the Minister of State have an update on the new forestry programme? When does she expect it to be approved? It is important that we have the detail in that regard.
On the issue of forestry in general, to what extent is ash dieback being continuously confronted to ensure the viability of that sector into the future?
As regards the new forestry programme, the formal process and submission is now under way. We have been informally engaging with the Commission in recent months but I am glad to report the formalised process is under way.
As regards ash dieback, we had the reconstitution and underplanting scheme, RUS, in place. However, I have committed to reviewing the scheme in the early part of this year. Our focus has been on getting the forestry programme submitted to the Commission. My attentions will then certainly turn to the issue of ash dieback.
88. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question No. 12 of 9 March 2023, the status of the programme for Government commitment to ensure that inshore waters are protected for smaller fishing vessels and that pair trawling will be prohibited within the six nautical mile limit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17289/23]
My question follows on from the Court of Appeal striking down Government policy, albeit on a very narrow ground. What is the status of the programme for Government commitment to ensure inshore waters are protected for smaller fishing vessels and pair trawling will be prohibited within the six-mile limit?
I thank the Deputy for her question. My Department and I continue to work on the commitment set out in the programme for Government on the banning of pair trawling inside the six-mile limit as a matter of priority.
As the Deputy will be aware, in December 2018, following a public consultation process in which more than 900 submissions were received, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine announced that vessels over 18 m would be excluded from trawling in inshore waters inside the six-nautical-mile zone from 1 January 2020. A transition period of three years was provided for vessels over 18 m which would have been targeting sprat before that to enable these vessels to adjust, as the sprat fishery is concentrated primarily inside the six-nautical-mile zone. A policy directive was issued on the back of that.
I am committed to the sustainability of fishing across our waters and to the exclusion of vessels over 18 m from trawling in the waters inside six nautical miles, in line with the commitment we also have in the programme for Government.
As stated in my reply to a previous parliamentary question, the decision to exclude vessels over 18 m from trawling inside the six-nautical-mile zone has been the subject of ongoing legal proceedings. A judicial review to the High Court was taken by two applicant fishermen and on 6 October 2020, the judge in response to that, as part of the court's summary in advance of the final order, declared the policy void with no legal effect.
I appealed that decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal. The court issued an unapproved judgment on 19 July in the past year and issued a final judgment on 10 March past.
My team is now fully assessing the final judgment we have received with a view to taking the next necessary steps to follow through on our commitment to protecting the inshore sector within the six nautical miles.
The blunt reality is that there is no protection and that was the case back in 2018 and 2019, when there had been 900 submissions with people sufficiently engaged to appeal to the Minister to do something. He did something in respect of that policy and fair play to him. It was set at naught by the Court of Appeal eventually.
The Minister has been aware of this for a very long time and he has given me the same background. My concerns remain acute in respect of the lack of protection for our inland waters and the unsustainable nature of the fishing that is going on. When will the policy be reinstated? This is very simple. I do not want any more background. I am very familiar with that. The record of the House is very familiar with it. Tá sé thar am ag an Aire beart a dhéanamh de réir a bhriathar agus na céimeanna a thógáil chun an cosc ar na báid mhóra a chur ar ais agus stop a chur leis an rud atá ar siúl faoi lathair.
It was not possible to do anything until I received the final judgment, which was only received just over a month ago. As I said, and I cannot be any clearer, myself and the Government have a very strong commitment to work to protect fishing inside the six nautical miles for smaller vessels and for the inshore sector and to protect the sustainability of it.
Nothing could be done until we received the final judgment, which we are now fully assessing. It is going to be important in respect of the steps that we take that we are very deliberate and considered, to ensure that all of the required procedures are followed because, as we can see from what happened on the previous occasion, and indeed from so many other instances, all that needs to be found and challenged is one small item in order for the whole procedure to be stopped.
There is now a procedure to re-establish this policy that will have to be gone through. I will work with my team to step that out but there is no quick way of making an immediate decision or simply, with the stroke of a pen, to just do something. A comprehensive procedure must be gone through legally to achieve this and that is very much evidenced by the experience over the past three to four years, where the previous decision was overturned by a court challenge.
