Vol. 1065 No. 3
1. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to provide an update on negotiations with the British Government to reinstate access for the Irish fishing fleet to its traditional fishing grounds at Rockall; and the estimated total financial loss to the Irish fishing industry since the blockade has been enforced by the UK authorities. [13670/25]
I am raising the very serious issue of the waters around Rockall, which comprise a traditional fishing ground for Irish fishers. There was no concern prior to Brexit, with reciprocal fishing arrangements between both jurisdictions. However, for four years the British authorities have put a blockade around what is an uninhabited rock. Under international law, it is not permissible to put any kind of limit on this. Will the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine provide an update on the Government's engagement with the British Government to get this issue sorted out?
I thank the Deputy. He has always been consistent in his interest in this matter.
As the Deputy is aware, Ireland has never made any claims to Rockall nor has Ireland ever recognised UK sovereignty claims over Rockall. Accordingly, Ireland has not recognised a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea around it. This remains the position of the Government, and that is well understood in this House.
The Government continues to be in regular contact with the relevant Scottish and UK authorities regarding Rockall. Through this engagement, the Government is seeking to address the issues involved, reflecting the long-standing fisheries patterns in the area with which the Deputy is very familiar. I know from constituents of his that this matter is of considerable concern to them, and the Deputy has raised it on a number of occasions.
Irish vessels have traditionally fished for haddock, which is subject to a quota limit, and squid, which is not subject to a quota limit, in the waters around Rockall. Haddock may be caught both within and outside 12 nautical miles of Rockall, but squid is caught within six nautical miles of Rockall. Other stocks caught in the waters around Rockall, both within the 12-mile area and outside, are monkfish and megrim. That is something the Deputy is very well versed in.
In 2021, the seafood sector task force was established to examine the impacts of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement on our fishing sector and coastal communities and to make recommendations on the mitigation strategy. The task force examined the impact of the loss of access to the waters around Rockall and estimated that Ireland's total squid fishery in 2019 was valued at around €6.6 million. The majority of squid was taken from the waters surrounding Rockall, and this amounted to 1,071 tonnes, valued in excess of €5 million, in 2019 and 371 tonnes, valued at €1.6 million, in 2020.
Squid landings by Irish vessels from the Rockall area have varied considerably from year to year, ranging from under 300 tonnes in 2016 to more than 1,000 tonnes in 2017 and 2019.
The sporadic nature of the fishery is consistent with squid's short lifespan and erratic recruitment dynamics. Given this variation, it is difficult to put a realistic estimate-----
I thank the Minister of State.
-----on what the value of the fishery since 2021 has been or could have been.
The Minister of State can back come in again.
I thank the Minister of State. I know he is new to his brief and I wish him well. I really do wish him well because if he does well, obviously our fishing communities will do well.
There has been a major diplomatic failure in respect of this matter. The British authorities have engaged in a brazen intervention. Rockall is an uninhabited rock. Unfortunately, after Brexit we passed the Maritime Jurisdiction Act, which incorporates a 2013 agreement that would have given the British control of the waters around Rockall but not the ability to impose a limit in respect of them, which would have been completely unreasonable. As stated, the Minister of State is new to his brief. I ask him to bring a fresh impetus to this issue and ensure that we go back at it again in a constructive manner. We cannot tolerate what is happening.
I wonder if there is a role for the European Commission here, particularly as it negotiated the trade and co-operation agreement. This is brazen behaviour by the British and it is in bad faith in terms of that agreement. Could we use the European Commission as an ally to resolve this issue?
I am committed to finding a way forward if at all possible. I will continue to work closely with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Simon Harris. The Deputy is right in saying that the trade and co-operation agreement has implications. It needs to be looked at again for the impact it will have in 2026. I am happy to engage on that basis and to try to involve the matter insofar as is possible in that discussion. I will raise the matter with Commissioner Šefčovič in that regard. I am happy to have a discussion with the Deputy at his convenience. We can work together to try to move that diplomatic situation forward because, ultimately, it will be resolved in those quarters. I again thank the Deputy for his interest.
