Vol. 1042 No. 2
6. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when he will revert to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine to advise when the Island Fisheries (Heritage Licence) Bill 2017 can be progressed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34612/23]
I am seeking to make an advance in regard to the Island Fisheries (Heritage Licence) Bill, which the Minister will recall we brought forward when we were on the Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine in 2017. Deputy Ferris and I introduced this legislation. It is designed to ensure island fishermen have a chance to be able to make an income. It is for small artisan fishers to be able to use boats of less than 12 m where the fisher is on the boat. The holder of the licence has to be on the boat when fishing.
The legislation has been delayed considerably. We understand we are awaiting direction from the Minister to the committee to get this moved forward. I hope he will have a positive response.
I hope to engage with the committee shortly to provide an update on the Bill. The Island Fisheries (Heritage Licence) Bill 2017, to which the Deputy referred, seeks to create a specific system for licensing island fishers to conduct small-scale coastal fishing activities and would provide regulatory powers for this purpose.
There have been a number of significant developments since 2017. My colleague the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Humphreys, published Our Living Islands, our important national islands policy, in June, for example. Its aim is to ensure sustainable, vibrant communities on our islands. A whole-of-government policy has been developed following an extensive consultation process with the island communities in respect of a specific action plan for 2023 to 2026.
On fisheries, I established the seafood task force, as the Deputy will be aware, to analyse in depth the impact of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, TCA. A number of proposals emerged from that task force, which published its report in 2021, recommending 16 initiatives.
To date, I have announced 12 schemes, with a budget in excess of €270 million. In addition, since the inception of the Bill, I have given official recognition to two new producer organisations for inshore fishers, the Irish Islands Marine Resource Organisation and the National Inshore Fishermen’s Association. This significantly improves the standing and advocacy of small-scale fishers in sea fisheries consultative processes, including the quota management advisory committee, which makes recommendations to me on the management of national fish quotas.
In respect of the Bill, I have sought significant legal advice on its legality and the possibility of its being implemented and taken forward. I will consider that in detail and revert to the committee soon with an update in that regard.
I thank the Minister. I appreciate these matters have to be given due consideration, but the position for island dwellers is that their opportunities for making a livelihood are limited because they live on an island in the sea and do not have many of the opportunities people living in any other part of the country have. They have a tradition of using small boats and they have an opportunity to try to make a living from that. While I appreciate the work the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, and other Ministers may be doing to try to make the islands more viable, if people cannot make a living, they will not be viable. This is an opportunity to carve out a tiny percentage of the quota to support those who live on the islands and are artisan fishers. The likes of eight to ten boxes of fish a day is all they are talking about catching. They are not like the massive trawlers. What really annoys them is that they see the fish stocks being taken by these supertrawlers while they cannot make a living.
The legislation originated in the committee of the previous Dáil, which was chaired by the then Deputy Andrew Doyle. A report on the islands was produced and this concept came from that report. That is why it is important we progress it. I understand the Minister has to consider everything and that legal issues will be involved but, at the end of the day, the people who live on the islands need to make a living and this is an opportunity to give them a chance to do that.
Like the Deputy, I very much value our islands and wish to make sure there are sustainable, economic livelihoods on them. Traditionally, fishing was the biggest part of that and really drove the economies of the islands, although that has become less so as the years have passed. I want to work in any way we can to support the inshore fishing sector both around our coast and, in particular, on the islands, where it is even more significant. That is why significant time has been spent and engagement has happened to get legal advice on the Bill, on which I will engage further with the committee.
It is also why, last year and this year, for the first time ever, I introduced some financial supports targeting the inshore sector in particular and small boats that work on the islands. Last year, a boat of under 18 m in length, for example, was eligible for €4,000 under a Brexit scheme I had introduced, and I have extended that this year. Last year and this year, therefore, for the first time ever, inshore fishers, who normally got nothing, will have got €8,000 if their boats are between 8 m and 18 m in length, or just under €5,500 if under 8 m.
This is important legislation that deserves consideration. I have looked at it in detail from a legal point of view and will revert to the committee shortly with considerations.