I disagree with the Minister. On every step of the procedure in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, the courts held with the Minister. They said that he was within his powers to bring in this policy. It was the right thing to do for conservation purposes and on every step of the way the courts agreed with him.
Unfortunately, the Department and the Government failed in their consultation process in respect of Europe and England. It is a vital piece of the Minister's obligation that he communicates with Europe and with England in respect of the impact of this policy. He failed to do that. What is the result of his inquiry into the Department as to how it failed to comply with its obligation that has now led to this debacle, where the policy has been set at naught and there is absolutely no protection?
The Department is on notice for a very long time that the Government was running with it in respect of the nature of the policy and its objectives. The difficulty was simply in respect of the Department's communication obligations, which it failed to comply with. That is all. When will the Minister see the policy up and running again?
I am looking at the final court judgment to decide how we can step it out. This judgment was on a very narrow and small matter in the context of everything that was done here in respect of the whole process, where the judgment found against the Department and the policy was overturned. As the Deputy will know, it is much easier to stop something than it is to actually achieve something. All it takes is one small matter, upon which it can be decided how it should have been done, in order for something to be stopped.
How did it happen that the Department failed to communicate?
In this particular instance - I have no doubt that there would have been hundreds of particular things that would have to have been followed as part of the process - all that one needs to find to strike a policy down is one small item. That is what happened in this instance. Very significant commitment, time and effort was put into the consultation process and I am now assessing this.
To be clear, the Government's commitment, and mine, is to protect fishing inside the six-nautical-mile limit. I am now assessing how we get to that position and achieve that.
89. Deputy Violet-Anne Wynne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if a rescue package for the sheep sector can be set up through the Brexit Adjustment Reserve fund with respect to the extreme financial pressures being faced by sheep farmers in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18589/23]
Can a rescue package for the sheep sector can be set up through the Brexit adjustment reserve, BAR, fund with respect to the extreme financial pressures being faced by sheep farmers in our country?
I thank the Deputy for raising this important question. A vibrant sheep sector is an integral element of a balanced regional economy and sheep farmers are committed to producing a world-class, safe and sustainable product. Although there has been a solid and sustained increase in average sheep prices since the end of February, I recognise that sheep farmers are experiencing more difficult market conditions in 2023 than in recent years.
Market prices are obviously a commercial matter to be bargained between suppliers and buyers and Government has no role in determining commodity prices in the sheep sector. However, with hoggets crossing €7 per kg and lambs exceeding €8 per kg, it is heartening to see markets returning better prices than at the start of the year.
To bolster the sustainability of sheep farming, my Department provides significant support to the sector under the CAP strategic plan, CSP, both through a new targeted scheme for sheep farmers: the sheep improvement scheme, SIS, which aims to improve sheep health and welfare; and through the broad range of schemes in the CSP.
On the Deputy's specific point regarding the BAR fund for the sheep sector, this provides financial support to the most affected member states to counter the adverse economic, social, territorial and, where appropriate, environmental consequences of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Expenditure under BAR must demonstrate a direct link to the negative impact of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Failure to do so will see the European Commission deem expenditure ineligible. The ongoing trade negotiations between the UK, New Zealand, and Australia will not give access to the UK market in the short term. While this will present future challenges, which we are looking to mitigate, there may well also be opportunities for suppliers in import substitution on EU markets.
The fact is that nobody has demonstrated a case that would qualify for BAR funding, which would not be deemed ineligible. While we would very much like to be able to access that once-off funding before the end of the year for the sheep sector, we have to be cognisant of the fact that that could well be deemed ineligible by the Commission.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra ansin. I was delighted to meet with Tom Lane, Tom Holmes and Stephen Walsh from the Clare branch of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, a few weeks ago and we had a very long conversation about the pressures being faced by farmers in County Clare. I know that it is the same story in his constituency and throughout the country, where farmers are facing enormous financial pressures in respect of pricing and inflation.
I welcome the addition to €2 per ewe in the SIS but, as I am sure the Minister of State will be aware, that increase was quickly eaten up by rising costs from shearing to vaccines, and everything in between.