I appreciate the offer to meet. As the Minister of State knows, it is not even just the Donegal fisherman based in Greencastle and Killybegs who would be seriously impacted. I understand that 25% of the value of the fishery for Greencastle has been lost, but it also has an impact down in Castletownbere and the west of Ireland too, so this is an all-of-Ireland issue. I will engage with the various fishing organisations and talk to the Minister of State. We really need to challenge our diplomatic team. We have to do better here. It really is brazen. As the Minister of State has said, it has cost us anything from €5 million to €6 million per annum. When that is multiplied, it is a serious hit on an industry that is really struggling. I appreciate the offer to meet. I will talk to the fishing organisations and come back to the Minister of State.
2. Deputy Robert O'Donoghue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if the Government acknowledges the significant increase in production costs for farmers in recent years, which many can no longer sustain; and how he plans to address the challenges posed by increasing energy, labour and environmental-compliance costs to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Irish farming sector. [14131/25]
The increase in food production costs in recent years means many farmers no longer find it sustainable. As their costs directly affect consumers, we must tackle this. Dairy farmers report a near 20% rise in production costs in the past year alone. We need to address challenges posed by increasing labour, energy and environmental-compliance costs to ensure the viability of the farming sector, especially in my area of Dublin Fingal West where horticultural producers are under intense pressure from retailers on price.
I start my first Oral Questions as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine by wishing Deputy O'Donoghue well in his role as agriculture spokesperson for Labour and Deputy Kenny as agriculture spokesperson for Sinn Féin. Deputy Mac Lochlainn, who has left because he has an engagement, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, will work on all things to do with fisheries. We look forward to having a constructive relationship, with them holding us to account and us doing our best. We will debate the issues that matter for the betterment of the farming and agriculture sector in this country, which is so important.
I thank Deputy O'Donoghue for his question. The economic sustainability of family farms is a key priority for me and for the Government. Sustainability is a three-legged stool, involving environment, economic and social aspects. If any of those is out of balance, the stool falls over. The economic stability is just as important to keep all three in balance. My Department closely monitors the trends in agriculture costs and prices, with the Central Statistics Office producing agricultural input and output price indices on a monthly basis.
Arising from geopolitical events, the economy generally has experienced significant price inflation in recent years, including inflation fuelled by supply chain disruption and rising energy costs. Agriculture was not immune from this inflation and, as a result, the agricultural input index peaked in November of 2022. It should be noted that costs have decreased by about 20% since their peak, but I absolutely acknowledge that that peak was very high as a result of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and the knock-on implications relating thereto. I acknowledge that they remain relatively high.
The geopolitical circumstances that have occurred to date make food security all the more important. In my constituency of Dublin Fingal West, horticulture is a crucial part of the farming sector. We produce 15% of potatoes nationally, 47% of field vegetables and 37% of fruits, vegetables and nursery plants, making it one of the most important counties in the country for food production. Many farms in Dublin Fingal West supply fresh produce to local markets, supermarkets and for export, contributing to employment and our overall GDP. It plays a significant role in food production. Like all farmers nationally, they want actions to address barriers for farmers, particularly the next generation of farmers who are just as important. Farmers are caught in the crossfire of trying to make a living, trying to do the right thing to ensure the grants are-----
I thank the Deputy. He can come back in.
As the Deputy outlined, volatility is a significant issue. The volatility in input and output costs was reflected in family farm income. Following record years for income in 2021 and 2022, incomes fell in 2023. However, estimates for 2024 and the forecast for 2025 are more positive. Teagasc estimates an average increase of 49% for 2024 - admittedly from a low base - with all sectors estimated to have experienced gains. In 2025, average family farm income is forecast to rise by a further 22%.
I will continue to support farmers through the €9.8 billion CAP strategic plan and via specific supports where required. One of the four missions of Food Vision 2030, our stakeholder-led strategy for the agrifood sector, is for viable and resilient primary producers with enhanced well-being. This places primary producers, our farmers, fishers and foresters, at the core of that strategy.