I understand that, but the Bill was introduced in 2017 and it is now 2023. I think the Minister will appreciate that, while he can say many positive things have happened, many negative ones have happened as well. Our islands are dying, as all the reports that have emerged over the decades have shown. The populations have decreased and decreased and opportunities for people to make a livelihood on the islands are essential. This legislation will go some way towards doing that.
Today is the final day the Dáil will sit before the recess, and the Minister is saying he is going to revert shortly. I think it was last February when we first got a response stating he intended to revert to the committee shortly on this legislation. We need to get action on this. Continually kicking it down the road is simply unconscionable for the people who live on the islands and the fishing community. We are not talking about people who are out to make a fortune; they just want to make a living. It is an issue also of safety. If they are given the opportunity, they can safely operate their vessels. At the moment, they are out there, trying very hard to make a living, but they do not have the opportunity to do so. They are restricted with quota and in all kinds of manners, and very often fishermen go out on their own, which is very dangerous. We need to put something in place that will deliver for them. It will not cost the Government anything. We are not talking about grants or supports here. We are talking about giving people an opportunity to make a living from fishing, as they have done for centuries.
I accept this has taken time, but I assure the Deputy that if it were straightforward, it would have been dealt with long ago. I had legal advice on my table regarding the workability and legality of the Bill, and I then sought further legal advice in that regard because I wanted to explore it from every angle and fully examine what the proposal was and what the potential might be. That has taken time and consideration, which is why it has taken so long. If it were straightforward or more workable or doable, I would have reverted to the committee long ago. It is because-----
Was the legal advice negative?
I will update the committee shortly on it, but the Deputy can take it that it has been very challenging given it has taken so long to consider it, look at it and see what the options might be. Before the end of this month, I will revert to the committee with my update on the Bill. Like the Deputy, I want to do everything we can to support the islanders. From a Government point of view, that is a big priority, as it has been for me from a fisheries point of view. I outlined the supports I have put in place, which have been very specific to the inshore sector, on which islanders depend. It has not happened before now because it has not been by any means straightforward or easy to bring to a conclusion.
7. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the reason all farmers in the suckler carbon efficiency programme, SCEP, must also be in the Bord Bia scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34529/23]
Why do all farmers in the SCEP scheme also have to be in the Bord Bia scheme, which is quite bureaucratic? What is the logic behind this? I think it has a knock-on effect on participation in the SCEP scheme.
The Deputy is on the button with this question, which is being asked throughout the country, regarding the new suckler carbon efficiency programme, which replaces the suckler welfare scheme. This decision was made in the strategic interest of improving our suckler and beef herd and especially the value of the animals we sell and market abroad. Origin Green, the Bord Bia quality assurance programme, was initiated in 2011. It was way ahead of its time and came long before the sustainability discussion became so mainstream. It has put us in a strong position internationally in terms of the offering we have. We can now go abroad and, if a product has been Origin Green approved, we are able to get ahead, not just because of the quality of our product but also because of the assurances we can give as to how it has been produced. We can get onto the shelves ahead of competing countries because of what we have there, and we need to continue to build on that.
The decision to bring significant additional national funds to this scheme means the payments under the new suckler cow scheme will be €150 per cow for the first 22 cows, compared with €90 for the first ten in the previous scheme. In bringing those additional national funds to the table, we made the strategic decision we would make it a requirement of participating in the scheme to be Bord Bia quality assured.
Overall, it will also enhance the value of the suckler product whenever it is sold abroad and whenever we bring it onto the shelves. It will also deepen the amount of quality assured farms we have in the country. At the moment, if it is on a quality assured farm for the last 90 days, it qualifies as quality assured. We must broaden the scheme as we go forward to make sure we stay ahead of other competing nations and to make sure our produce stays on the shelves ahead of that of other countries. This means it needs to be more than the final 90 days. We need to try to ensure more suckler farmers are quality assured as well. This is why the decision was taken.
If the actual effect of the scheme is that a huge number of small farmers do not participate in it and therefore are not quality assured, then is it defeating itself with a surfeit of bureaucracy? Obviously, every scheme must have terms and conditions, but it is my understanding the Bord Bia bureaucracy is the one causing the problem and not the bureaucracy of the scheme itself that aims to improve the suckler cow herd and suckler cow production. Therefore, could a derogation be given for the smaller herds? Will the Minister outline to me what premium farmers get in the factory if they have Bord Bia certification? Are they getting a significant premium?