With respect to the BAR fund, Ireland has been allocated more than €1 billion, which is approximately 20% of the total funding. This month we received the third instalment amounting to more than €280 million. That money could be used to help insulate and provide economic sustainability to the sheep farming sector. There are in excess of 600 sheep farmers producing world-class products but I am deeply concerned that the sector will not expand as there is no incentive for new entrants.
We would love the sheep sector to be able to qualify for funding under the Brexit adjustment reserve, but it is not easy to prove the current challenges faced by the sector are directly linked to Brexit. The big challenges from Brexit are down the line and the medium-term risks are related to future trade deals. The EU will make deals. The UK has not yet done the deals with New Zealand and Australia. We are not yet affected in this regard but these are the challenges. Some of the trade deals will provide opportunities for us.
I completely agree with the Deputy in that sheep farmers in Kildare, whether on the Curragh or elsewhere, have been in touch with us, as have farmers from every other county. We have engaged with them. We understand the challenges that exist and that is why we have a range of supports, including the 20% payment increase under the sheep welfare scheme and the €10 billion in the CAP strategic plan. We are seeking to target these measures and supports, which we provide to all farmers due to the significant input cost increases that have accrued as a result of the Ukraine crisis, as well as other supports on which I might touch in my supplementary response.
In addition to having our lively discussion on the sheep farming sector, I spoke to the IFA in Clare about the nitrates derogation. I heard many colleagues from many counties raise this issue in both Houses in recent weeks. I would be very grateful if the Minister could inform me about the measures, financial or otherwise, that he will take to assist Clare farmers in meeting potential new targets with respect to the new nitrates action programme. Could he inform me whether water quality reports for 2022 will be considered as part of the programme review?
Other Deputies have raised the publication of the forestry programme and the engagement just before Christmas. They talked about the impacts on the sector, job security, confidence and future development. Is there a timeline for publication?
In support of the previous speaker, I recognise that the Minister is concerned about the sheep-farming situation in south Kildare, but also in north Kildare. It is a concern of mine also. In the event of unfavourable conditions, such as market factors, and of opportunities no longer existing or our being ineligible to qualify under the Brexit reserve, some means will have to be found to reassure the sector that help is available, having regard to the continuation of the industry, in particular.
The Deputies should have no doubt that we recognise the importance of the sheep sector. We want a vibrant one in the future and understand the challenges it has faced.
A specific question was on the Brexit adjustment reserve. In this regard, it is right that we sweat every opportunity and analyse every avenue where there might be funding we can secure. Making the specific case has not proved possible to date. We still want to examine every opportunity to offer support, as requested by Deputy Durkan. That is why many sheep farmers have applied under ACRES and why, even though we had space for only 30,000 farmers, we pushed ourselves to the limit to ensure we could take in the 46,000. We made interventions because high input costs are contributing to the considerable pressure on sheep-farmer margins here. Prices for produce comprise one matter but we know livestock farmers have suffered greatly across the board owing to high input costs. That is why we had the interventions last year, including the €56 million fodder incentive scheme. The €8 million national liming programme is to be introduced this year. This support will be of assistance to farmers in that there is €2.5 million for multi-species swards. We are considering a range of supports for farmers in these challenging times.
90. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his proposals to support the group of farmers known as the "forgotten farmers"; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18577/23]
Could I get some detail on the Minister's proposals to support the approximately 4,000 so-called "forgotten farmers"? Could we have a timeline in this regard? We are obviously talking about young farmers impacted by austerity measures and who could not avail of installation aid and young farmer supports under CAP. The Minister spoke several times about the need to deal with this, so we need a timeline.
I thank the Deputy for raising this. He is right in that I have made a strong commitment that we will introduce a scheme that recognises that forgotten farmers were not able to avail of particular schemes or supports for young farmers at the time in question because they were removed. These are farmers who are continuing to farm but who did not get the same supports others would have been able to avail of or can avail of today.
Much work has been done in the Department on assessing the different categories, pulling together the data and doing the full assessments. I am continuing to engage with the team on this. It will take some time. There is a massive logistical challenge with organising and rolling out the CAP schemes. I do not have a specific timeline but work is ongoing and there is a commitment. Over the course of this year, we will be paying more attention to this matter. I hope we will be able to provide more clarity on when it will be possible to deliver. I have been very clear that the commitment has been made and that, after many years, we are going to deliver a scheme that recognises that the affected farmers could not avail of supports at the time in question.