I attended the Social Justice Ireland presentation in the audiovisual room earlier. The statistics presented are increasingly concerning for the agriculture sector. The average farm income was just under €20,000 in 2023. Some 68% of farms earned less than €30,000 per annum. This data highlights clear challenges. It is clear that farming by itself is not enough to provide an adequate income. I am committed to these farmers and to working with the Ministers to make sure the challenges posed by increasing energy, labour and environmental-compliance costs can be overcome to ensure long-term stability for Irish farming.
The points raised by Deputy O'Donoghue illustrate some of the other challenges we face in this sector. At its heart is the challenge relating to succession. Income is also a key issue - the income the next generation of young male and female farmers can expect to attain. It feeds into their decision as to whether they want to take on the farm or not. That is why Food Vision 2030, our overall guiding stakeholder-led strategy, is focused on: improving the competitiveness and productivity of primary producers; increasing the creation of value and distributing it fairly; introducing greater diversification in production systems and incomes; and improving the social sustainability of primary producers across areas such as generational renewal, gender balance, health and safety, mental health and well-being, and wider rural development.
All of us on the ministerial team in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine will continue to engage with our stakeholders to ensure the long-term economic, environmental and social sustainability of the sector.
3. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if his Department will re-examine how peatlands and mineral rich soil lands are designated for good agricultural and environmental condition 2, GAEC 2; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13671/25]
I welcome the Minister and all his colleagues here and wish them all the very best in their term in office in the Department of agriculture. My question is on GAEC 2 and how peatlands and mineral-rich soils are being designated under that scheme. As the Minister knows, the proposal sent to Europe is that if a parcel of land has 50% or more of peatlands all of the parcel will be considered as peatland. This is very unfair and will have a really detrimental effect particularly in areas along the west coast and in the north west.
I thank Deputy Kenny and look forward to working with him in the term ahead.
I thank the Deputy for raising this really important issue about which there has been a lot of concern - I absolutely understand that - for farmers who are working on peat-based or carbon-rich soils. There has been an element of misinformation or misunderstanding of what the GAECs are. I am happy to have the opportunity again to put on the record of the House that GAEC 2 is a baseline requirement under the CAP regulations for the protection of carbon-rich soils. It is legally required to be put in place for 2025 as part of the basic income support for sustainability.
On the question posed, extensive consultation has taken place over the past two years with stakeholders about the land area to be subject to the conditionality and how it is to be controlled. The proposed approach is that, where a parcel has a 50% or greater overlap of carbon-rich soils, then the parcel is a GAEC 2 parcel. To apply a different threshold than 50% would either bring far more mineral soils into the standard or leave too much peat soil outside the protection of the standard, meaning it would probably not be acceptable to the Commission.
While there is no consensus among stakeholders, I believe this percentage strikes the right balance. There is concern around 100,000 ha of mineral-rich soils coming in. We have to use the land parcel identification system, LPIS, at the smallest controllable area to reference. If we did not use the 50% carbon-rich peat soil element, we would be in a position where could bring in 880,000 ha of mineral-rich soil. Nobody wants that. This is a practical approach that meets the baseline conditionality of what we want to do.
On the inclusion mineral soils, the conditionality requirements must be controlled at a land parcel level. Trying to isolate parts of the parcel where activities can or cannot take place is not practical and would be difficult to control from both a farmer and administrative perspective. A clear, parcel-based approach, based on well understood maps, is a fair way to ensure that we get the required protection in place and farmers have no uncertainty as to the requirements. It is in all our interests for farmers to have certainty. This is why we are waiting for a response from the Commission.
I thank the Minister. It was pretty much the reply I had expected. To be honest, I do not agree. The parcel is well understood, everyone knows what it is and it is there for several other schemes, but in GAEC 8 and GAEC 9 relating to Natura 2000 lands, for example, one can red-line out the area. There is no reason that cannot be done when it comes to peatlands as well. There is no reason we cannot come up with a solution to designate the peatlands only and leave the mineral-rich soils apart from them.
This is going to have a detrimental effect on people, particularly those on smaller holdings. Consider the farmer who has 25 ha or 30 ha and 50% of that is peatland. All of that is designated. Another farmer, perhaps in another part of the country where there are much larger holdings, could have a larger portion that is peatland and yet none of it would be designated as peatland because the farmer has a larger portion of mineral-rich soils. A scheme needs to be brought in that will protect the carbon-rich soils without creating a situation where we disenfranchise farmers on smaller holdings, which is what this approach will do.