There are two parts to my question. The first part, as pointed out by the Minister, is that it is only the last 90 days that counts at the moment, and we have brought this in from birth. This is literally turning the vast majority of farmers from taking part in the scheme at all, a point on which I will also come to in Question No. 9.
It has been a challenge to get more participation in quality assurance. It has come a long way but we need to try to have more farmers in it. That is difficult to achieve. It enhances our overall product. The Minister of State, Deputy Heydon, and I are doing trade missions abroad all the time, and the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, is also looking at it from an organic point of view. It is a massive calling card. It is what the customers we are selling to want to hear about. The Origin Green branding and the quality assurance gives us an additional competitive advantage among the customers we have, and it is increasingly going to give us that competitive advantage. It is important to have as much of our sector as possible in the scheme. It strengthens the sector overall.
I accept the Deputy's point that it is harder because the payment of the quality assurance bonus is made at the end whenever the animal is slaughtered. It is harder to see that when a person is selling stores or weanlings because it is not as tangible. As Minister, I have been able to see how tangible it is as a product when it is being sold abroad. The more value we can put on that, the more value there can be in the chain, from calf to the factory. I am certainly open to seeing how we can make that more tangible at different levels in the supply chain, for weanlings and stores.
The Minister is way over time.
There is no doubt that a move like this will strengthen the sector-----
The Minister is over time.
-----but I accept it is a rationale that at times is challenging to communicate.
If a huge number of farmers are not participating because they are put off by the conditions of the scheme and the bureaucracy involved, and especially those farmers with small herds on poorer land who sell the cattle younger and who are not participating because of the Bord Bia condition, are we not losing and throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Could they not have a modified scheme and then allow the bigger herd owners to meet the Bord Bia condition because they are more likely to be finishing the cattle?
I do not believe it is possible to have a halfway house for quality assurance. We have one national quality assurance scheme and one national brand. It is important this is as strong as possible. Lots of farmers are concerned about taking on the additional administration involved in quality assurance. The experience has been, from those who have made that move and made that jump, that it is not as onerous and there is nothing to fear, given the trepidation they might have had in advance. The feedback I have had from many farmers is that it is actually a good way to make sure they are in good shape for a Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine inspection, for example. If a farm is picked randomly for a Department inspection, is inspected from an agriculture point of view and something is amiss, the farmer potentially is in line for a penalty. If the farmer is working with the Bord Bia quality assurance officer, however, the farmer will get advice to make sure the farmer is fully compliant and the officer will work with the farmer to make sure that is the case. When the farm is quality assured, the farmer is assured he or she has everything the way it needs to be. It can be useful in that regard.
I understand the Deputy's point. I have heard it throughout the country over the past while, but I have outlined to Deputy Ó Cuív the rationale for the decision and the approach.
9. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the number of farmers with fewer than ten suckler cows in the suckler carbon efficiency programme, SCEP, scheme; the percentage of such farmers estimated to be in the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34528/23]
This question relates also to Question No. 10. I want to ask the Minister about the number of farmers with fewer than ten suckler cows in the suckler carbon efficiency programme, SCEP, scheme. What is the number of farmers in total with fewer than ten suckler cows, and the percentage of those that are in the suckler carbon efficiency programme scheme? When we consider this figure, we will see the scheme is not attractive to smaller farmers.
The objective of the suckler carbon efficiency programme, SCEP, is to provide support to suckler and beef farmers to improve the environmental sustainability of the national beef herd. The programme aims to build on the gains already delivered through the beef data and genomics programme, which finished in December, and the beef environmental efficiency programme by improving the genetic merit of the herd.
I am confident SCEP will drive further improvements in what are already world-class suckler and beef herds. At the moment there are 3,513 participants in SCEP who have reference animals of ten or fewer. This equates to 16.9% of the total applicants who applied for SCEP.
