Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 2024

Before we begin, I want to bring to the attention of witnesses that within the parliamentary precincts, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action arising out of anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as do witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. The privilege against defamation does not apply to publications by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

The purpose of the second session of today's meeting is for the committee to undertake an examination of the TAM and ACRE schemes. The committee will hear from the following officials from the Department of Food, Agriculture and the Marine: Mr. Paul Savage, assistant secretary, rural development of forestry, Ms Josephine Brennan, principal officer, Ms Michelle Kearney, principal officer and Mr. John Muldowney, principal officer. I welcome them to this evening's meeting. I will now allow Mr. Savage five minutes to make an opening statement

I would like to thank the Chairman for this invitation to address the committee regarding the TAM and ACRE schemes.

The agri-climate rural environment scheme, or ACRES as it is generally known, is, as members of the committee know, Ireland’s main agri-environment climate measure in our CAP strategic plan from 2023 to 2027. An indicative allocation of €1.5 billion has been made to the scheme over its duration. The scheme has been designed to address a range of environmental objectives, including in relation to biodiversity, improvement of water quality and climate mitigation. It is an ambitious scheme and its design has been informed by its predecessor, GLAS, by the results-based environment agri-pilot programme known as REAP and by the various agricultural projects supported under the European innovation partnerships programme.

A key underlying principle in the scheme design is the location of the right action in the right place in order to optimise the benefits of the various management practices or actions. There are two significant innovations compared with previous environmental schemes. The first is the adoption of two approaches, namely, a general approach and a co-operation approach, with the latter available in eight defined geographical areas of high nature value lands. The other innovation is the incorporation of results-based payments, whereby the level of payment is determined by the score, or environmental status, assigned to the relevant land. ACRES has proven to be very attractive to farmers, with both tranches oversubscribed. It had been intended that intake would be phased, with 30,000 to be accepted in tranche 1 and a further 20,000 in tranche 2. However, given the level of interest demonstrated by farmers, the Minister decided that all valid applications in each tranche would be accepted. The result is that there are now just under 55,000 active participants in the scheme.

The implementation of a new scheme can be challenging and this has been the case with ACRES. The main contributory factors have been the considerably more ambitious and complex nature of the scheme, which has required the development of new administrative and IT systems to accommodate the two approaches that I mentioned, as well as the introduction of results-based payments, the significant additional workload, both for the Department and for advisers and co-operation project teams involved in the scheme, associated with scoring land and the intake of a greater number of applicants in tranche 1 in 2023 than had been planned. These have presented difficulties for all involved but we have been working through them resolutely, collaboratively and with a determination to succeed with what is a considerable step up and indeed a step change, in how agri-environmental programmes are undertaken in Ireland. I wish to acknowledge the immense contribution of the ACRES co-operation project teams and farm advisers in rising to this challenge.

It is important also to note that there have been many positive and important achievements under the scheme to date. One of the most striking is the fact that 25% of all land under agricultural management in Ireland has been environmentally assessed and scored and will continue to be scored in the next few years. This will provide a massive and unprecedented knowledge base that will inform future policy right across Government. The Department has also been responsive to issues that have arisen over the last year, for example by providing extensions to deadlines for the completion of certain ACRES actions impacted by bad weather or land conditions. In terms of payments to farmers, advance payments of €88.4 million issued to 19,719 ACRES participants between December 2023 and February 2024. When it became apparent that additional time would be required to pay the remaining participants, nationally funded interim payments totalling €119.5 million were made to those participants who had not received their advance payments by mid-February 2024. The result was that payments totalling €207.9 million had issued to 44,780 ACRES participants by early March 2024. The Department commenced balancing payments on 19 June, and 31,081 participants have been paid to date. Further balancing payments will continue to be made on a fortnightly basis as cases are cleared. There is still much work to do. Tranche 2 is currently being rolled out, year 2 scoring of lands is now in full swing and work is ongoing on the introduction of non-productive investments and landscape actions, which will gather pace over the coming months. The close collaboration that I mentioned earlier with advisors and co-operation project teams will continue to be central to the delivery of the latter elements, as they also provide their own challenges. However the focus will be on ensuring that these can be delivered in as timely a manner as possible.