I expected this to be one of the questions on which there would be agreement. I am referring to people who fell between stools and who could not avail of supports others were able to avail of.
We all know the issues concerning farm demographics. Farmers will talk about the difficulty and the fact that so many of them are particularly old. In an awful lot of cases, their own kids do not want to undertake farming. It is absolutely right to give the necessary support to those who made the steps and did everything correctly. We are constantly talking about ensuring the sustainability of the family farm in Ireland and making things worthwhile for new farmers.
I am somewhat worried. I can accept all the issues concerning logistics. The Minister made promises regarding this over a considerable period, including at a Macra conference in October and even at an IFA summit in January, but we will need to see action as soon as possible.
I raised this on many occasions, including from where the Deputy is now standing. The commitment stands and we are working our way through it. There are many other things happening but addressing this is part of the team's work programme. It is something we are determined to deliver on. It is not something we are going to be able to do immediately, but the commitments and promises made will be adhered to. It will take a little more time before we can work our way through that.
I welcome that. I am not going to go through this again. Obviously, we want to see the necessary supports sooner and faster and we want them to be better. Could the Minister give any indication about a general timeline, accepting the difficulties he said arise? The affected people have been waiting for an answer and for supports for a considerable amount of time.
I have to be able to follow through on any commitment I give; otherwise, the Deputy will be here in a month or two saying I made this or that promise. My commitment is that I will do what I have mentioned. The team is working on it. I do not have more specifics on the timeline just yet but we are trying to expedite matters alongside everything else. When I have more clarity on delivery and roll-out, I will update the Deputy.
I would consider that to be very fair and constructive.
91. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the extent to which he continues to monitor any potential erosion of the production capacity of Irish agriculture, with particular reference to the need to ensure increased output in the area given the degree to which Ireland's economy has depended upon the agrifood sector; the need to address climate change and emission issues, and at the same time avoid food shortages currently affecting many parts of the globe and resulting in starvation and famine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18532/23]
This question relates to my favourite subject: the need to do more to reduce emissions and increase food production given the worldwide shortages of food in various markets and the likelihood of these affecting us in this country in the not-too-distant future. I ask that these two issues be specifically addressed in every way and every day possible.
I thank Deputy Durkan for raising this really important issue. He is dead right in that, as we face the challenge of combating the worst effects of climate change, we face competing demands. I am always struck by the UN sustainability goals, of which there are 17. One is about addressing climate change. The second one is about having zero hunger in the world by 2030. In the context of a growing global population, we need to produce more food to achieve that. Therefore, the question is how to meet the competing demands concerning land use and ensuring our food production systems produce fewer emissions while being able to produce more food to feed the growing world population. The answer is innovation. We have done this down through the years. We have more science, research and innovation in our food production systems, which are now so sophisticated, to ensure not only that we continue to produce food but also that we do so more sustainably.
That is at the heart of what we are doing with Irish farmers. We are supporting farmers to produce top-quality, safe, nutritious food more sustainably in the future. We are not stopping farmers from producing that food but making sure that when they do it, they do so with a lower emissions output and improved water quality trends and impact on biodiversity.
There will be opportunities for diversification for farmers in terms of using their farming enterprise to create alternative income from renewable energy. The role of producing food, be it cattle or sheep in their sheds, will continue to be the primary role of farmers but there is nothing to stop them making alternative income from solar panels on the roof of their sheds. We are looking to support this by removing the need for planning permission in that regard. If farmers make those changes, they will make them voluntarily because there is an economic return on them. What we are looking to do as a Department and Government is to make sure the supports are there for farmers to incentivise them to make that change while they continue to reduce the emissions profile from the top-quality food we produce in this country.
I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. It goes without saying that the agrifood sector played a major role in economic recovery at a time when the country needed it. It also goes without saying that we need to do more in terms of climate change. The problem is that we do not know how much more and what effect this will have on the climate change issues we must address.
My emphasis would be on trying to ensure we can supply a similar food market as we have had in the past and not relate only to income but to food, which is a different aspect of the issue, and to try to ensure that we do not slow down dealing with climate issues to any great extent either. I believe the two can proceed together. It is a matter for innovation and science to do what we can in that area in the shortest time possible.