There is a challenge there for some smaller herds in particular. They tend to be cases where they are not dependent on that income, are not full-time and when there are fewer than ten in the herd. Often there is off-farm income involved as well where there is a suckler herd of fewer than ten. Therefore, take-up of schemes, not just SCEP, can sometimes be less for a smallholding like that than it is for a larger holding that is more dependent on that income. The scheme is open to everyone and the terms and conditions are the same. Sometimes it is not attractive to those with fewer numbers than it is for those who might have more than ten, 20 or 30 in a herd.
A total of 56% of farmers, which is more than half, have fewer than seven suckler cows. This is 44,292 farmers. As the Minister has said, 3,513 farmers applied for the scheme. This is 8%. The scheme is failing totally to improve the herds of the smaller farmers. Less than 10% of that cohort of farmers have applied. They are not doing anything because a deluxe requirement is required even though very few of those would be finishers.
When a herd goes over 21 cows, there is 60% participation. We must look at the figures and ask why it is 60% in that case and 8% for the others. For many of our small farmers, on condition that they do not finish the cattle or do not have them for the last 90 days, why is the Bord Bia requirement there? I do not refer to the quality assurance requirement, which does not really relate to them because they do not bring the calves to that maturity. Why is the Bord Bia requirement a condition of the scheme? It seems to be putting them off and the Minister is not achieving his objective, which is to get farmers to farm to a high standard. Instead, they are just ignoring the Minister and walking away. From my own experience, very few farmers in the Connemara region of my constituency are in the scheme. Of course, those in the good land region around the Neale and Cross in Mayo and east of the Corrib River are in the scheme, but the small farmers are just walking away. Even though they might take part in the agri-climate rural environmental scheme, ACRES and in other schemes, they are walking away on this one.
I take Deputy Ó Cuív's point. It has always been a challenge to get smaller herds into the suckler schemes. That was the experience with the previous scheme as well. This scheme is much more attractive in terms of pay rates. Last time around, somebody with fewer than nine or ten cows would have received €90 per cow. The payment this time around is €150. That is a big increase in the funding we are giving to farmers who would have fewer than ten cows. If people look at the detail relating to the previous scheme, they will find that the percentage take-up among those with fewer than ten cows was much smaller. Much of that is related to the fact that the payment in respect of a smaller number of animals would always be lower than that for a higher number of animals. In addition, there is a much higher likelihood that there will be off-farm income involved. A farmer with 20 or 30 cows and 60 or 70 sheep would be very dependent. A a small proportion of such farmers would have off-farm incomes and would definitely not be leaving the €150 per cow behind. We are seeking to make the scheme as strong as possible by increasing the payment from €90 to €150 per cow. The scheme is open to everyone but, certainly, it is harder to get those with fewer than ten animals to apply.
Would the Minister accept that in the same regions there is really low participation in this scheme but really high participation in, for example, the sheep welfare scheme? It is the same farmers but different schemes, one of which has more reasonable conditions for smaller operators.
As I said, part of the Bord Bia scheme is that it is the last 90 days that counts. The Minister is forcing them into a scheme that is not, as it is currently constituted, relevant to most of these farmers because they do not hold them for the last 90 days. I suggest that a condition of the scheme could be that farmers would sell them as store cattle in order that the finishing would be done to the Bord Bia standard. That way, the Minister could have it both ways. He would have much greater participation from the 8% compared with the more than 60% from the bigger herds, although they are not that big. If a farmer has 21 or more animals, he or she will do well. Even for those who have between 11 and 20 cows, the figure jumps to 39%. It is still low but is a lot higher than 8%. As I said, the Minister is leaving out more than half the herds. Of course, those who own them need the money too. As happens with so many schemes now, somebody overprescribed this scheme in the context of small operators.
It is not that we are leaving anybody out. It is open to everyone. Anyone can apply. I accept what Deputy Ó Cuív has stated to the effect that those who have smaller numbers of animals are not applying in the same percentages as those who have more, but it is open to everyone. In addition, we have increased the payments significantly, from €90 to €150.
The objective here is not to get to a point where everyone is selling to a qualified assured farm for the last 90 days. The objective is to have as many farms as possible quality assured so that throughout an animal's life-----
But it is not succeeding.
-----its journey is quality assured. As we go forward and as the sustainability ask of consumers across the world and in supermarkets that we are selling to becomes stronger, to be able to say that it is only the last 90 that are quality assured as opposed to the animal's journey that is quality assured becomes something we have to look at in terms of making sure we have a strong scheme and a robust quality assurance system to allow us to maximise the price of that animal. Ultimately, it benefits the farmers and the producers when the price can be maximised.
10. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question No. 67 of 25 May 2023, for an update on the work of the wool council; if the €30,000 in departmental funding promised to support the council has been drawn down; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34655/23]
The feasibility study on wool was published in July of last year. One of its many recommendations was to set up a wool council. My question asks for an update on the work of the wool council and whether the €30,000 in departmental funding promised by the Department has been drawn down.
I thank the Deputy for her continued interest in this. The wool sector is an important aspect of the wider agrifood sector. The Irish-grown wool council was officially formed on 5 April 2023. It is an independent stakeholder-led council. Members of the council represent a wide range of different industries and interests from within the wool sector including: farmers, wool merchants, sheep shearers, educators, designers, crafters as well as industry representatives and farming organisations. The diverse membership and all-island composition of the council are particularly welcome and pleasing to see.
I am also encouraged to see the establishment of the Wool Research and Innovation Hub, which is led by the Circular Bioeconomy Cluster South West at Munster Technological University, with members from a number of different higher education institutions involved. The stated purpose of the Wool Research and Innovation Hub is "to bridge the gap between idea and execution through new product research and innovation, enhancing the perceived value of Irish wool and ensuring a fairer return to primary producers and across the entire value chain" which is a goal everyone would like to see achieved.
My Department does not hold a seat on the wool council but we continue to work closely with and support the council. In fact, to date, no requests for the draw down of the pledged €30,000 for initial set up has been received by my Department. I believe that the ambitions and purpose of both the Irish-grown wool council and the Wool Research and Innovation Hub, along with the diverse knowledge and expertise of members of both groups will be the key to unlocking the true potential of Irish wool going forward.
I welcome the setting up of the wool council. I very much welcome the setting up of the Wool Research and Innovation Hub. I am a little concerned. It has been over a year. I am on record as saying that the report was excellent in parts and woolly in others, but that the potential for the wool industry was huge. There is a role for the Government in this. I am concerned that the Department seems to be taking a step back in relation to this rather than a active role. If one thinks of IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, here we are with farmers getting very little for their wool and significant potential within the wool industry. I would like to see more engagement from the Department in that regard.
I would like to have an outline of the governance of the wool council and its reporting relationship with the Department. How often has it met? Has the Department been in on those meetings? What is the feedback mechanism and the overall monitoring of that? Has it been formed as a company limited by guarantee?
The recommendation from the feasibility study was that the wool council be established by the sector itself. It was not that the Department or a Minister should guide the work in that regard. That was strongly stated in the recommendation in the feasibility study. That is what has happened. There is wide representation on the council.
I understand the council has met. I do not have a list of its meetings, but certainly it has met a couple of times since 5 April. I have engaged informally at farm events I have been at with some of the members and they seem satisfied with the progress that is being made.
The Department and I would like to see some recommendations and proposals from the council at some stage. The potential, as the Deputy says, is significant for wool. There are already some smaller-scale products coming from the wool sector here and the potential to scale those up should be explored as well. If something is working, maybe there is potential to grow it further.
The report was detailed. There were over hundred pages in it. The report states: "While there are existing bodies and groups all active in the sector, there is a need for a representative body [that is, a wool council], with government support and close links to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine." There were numerous recommendations, some of which apply to the wool council. For example, the report recommended the following but, importantly, did not place the responsibility on the wool council: training to be provided on wool handling, presentation, sorting and grading; data collection, in that there is a significant absence of data; the creation of an apprenticeship for which there is significant potential; determining the feasibility for scouring plant development and for wool testing; co-operatives; external programmes to promote Irish-grown wool; etc. When did all of those recommendations come under the remit of the wool council? Who made that decision or has it been made? Who is monitoring those recommendations?
Will the Minister of State indicate the extent, if any, to which there is ongoing intensive research into alternative and value-added uses for wool, given that it has almost come to a standstill on the market? Has this been investigated to the extent that it should be? To what degree have alternative uses been researched? What were the results, if any, of that research? What is likely to happen in the future?