There was extensive analysis of this by officials in my Department and engagement with farm organisations over past two years on trying to come to a solution. This is the most practical approach. It will have no direct impact on a farmer's daily activity on that land. I take issue with the statement that this will have a detrimental effect on farmers.
In response to the Deputy's specific question about how we adjudicate on what is in and what is out, it can lead to an inference that it is important to be out. It will not actually make a material difference to farmers' day-to-day activities. Due to our negotiation with the Commission - we hope it will approve the proposal that is with it now - that day-to-day activity can continue. It allows ploughing and reseeding to happen. It allows for the maintenance of existing drains and even for new drainage in line with existing planning requirements.
This is not the figure. It is only a baseline requirement for the single farm payment. That is what is required here. GAEC 8 and GAEC 9 use the LPIS as a small controllable area.
I understand that and I take the Minister's point but at the end of the day, there are issues, particularly in my part of the world, with people in rural areas finding it difficult to get planning permission. If their lands are designated, what will happen if they are in GAEC 2? Will that be an issue for them?
There are also serious problems for farmers with ambitions to expand their lands or grow their holdings. They need reassurance on the future value of that land. They need to get reassurance around all of those issues to make this palatable for farmers. Many farmers, particularly in the west and north west, are organising public meetings. They are annoyed and upset that this will be another designation that is detrimental to their future. We need to bring in schemes and measures that show farmers there is a future in agriculture and do not make it more restrictive and close it down.
I want to work with the Minister on this. We all want to get it across the line, but what is being presented is scaring farmers. That should not be happening.
I agree because what is being presented is not what is reality. The Deputy used the word "designation", so I am not surprised that farmers are petrified. This is not a designation. It is a baseline requirement for applying for a single farm payment, or the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, scheme, as it is now known. Of course farmers would have concerns on that but a planning authority would not know whether a land parcel is in or out of GAEC 2. It will have absolutely no impact on somebody applying for planning, whether it is mineral soil or the peat element. The same rules apply for planning for the sceptic tank, for example. Someone does the subsurface T test to determine whether there is peat. That is completely separate to this. This is not a designation. I understand why farmers are petrified. I have seen videos from other political entities engaging in scaremongering, linking this with nature restoration and lots of other things, and playing on farmers' concerns. This is not that. This is not something that, in the years to come, will have a significant impact on farmers. This will not have loads of farmers in breach of this in years to come because I have made sure that the process that has gone to the Commission will allow day-to-day activity to continue as normal.
5. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the way his Department will address the increases in the cost of production of milk in order that these costs are not passed on to consumers in supermarkets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13672/25]
This relates to the increase in the cost of production, particularly in the milk sector. The dairy sector stated last week that it had serious issues and was going to have to pass the high cost of production on to the consumer. The dairy sector, which has been important for Ireland, especially in terms of exports, will be looking at what happens tonight across the water, given exports of Kerrygold and how Kerrygold is the second largest selling butter in the United States. The threats that come from all of that are serious.
I agree. Everyone is concerned about what will happen with the tariffs from the United States and the impact they will have on our agrifood sector. America is our second biggest market. We export €2 billion worth of agrifood and drink products to there, with butter and dairy being a key component of that, the butter market alone accounting for nearly €500 million. Of the 59,000 tonnes of butter that the EU exports to the US, 51,000 tonnes comes from Ireland. It is the pride of our Kerrygold brand that it is in such a premium position in the US market. This is why, next week, I will travel to the United States on an agrifood trade mission to meet political representatives in Washington, Irish agrifood companies and American companies that engage with us greatly.
To make sure we can offset the worst impacts, we continue to engage at European level with our counterparts as well. The Tánaiste, as the Minister with responsibility for trade, has dealings with the Commissioner. With my role in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels, we continue to make every point about the direct impact that tariffs and countermeasures could have on our agrifood sector.