I am in complete agreement with Deputy Durkan on this point. When we talk about these competing factors, one thing sometimes gets lost in this debate. When we talk about food security, some people think food security is us just producing enough food for ourselves and do not worry about Ireland having to export all the food we export. This is not the right approach. Out of 113 countries, Ireland has been judged to be the second most food secure country in the world. This is not because we produce every bit of food in this island that we consume here ourselves. It is because our food supply chains around the world have become extremely sophisticated and highly integrated. Looking at the Department's ten-year strategy - Food Vision 2030 - we can see it takes a food systems approach to how we produce our food in the future. It is cognisant of our environmental obligations but it is also cognisant of sustainability in all its forms. This is the key point that sometimes gets missed. Sustainability is not just about environmental sustainability, as important as this is. It is also about economic sustainability for the farmer and the societal sustainability of the rural community in which he or she lives. This is why everything we do is about having a clear focus on that and making sure the economic return is there for the farmer to produce this.
This is an important message to give at this time and I thank the Minister of State for it. We need to look at the extent to which other countries, including EU countries, are contributing in the same fashion as we are, for example, countries with similar populations and a similar dependency on the agrifood sector. I am not so sure every country is singing from the same hymn sheet, as we may see at a later stage, but, as the Minister of State rightly said, it is important to continue to meet the two headlines and objectives of equal status at the same time. It can be done and this needs to be illustrated to the farming community now because it has to plan for the future.
I thank the Deputy for giving us the opportunity to debate this important point in the House. They are not mutually exclusive points. I am in agreement with the Deputy that we can do this. This Government will support farmers to continue to produce safe, nutritious and top quality food - nutrient-dense food that is needed around the world for our growing population. We will support them to do that with a reducing emissions profile that is a more environmentally friendly way of producing that food into the future. However, we will also support them in terms of their incomes by making sure it remains economically viable for them to do so and for the rural communities in which they live. Our goal in Food Vision 2030 involves taking a food systems approach and being a world leader in sustainable food systems. Its aim is to grow the value of our exports even further. At present, exports of Irish agrifood and drink are worth €16 billion. We want to grow that to €21 billion but to do so in a way that differs from the past. We are not talking about doing that necessarily on quantity, where the hamster wheel for the farmer gets faster but he or she is not necessarily better off. We are focused on quality and the top quality markets that will give the greatest return because that is the type of food we are producing. Only by farmers being economically viable will we be in a position to support farmers to support our climate change targets.
92. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps his Department is taking to encourage young people into the agricultural sector. [17709/23]
It is important that we inject some reality into this debate today. The Government's policy towards agriculture is one of managed decline. That is the truth.
Come on.
Every year, there are more farmers leaving the farming sector than there were the year before. Only 5% of farmers are aged 35 or under. This is an incredibly small cohort of people. The Minister must know that there is an explosion of anger in rural Ireland about the approach of the Fianna Fáil-Green Party-Fine Gael Government towards agriculture. What is the Government doing to get more young people into the sector?
The Deputy is badly out of touch. I travel around the country all the time and have travelled to every county in the country when putting the CAP programme together. I also travel around the country regularly engaging with farmers in every county and there is strong recognition of the funding the Government is putting into agriculture and backing agriculture. The Deputy should know that in the current CAP, of which this is the first year, we have increased our national funding commitment by 50%, which is the largest ever increase in CAP funding in respect of national co-funding. That is what the Government is doing. We are doing all we can and will continue to do more where we can. Everyone would like there to be more but we are delivering in a significant way with very strong schemes and that is recognised.
Undoubtedly, there is a challenge with generational renewal. Farming is one of the most rewarding professions we have. It brings people through the full life cycle of nature, from animals being born on a farm each spring to seeing crops harvested, recognising the full cycle of natural life. However, it can also be a challenging profession and it does have significant demands and responsibilities. In the current CAP, we have focused payments to encourage young farmers to enter the sector. There is very significant funding there. We have seen an increase and are now dedicating 3% of direct payments to help young farmers establish their farming business. This amounts to approximately €35 million per year for qualifying young farmers. We also have the 60% grant rate for on-farm investments where farmers are constructing buildings or sheds. There are over 600 separate on-farm investments for which a young farmer can apply for 60% funding. The figure was 500 and we have added an additional 100 investments for which farmers can apply. Those are the supports that are available. While this is a challenge, at Government level we are doing all we can to provide support and funding.