I thank both Deputies. The council has been established to look at a number of issues. There are more recommendations in the feasibility study, with which we also need to push on. I have been at events where they show farmers how to manage their wool, and how to keep it dag free and increase the value of the wool from that point. We are dealing with research through the wool research and innovation hub through Munster Technological University. There is research to be carried out. Unfortunately, there is not a demand for wool. We need to do research on the different types of wool. I understand that Galway Wool Co-op is giving up to €2.50 per kg for wool from pure-bred Galway sheep. I know there are also opportunities for organic wool. It might be double or treble the price, but it is still double or treble a very low price. The challenge is both to support the farmers and create the market places for the wool. There are small opportunities there, and building on those might be one of the first places to start.
11. Deputy Brian Leddin asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine what welfare measures have been taken in the greyhound sector in the past 12 months to satisfy the programme for Government commitment that State funding of the sector will be contingent on a guarantee of welfare standards being upheld on an annual basis. [34755/23]
What welfare measures have been taken in the greyhound sector in the past 12 months, to satisfy the programme for Government commitment that State funding of the sector will be contingent on a guarantee of welfare standards being upheld annually?
Rásaíocht Con Éireann is a commercial State body. Its role is chiefly to control greyhound racing and to improve and develop the greyhound industry. The allocation from the horse and greyhound fund for Rásaíocht Con Éireann is €18.2 million this year. Since 2020, my Department has ring-fenced 10% of the fund allocation to Rásaíocht Con Éireann for welfare, including integrity. The Board of Rásaíocht Con Éireann has indicated that its priorities include the continued expansion of the care and welfare initiatives, which include a range of measures.
Rásaíocht Con Éireann also undertakes activity in the areas of regulatory, integrity and laboratory functions. This includes activity on welfare inspections and investigations, testing regimes, veterinary services and financial support for the Irish Retired Greyhound Trust and contributions to private rehoming agencies. A new traceability system for racing greyhounds has been launched, known as the Rásaíocht Con Éireann traceability system. It came into effect in January 2021. Data from the system at the end of March 2023 indicates 38,858 greyhounds were subject to traceability.
Rásaíocht Con Éireann has introduced a range of care and welfare initiatives, which include the establishment of a separate greyhound care fund and other measures. Last year, it allocated €3.6 million in total to traceability, care and welfare matters. That compares with €3.3 million in 2021, an increase of more than 10%.
Rásaíocht Con Éireann is also required to provide a quarterly update on care and welfare to my Department. Welfare and integrity remain a standing item at all liaison meetings.
My fundamental question is to ask if the Minister is satisfied that the programme for Government commitment is being addressed. He shares the concerns of the public, to put it mildly, when it comes to the greyhound industry and what has been revealed in recent years. Greyhounds are killed annually because they are not fast enough to make it on the track. Dogs are being killed because they get injured. There is widespread use of banned substances to improve performance of greyhounds. Greyhounds are also being exported to countries like China and Pakistan where few, if any, laws exist to protect these dogs. Is the Minister satisfied that we are doing enough to meet that programme for Government commitment?
The programme for Government commitment is being significantly advanced through the various initiatives and the funding that Rásaíocht Con Eireann is spending and how it is being allocated. I outlined some of the steps taken in the past two to three years. These are significant steps forward for safeguards around welfare and the supports for greyhounds. For example, 50% of all existing sponsorship is assigned to the greyhound care fund. Some 10% of all admissions and restaurant packages have also been assigned to the care fund since the end of 2019. The first greyhound care centre was established in July 2020. The rehoming of greyhounds in Ireland is now financially incentivised with additional supports through the Irish Retired Greyhound Trust, which is really important. That saw 974 retired greyhounds rehomed via the trust in 2019. The corresponding rehoming figure for 2020 was 1,775. It is something we take seriously. The capacity and steps are being increased all of the time. That will continue in line with our programme for Government commitment.
I thank the Minister for his answer. I appreciate that he takes the matter seriously, and ask that he continue to do so. It is of particular importance and concern to the public. I ask that he look at the independence of the animal welfare assessment regime. That also needs to be examined on an ongoing basis. The public needs to have confidence that any welfare assessment is independent. If that confidence is not there we are at nothing. I urge that the Minister continue to make this a priority matter. I reiterate Green Party support for increased attention to this. It aligns with our party policy, and I ask for the Minister's support.