On the specific question, as the Minister for agriculture, I do not have a role in setting or controlling prices for any commodity, but working with the Minister of State, Deputy Grealish, I have responsibility for working on new market development and trade, making sure we open more opportunities for Ireland, continue to enhance the markets we are in and grow the value added in those places, and continue to seek new markets so that we are never dependent on one individual market. This week is a good example, as Brexit was before, of why we do that.
As part of its role in supporting the sector, however, my Department monitors developments in prices received and costs borne by Irish farmers. The Central Statistics Office reports on a monthly basis agricultural outputs, trends and prices paid to farmers for their produce, and agricultural input prices paid by farmers for purchases of goods and services. Over the 12 months to January 2025, the overall agricultural output price index, which is prices, rose by 20%. The first monthly indications for 2025 are positive, with output prices rising by 2% compared to the previous January and input costs falling by almost 5%.
I suppose it goes back to the old adage that the farmer is the one person who pays a retail price for his or her inputs and takes a wholesale price for his or her outputs. That is the crux of this issue. The cost that farmers have to pay for fertiliser, feed, diesel for the tractor or whatever is constantly climbing, yet they see their margins getting tighter and tighter. This is the issue at hand. While new markets will assist, we need to be going for the top shelf. We need to make sure we are getting the top price for the very high-quality product we export all over the world. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. We need to work harder to make sure that we can come up with innovative means of reducing the cost for farmers as much as possible while also increasing the price they get for the product they produce. Too often, it has been the case that the people in the middle make most of the money. It is the farmer that takes all the risks, gets up at night to make sure the cow calves and looks after the lambs. The farmers do all of that work, yet they take the least when it comes to the squeeze in the market.
That is why new markets and continuing to grow our market share in existing markets is so important. Our job in the Department of agriculture is to meet all of the regulatory requirements of other countries so that we can can gain market access and trade there.
It is then up to the Irish food processors and food companies to see that the price they are getting for Irish farmers’ produce is the best they can get. The more markets they have open to them, the more opportunities they have. Not filling a market that we open with produce straightaway is not a sign of failure. My Department has achieved by giving a range of options so farmers’ produce can yield the best possible return. At the heart of Food Vision 2030 is getting the greatest return for our produce and adding value.
At present, the current trends for dairy farmers are positive with regard to input and output prices. Milk experienced a significant agricultural output price increase of 33% in the 12-month period to January 2025. In the same period, the price of agricultural inputs fell by 3.7%, with notable reductions in the prices of electricity, feed and fertilisers.
Yes. I am aware that there has been a slight improvement in that input costs have decreased from what they were when the war started in Ukraine. That was really the time that we saw them skyrocket through the roof. The market has settled a little but farmers are still paying very high prices, particularly for inputs such as fertiliser. While I accept that it is not the Minister’s job to set the price of anything, a greater effort needs to be made to ensure that we not only market our projects to get the best price for farmers but also assist the industry to achieve the lowest input costs for farmers so they can increase their margins. I am referring in particular to the costs of feed and fertiliser.
The value of agricultural output rose by 8% to €12.2 billion in 2024. This was driven mainly by a 17% increase in milk prices as milk accounts for one third of the value of agricultural output overall. These trends can change, however. As we know, there is considerable volatility in the sector and this presents a really big challenge for our farmers and food industry. My Department closely monitors the trends, reflecting the volatile nature of input and output prices in the agrifood sector.
The overall strategy, Food Vision 2030, has four interlinked missions at its core, one of which is ensuring the resilience of primary producers. A number of actions have already been taken to improve the position of farmers in the supply chain in recent years: increased market transparency reporting, including the reporting of the weekly selling price for drinking milk; the introduction of the Agricultural and Food Supply Chain (Unfair Trading) Regulations 2023; and, obviously, the establishment of the Agri-Food Regulator, which is another key element in bringing transparency to the system and ensuring fairness in the relationship between the primary producer, processor and retailer.
6. Deputy Erin McGreehan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to outline the plans in place in case of another foot and mouth outbreak, considering recent outbreaks in Europe. [15814/25]
I ask this question on foot and mouth disease because my community, neighbours and family farm were devastated in 2001 when all our animals had to be culled because of the disease. In light of foot and mouth disease being detected all across Europe, including in Slovakia, Germany and Hungary, I would like to know how ready this country will be if there is an outbreak. What are we doing to stop foot and mouth disease, and also bluetongue disease, from coming to this country?