Turning to the targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, or TAMS 3, a total of 21,115 applications were submitted in the first three tranches, the final one of which closed on 12 April. To date, more than 13,800 approvals have issued, with approvals in respect of all tranche 2 applications expected to issue by the end of this month. There has been some commentary on the delayed roll-out of TAMS 3. Development of the scheme has involved a significant upgrade of systems to cater for the new investments and increased ceilings across the various schemes. In addition, the huge number of applications in tranche 1, amounting to more than 8,000, was four times the average amount received per tranche under TAMS 2, while the 21,115 applications received over the first three tranches is almost three times the volume of applications received in the corresponding three tranches of TAMS 2.

A priority access facility was provided to assist farmers that required the construction of slurry and manure storage facilities, or urgent animal welfare-related investments for the winter of 2023-24. All applications received under this facility have now been assessed. I also point out that more than 50% of all investments are in respect of mobile equipment. Applicants may purchase the mobile equipment at their own risk, subject to verification of eligibility in accordance with the terms and conditions of the relevant schemes. TAMS 3 payments commenced in June and payments are continuing to issue on a weekly basis. To date, approximately €3.5 million in payments have issued to farmers.

Overall, TAMS has been a hugely successful and beneficial scheme since its inception. The suite of schemes now available in TAMS 3 is the best mechanism for ensuring that funding is targeted at the most appropriate enterprises. It delivers key modernisation, environmental and safety improvements on thousands of farms, while also boosting local economies in the construction phase of developments.

My colleagues and I are happy to answer any questions committee members may have.

We will not have a specific figure for what is owed until we calculate what the actual payments due to each participant are. As I said earlier, we have paid 31,000 farmers and we have paid a total of just over €230 million over the period of the programme so far. As we work through the remaining payments, which we are doing in fortnightly pay runs over the next number of weeks, it will become clear exactly what the level of payments due to each of those participants is and in comparison to the interim payments that have been issued in those cases, we will reconcile the amounts that are due to those farmers at that point in time. We still have to process all of this.

Realistically, when does the Department envisage this happening? Every one of us is getting it from farmers, especially when there are those assessments on flowers and the co-operation project zones. When does the Department reckon that those farmers will be paid? It is my understanding that many of the low-lying farmers, which was the more simpler part of it, would be paid fairly well, whereas if assessments are to be done on the habitat, it is more complicated. The computer is obviously not able to do it. I do not know the reason. When does the Department reckon that farmers will be paid and all the problems sorted?

As I said earlier, we are working on fortnightly payments over the next period. The remaining 14,000 participants will be paid on a fortnightly basis as those payments are cleared. The Department is working on the basis that we want to have the vast bulk of those paid by September, and by the time we get through the second pay run in September of this year. How quickly we get through those cases will depend on the nature of the queries that are outstanding in respect of them. When we process the payments and when we carry out our prepayment validations, there are always issues raised in terms of clarity. In addition, we have to get clarifications. This may be due to our own internal systems and making sure that information is, for example, consistent between this and ACRES or because of the direct communication we must engage in with advisers and farmers around for things like change of ownership, withdrawal of actions and particular elements that we have to resolve in the context of finance with the advisers. Work is ongoing. We have been doing all of that work over the past number of months. As we resolve those cases, we will issue payments on a fortnightly basis. It is our intention that the vast bulk of them will be paid in September, with the exception of those where there are genuine issues the context of change of ownership and other things.

No, there is not. That was mentioned earlier. The complexity of the scheme is quite considerable, especially when one comes to the co-operation project areas and payments are calculated on the basis of results. We really must have all of the data processed correctly by our computer system in order to generate an accurate payment. If we were to try to do it manually, we would end up having to go back over it from an IT perspective later on. There would also probably be increased potential for error if we were to try to pull out information to do it manually. Given that such a wide variety of information has to be drawn together to calculate those payments, it would involved an inordinate effort.

Looking down the road to four years from now, I ask that when this is perfected, the Department does not go chopping and changing. Maybe it could give more options to farmers in order that if they do not want to be in co-ordination project zones, it would be up to them to decide if they wanted to go into separate schemes. If the criteria type is perfected on the IT system, chopping and changing every five years would problematic in the context of setting up any of the schemes. Will the Department seek to simplify the method for paying farmers as much as possible in order that they will be paid on time?

Just give more options. If they do not want to be in co-ordinated projects zones or if they want to go into something else other than growing flowers, let them do that.