It is a key priority of the Government. It is also a key priority for Rásaíocht Con Éireann, and the management and board. The long-term viability and future for the industry has to be built on good welfare. It is what the public and dog owners expect. It is what all dogs deserve. It is also what Government funding is contingent on. We continue to work closely together. The commitment from the Government is to continue funding the sector, but that welfare be given a priority as part of that. We have also taken a couple of other steps in the past two or three years. A confidential telephone line was established in 2019 to enable reports of any welfare breaches, for investigation by relevant agencies. There has also been an intensified inspection regime of greyhound establishments over the past two or three years. In 2021, some 1,221 inspections were carried out. Last year, 2,674 inspections were carried out. There is also significant emphasis and priority attached to the rehoming of retired greyhounds.
15. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question No. 268 of 1 June 2023, if consideration will be given to allocating additional money to animal rescue charities in budget 2024, given the unprecedented amount of surrenders they are dealing with at present and in the aftermath of Covid-19; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34485/23]
Further to Question No. 268 of 1 June, will consideration be given to allocating additional moneys to animal rescue charities in budget 2024, give the unprecedented amount of surrenders with which they are dealing at present?
I thank the Deputy. In December last year, I announced a record allocation of over €5.8 million in funding for 99 animal welfare charities throughout the country, under the animal welfare grants programme. That figure exceeded the commitment in the programme for Government, which was to double the funding allocated within two years. It marks the largest award of grant funding ever to animal welfare bodies by my Department. On 30 June I launched this year's grants programme. I remain committed to the continued support of the excellent work of these charities in rescuing, caring for and rehoming animals. It is something I know Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan is very committed to.
Discussions related to funding allocations under budget 2024 will take place as part of the budget negotiations for this year. I will continue strongly to seek to back the sector.
The role animal welfare charities play across the country is inspiring. There are some really inspiring people with great commitment and dedication providing great care to animals, taking them in at a time when they are very vulnerable. They are working hard to find new homes for the animals and to address any challenges the animals might have that make rehoming difficult as well. When people are looking for a pet, I would encourage them to look first to rehome an animal and to support animal welfare charities in the work they are doing, to provide a home for a pet that otherwise might not have one. The situation has got more challenging in the last year. There was definitely a Covid element to increased pet ownership, and unfortunately a resulting challenge post-Covid whereby people underestimated what is involved in owning a pet and meeting all of its needs. Many of our animal welfare charities have stepped up to meet those needs and we as a Government want to support them through the funding stream the Deputy mentioned.
I acknowledge that record funding was provided last year, as the Minister said in his reply. It was much appreciated by the groups he mentioned. As the Minister acknowledged in his response, an unprecedented number of animals are being returned to charities and shelters to deal with the issue. We are actually now exporting animals abroad, such is the extent of the surrenders. The Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals alone has approximately 850 animals at this stage. Across the country, in the media, certain charities are looking for extensions or extra premises to accommodate the animals they have at present. They are feeling overwhelmed. I do not expect the Minister to give me a response on providing extra money ahead of the budget. I do not think he would be so kind as to do that today. It is just to press the matter with him and stress the gravity of the situation they are facing.
I thank the Deputy. It is important the matter is raised here in the Dáil and highlighted, particularly in advance of the budget. Since we came into office, the Government has doubled the funding. We are very much aware of the challenges many are facing, the important work they are doing and the need for us to support those charities at Government level as well as supporting public advocacy about the work involved in caring for an animal and deciding to have a pet. Members of the public can also make an important contribution by looking to rehome an animal where they want to bring a pet into their lives. We will be very cognisant of that in the budgetary negotiations and profiling budgets for next year. I am very cognisant of the pressure many of these charities are under, particularly in the last 18 months.
To conclude, I also want to stress the issues with horses particularly, not just in Cork city but in many cities across the country. I want to alert the Minister that myself and Senator McGreehan are intent on drafting a Bill to deal with some of the matters that are arising. I would be grateful if we could meet the Minister at some stage to discuss that Bill going forward and any improvements that can be made to existing legislation.