I thank Deputy McGreehan for raising what is a really important point. The recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in Hungary, Slovakia and Germany have highlighted the ongoing threat posed by the disease to Irish livestock. FMD is present in large parts of the developing world, causing major losses to livestock farmers and presenting a continuous risk of spread to parts of the world that are normally free from the disease, such as Ireland.
My Department has comprehensive contingency plans in place to deal with FMD, covering suspect cases, confirmed disease outbreaks and the question of how we would eradicate the disease following an incursion. Simulation exercises are carried out by my officials and the plan is updated as and when needed.
My Department is carrying out an ongoing public awareness campaign to highlight the risk of foot and mouth disease to Ireland. This includes posters at airports and ports to raise vigilance. Livestock owners in Ireland are advised to implement biosecurity measures to mitigate the risk of an outbreak of the disease in this country. Furthermore, anyone coming from an FMD-affected region should avoid entering a farm for 14 days following arrival in Ireland to prevent the risk of contaminated clothing, footwear, vehicles or equipment coming into contact with livestock.
Any vehicles bringing livestock or horses from Hungary, Slovakia or any other affected area to Ireland should be thoroughly disinfected. Officials have carried out a communications campaign for type 2 transporters - that is, people authorised to transport animals - in this regard. I can confirm that there have been no movements of FMD-susceptible species, namely cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, buffalo and camelids, into Ireland from any of the impacted areas in the period since 1 January 2025, which is the potential risk period.
Within my Department, preparations are ongoing to heighten our preparedness for all eventualities and to ensure a prompt and effective response to any suspect FMD case. I thank the Deputy for raising this. I understand she is doing so based on the experience of people in Louth had at the time of the FMD outbreak in 2001. We never want to experience that again. The Deputy should rest assured that if, God forbid, there is another outbreak, we stand ready.
I thank the Minister. It is good to hear that we have protocols at ports. The Minister alluded to North–South co-operation at ports like Larne. As we know, foot and mouth disease came in across the Border on the last occasion. There had been an outbreak in Meigh, south Armagh. It is very important, therefore that we have the protocols.
There was considerable co-operation back in 2001 from the families and farms of the Cooley peninsula. We worked very hard to make sure we saved the rest of the country from the foot and mouth outbreak. I do not believe there would be the same co-operation today if the disease were back in the Cooley Mountains, especially because some sheep farmers on the Cooley peninsula have still not received the same amount of money as other farmers received or were entitled to based on the value of their flocks. I have spoken to the Minister about this and really hope we can engage with the farming organisations and farmers on this. At the minute, we have a two-tier payment system for a 2001 scheme.
On the point on our island status, I have collaborated very closely with my counterpart Andrew Muir in Stormont, who has responsibility on his side of the Border, be it in respect of avian flu, the potential risk of FMD or, as the Deputy mentioned in her original question, bluetongue. Bluetongue is prevalent in England and is it a very major concern for us as we head into the time of year when its risk of spread by midges increases. The island of Ireland is one epidemiological unit. Diseases and animals do not know where an invisible border is and therefore we work very closely with our counterparts. To take the example of avian flu, our response was very much co-ordinated. We both issued a housing order at the same time, mindful that some of the outbreaks were very close to the Border. What happens in one housing unit could happen in another.
I will address the other points in my response to the Deputy’s supplementary question.
At the minute, we have a two-tier compensation scheme for sheep farmers. Some farmers took a legal case and other farmers trusted in the State and believed their circumstances would be reviewed after the legal case. They did so in good faith. Owing to the considerable co-operation, we owe it to the affected farmers on the Cooley peninsula to upgrade their compensation package in line with that available to other farmers.
I understand the historic nature of the issue and respect the fact that the Deputy is raising it almost 24 years since the outbreak in 2001, which had a dreadful impact on the whole country but particularly on the Cooley area. I take on board the points the Deputy raised. The matter has an historic nature. I am aware that there were legal cases.