The farmer’s life cycle is dependent on the price of the product and the cost of producing it. That is the most important factor in this whole process. Every grant the Government gives does not make up for the fact that every year, farmers are getting less and less from the supply chain in farming. Most of the profit ends with the factory or supermarket. The Government is refusing to get involved in that element. I know that young farmers are voting with their feet and going to work in other countries such as Australia. Why is this? It is because they are witnessing the stressful arguments between their parents late at night about mounting debt on the farm. That is the reality. Until we focus on the price of beef, dairy, sheep, pigs and poultry in this State and get to some level where a floor is set at the cost of production for farmers, we are going to get into further trouble.
The truth is farmers are seeing finger wagging from arrogant and detached Green Party politicians and their south Dublin Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil colleagues on this. There is a detachment from rural and regional Ireland in where this Government is going and that needs to be fixed.
There is no substance to what Deputy Tóibín is saying. The Government is massively committed to supporting farmers at all stages of their careers. The Deputy should have noticed the historic step we have taken in the legislation we are bringing through the Houses, which will complete that journey next Wednesday, in relation to the new food regulator. The Bill is very much about ensuring there is transparency and fairness throughout the food supply chain. Some 90% of the products we produce in this country go abroad. Regardless of which market in which part of the world is involved, the Bill will provide transparency to ensure as much value as possible is delivered to where most of the work happens, namely, the farm gate. We are not selling a pig in a poke to farmers in the way Deputy Tóibín is. He had a Bill, although I have not heard about it in the last few years.
Fianna Fáil supported that Bill-----
It was three or four years ago.
-----in opposition.
The Deputy is constantly peddling a narrative that it is just a matter of setting a minimum price, saying what the price should be and giving that price to farmers. The reality is that 90% of the food we produce goes abroad and is sold abroad. We have to work in that market situation. The Deputy should recognise what we are delivering and stop peddling a pig in a poke which has no substance or reality.
Peddling a pig in a poke - that is incredible. Fianna Fáil supported the Aontú Bill in opposition and then went against it in government. One could not get a better definition of that turn of phrase than that.
If the Minister wants examples of where the Government is letting down farmers, he should look at the Brexit adjustment reserve fund. Aontú found out that €150 million of that fund which was meant to be focused on farmers has been diverted towards climate measures. The Government said it could not find ways to spend it in the agriculture or fishing sectors, which is incredible given the state they are in. Aontú also found out that the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications reallocated €1.5 million from the just transition fund to the climate activities of the UN. Where there is money available to help farmers, it is being refocused elsewhere. That is a major issue. Farmers are being scapegoated at a time when Ministers of this Government created 180 tonnes of CO2 emissions on their St. Patrick’s Day trips. We should contrast the scapegoating of farmers on climate change with the actions of the Government on climate. I am asking for concrete evidence of steps being taken to help young farmers to become aware that there is a living to be made out of farming sufficient to raise a family.
The Deputy should not mistake our allowing and facilitating his bringing a Bill before the Dáil as somehow supporting what he is doing. I see nothing of substance coming from him. He stated that Aontú found this and that out but Aontú has proposed nothing, not one scheme. It has not proposed anything in relation to the bar. The Deputy is running around trying to find a figure here or there and counting CO2 emissions from St. Patrick’s Day trips. That is the sort of stuff he is at. It is nothing that is going to deliver anything for farmers.
The trips produced 180 tonnes of CO2 emissions.
What we are doing over here is rolling up our sleeves and getting on with the serious business of delivering serious measures for farmers such as the food regulator Bill. Meanwhile, the Deputy is off peddling the fallacy that if we just introduced a law saying a farmer should get this price or that price, the world would be great.
What about the Brexit adjustment reserve fund?
It is time to get on with it and deliver a bit of substance.
What about the just transition fund?
We are doing the hard work of trying to support farmers and, importantly, supporting young farmers through the various and many measures we have introduced for them.