I am happy to meet the Deputy further on this. I know he has been a strong advocate for this matter and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine has given its attention to it. I am certainly happy to continue to work with him to make progress on it. We have work to do; there are real challenges in some parts of the country. The welfare of all horses is not where it should be. We have to work together to make sure there is not space for that to be the case. We have to work with all agencies to address issues where challenges are arising. I am happy to work with the Deputy on any legislative changes which could be helpful and to support that effort as well.
34. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the extent to which he remains satisfied that agri-food imports into this country are only allowed from countries adhering to carbon reduction measures similar to those that apply in this jurisdiction; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34623/23]
This question seeks to ensure that the same rules apply to all in respect of agri-food production. In respect of the importation of agri-food products, it seeks to ensure that they come from countries with similar restrictions and requirements in order to compete with carbon reduction targets.
As a small open economy, international trade and the global rules-based system which supports that trade are critical for the continued development of the Irish economy. In the case of the Irish agri-food sector, our exports are very high quality. They are sustainably produced goods and we export them to some 180 countries around the world. This highlights the importance of the rules-based trading system for our agri-food sector. It is clear that the global economy is facing many new challenges, including those associated with sustainability and climate change. These challenges need to be addressed in the context of a coherent international trade policy. Ireland therefore supports approaches at European level which promote collaboration with international partners in order to achieve sustainability objectives, including the shaping of EU trade policy to achieve these objectives.
Specifically, Ireland supports the approaches outlined in the European Commission’s June 2022 report on the application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products. That report confirms that the EU should work collaboratively with global trading partners to find solutions to address such cross-cutting global policy issues in multilateral institutions, including in the international standards bodies, the World Organisation for Animal Health, OIE, the International Plant Protection Convention, IPPC, and the Codex Alimentarius or food code; that the EU's commitment to sustainable food systems is at the heart of its approach to addressing issues in these international fora, and is a focus of EU trade policy development; and that the EU negotiates robust sustainability chapters in new EU free trade agreements with third countries, including specific chapters on sustainable food systems. The new EU-New Zealand trade agreement includes both ambitious sustainable food systems and trade and sustainability chapters. The 2022 report further confirms that the use of autonomous trade measures by the EU to address sustainability priorities is evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they are fair, transparent, non-discriminatory and compliant with World Trade Organisation rules.
I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. In any changing situation, Irish producers will look at the global situation within and outside the EU to try to ensure they are being treated the same as others. I refer particularly to countries that might have an advantage accruing to them from the use, misuse or ability to avoid some of the impositions on the agri-food sector here. I ask the Minister to continue to ensure that we are able to trade on a level playing pitch and that the same rules apply to those countries that compete with our producers in the open market, wherever the market may be, in this country or in other third countries.
It is a really important principle. In order to be fair to our food producers domestically and across the EU, where high standards are set in food safety and sustainability, those same standards should be required of countries we would trade with. Ultimately that food is coming into the same market and competing with the food we produce.
It should be meeting the same standard of production. That is very important with regard to the trade deals being carried out that that is an approach in principle which applies and it is certainly something that we have been making clear at European level. It must be the case. We will certainly continue with that requirement.
Is the Minister satisfied with the rigorousness of the inspection or the ways and means by which comparisons are made between the husbandry, hygiene and other methods used, in some cases, to enhance production but in particular to compete more effectively in the markets to ensure that we and the producers in this country have an equal chance with everybody else? If they are competing in world markets with a product from wherever, it is important this is on an equal footing and they are not disadvantaged by the rules to any extent.
We need to ensure that is the case. It has not always been the case in the past that the same attention has been paid to the requirements and the oversight of what is coming in compared to what we do within our own borders. With regard to trade deals, which are being renewed or are being initiated for the first time, that question has to be to the forefront. The standards have to be the same. We have to be assured that those standards are being met and fulfilled with regard to how these products are being produced. Safeguards must be sought in that regard. It is an important principle particularly in terms of putting more of a focus on how we go about reducing emissions and the challenges that can bring in the steps that need to be taken in producing food. Other countries need to be doing the same and we need to apply that. We all have to work together to ensure progress is being made. We should require the same of those who trade with us that we require of ourselves with regard to how we carry out our business.