93. Deputy Alan Dillon asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine what plans are in place to review the sheep improvement scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18581/23]
I spoke recently in the House on the sheep sector. It is our duty to support sheep farmers. Many sheep producers are grappling with increased production costs while the price of their products has fallen. We cannot stand idly by as this unfolds. We need to ensure sheep farmers can continue to contribute to our local economy and pass their knowledge and passion for their land on to future generations. What plans are in place to review the current sheep improvement scheme?
The sheep sector in Mayo, no more than in my home county of Donegal, is an important part of the farming make-up. It has been under pressure in recent months, certainly for store finishers who had a challenging winter with prices down on previous years and increased costs.
With the new CAP this year, the schemes that are in place and the changes to the entitlement structure will benefit the sheep sector more than any other sector. Convergence will benefit the Deputy’s county, with the front-loading aspect for sheep farmers there. The most significant decision I made, knowing the challenging situation sheep farmers are having with their income, was to ensure that every sheep farmer applied for ACRES. If we had not been able to increase and provide the extra funding to ensure everyone could get in to the scheme, almost half of the farmers who applied in some counties would not have got into ACRES. That is a payment this year of potentially up to €7,000, with the average payment expected to be between €5,000 and €6,000. That decision was made specifically to ensure we were backing farmers in the environmental space. We are also very aware of current incomes.
The new sheep welfare scheme, the sheep improvement scheme, offers €12 per ewe. Over time, and looking from budget to budget, I will see if we can improve the payment but we have to work within the budgetary envelope we have. When we take the various schemes in place, the Government is strongly supporting the sheep sector. Most important, in recent weeks it has been most welcome to see the increased market returns, with prices breaking €8 per kilogram for spring lamb and €7 per kilogram for hoggets. Of particular significance was the increase last week of up to 60 cent per kilogram. Hopefully that will continue over coming weeks.
I thank the Minister for his response and for his interventions to date. While they have made a difference, from my engagement with many farming representative organisations in recent weeks, I know they are really concerned about the primary sheep producers. Time is running out for many. The position is precarious and it is unsustainable for new and existing farmers. As public representatives, we have a duty to implement policies and additional support measures to help alleviate this burden. Will the Minister address the inadequacies of the current sheep improvement scheme which offers only €12 per ewe to protect the economic viability of the sector? We heard earlier about the Brexit adjustment fund. That was not a proper proposal but I ask that it be reviewed in future budgetary discussions.
I recognise that, of the various CAP schemes introduced this year, the sheep improvement scheme received a smaller increase than other schemes. We increased the payment from €10 per ewe to €12 per ewe. It is plugged in and guaranteed for the next five years. The outgoing sheep improvement scheme was an annual scheme running from budget to budget and paid from out of the national Exchequer only. Going back to the previous CAP in 2014, there was no sheep scheme plugged into that. We have now plugged this in and the scheme will be in place for the next five years. If, in the budgetary negotiation every year, I can find mechanisms to improve on that, it is my objective and priority to do so. This is a starting point but the payment under the sheep improvement scheme has increased by €2 or 20%. On the other structures, particularly in Pillar 1 and ACRES, the sheep sector is the sector which, in the round, will have benefited most from the changes in the new CAP beginning this year. I recognise the objective of trying to do more. We always want to do more and we will seek improvements as time goes on.
I accept it is the first year of the new CAP programme but the feedback from many of the sheep farmers I have engaged with, and many of the hill farmers, is that the payment is insufficient to provide the support sheep farmers need to maintain their livelihoods and keep the sector alive.
Certainly, we need to do more in terms of financial aid and to ensure we can enhance the direct targeted supports. This increased funding will go a long way to ensuring new entrants to sheep farming are provided with an opportunity not only to increase and build their flocks, but also to support existing farmers in the sector. I look forward to working with the Minister to ensure this is possible in the future.
I thank Deputy Dillon; I will work with him. It is a really important sector. We are doing a lot for it this year. I know the ask is that we do more. As a representative and a Deputy for a county where the sheep sector is very important, Deputy Dillon will be keeping the pressure on me to do all that is possible to deliver more. I look forward to working with him in order to back the sector.