Mr. Savage made a comment to the effect that a certain area of the country has been environmentally assessed and that it could be used for policy purposes later on. To which policy was Mr. Savage referring?

It was a general point about use. I mentioned it from a whole-of-government point of view. We now have the type of quality data coming out of ACRES that we really have not had before. It is not just data coming from the scheme itself with regard to the results-based growing that is happening around the country, it is also in the context of the things we have to do as part of the capital strategic plan implementation such as evaluating and monitoring the impact of that on biodiversity, and other environmental criteria as well. All the data being collected now as part of the scheme, and which will be added to in the context of monitoring the overall impact of the scheme, are new, fresh and up to date. This is a baseline that we simply have not had up until now in the context of the biodiversity impact, habitats and the state of lands throughout the country. We have certainly not had data on this scale in terms of 25% agricultural land, which is 1.15 million ha we have scored. This provides massive potential in the context of making those environmental schemes more effective in the future and when it comes to collaboration with colleagues in other Departments, for example, the Department of housing, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and elsewhere. We can combine our efforts in a more targeted way to achieve improvements from the point of view of biodiversity, water quality or whatever. In principle, the more data one has in these situations, the better quality programme one can implement. That is what I was getting at there. It was a general point. We can explore the possibilities in the future as how these data might be used but I think the very fact we have them, and such a comprehensive scope of information, provides major potential for the future.

On TAMS, is there any focus on the derogation, which, I believe, will be coming up for Ireland next year? At present, farmers get a grant if they have a derogation. Will there be any aspects of TAMS available - for instance, if they needed to put down extra tanks - or is it just for soiled water? On the basis of the figures the Department has given us in respect of TAMS, it seemed to be slow enough in reaching decisions. Will that speed up as we go forward? Is TAMS like ACRES in that a new system is set up again every five years? Will Mr. Savage explain that? Is it the setting up of the new system and everything that is bogging us down, as the man says?

I will take the second question first because it relates to what the Deputy asked about ACRES. With regard to TAMS being slow enough in getting up and running, we must bear in mind the challenge. Consider the timeline for what we had to put in place under the CAP strategic plan. We got our formal approval from the Commission on 31 August of 2022. We have been trying to scope out and design our systems but, in effect, until we got the approval from the Commission, we did not know for sure what the detail of the schemes was going to be. That was from August 2022. We had to have schemes up and running and in place in 2023. We went ahead and introduced 15 of the 18 CAP strategic plan schemes in 2023 across pillars 1 and 2. There was a major effort across the board in introducing all of these schemes concurrently. It was not just about introducing the schemes. We had to roll out the schemes while putting administrative structures and new IT systems in place. It required significant co-operation and project planning to put all of those things in place concurrently. This goes to the point made by the Deputy about not wanting to change the pitch totally every five years. If we can avoid doing that, then we absolutely must. If we can minimise the overall development work-----

Can it be avoided? Does the Department need to get approval? This is what I am trying to get at. Could the Department stay with the same thing and say to the guys in Brussels "This is working, so off with ye"? Would the Department be within its rights to do that? Is giving more money, or taking it in, a Government decision? With the measures that are there, does the Department have the right to continue it?

In next programme, it will depend on the outcome of the negotiations on the next CAP framework. We do not know what that will look like. We had to comply with the new framework this time around and there was quite a considerable change. This round of CAP reform we are implementing is quite a considerable departure from previous CAP reforms.

It is quite extensive compared with previous reforms. We had to make quite considerable changes, not just to the schemes we were used to from an environmental point of view, such as the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, in the past, but the new schemes we introduced. For argument's sake, if member states agreed in the next CAP negotiation that they wanted to have an evolution rather than the revolution we have gone through over the past couple of years, and if it were a case of steady as she goes and taking things forward in a more measured way, from our point view, we would have much more scope to move forward in a way that would not be as disruptive, shall we say, as has been the case with all these new schemes we have introduced over the past two years. That is certainly possible. In a way, however, that will be dictated by the outcome of the CAP negotiations next time around, the flexibility we will have in responding to those negotiations and the new regulatory framework, and putting in place the measures that we can. As I said, we will try to do that but it will depend on the framework.

I will very quickly answer the point on TAMS being slow to get off the ground. That is also related to the fact that we are, and were, concurrently introducing a range of schemes across the board. We had to make a lot of changes to TAMS compared with the last time around. The approvals were slow in getting up and running. If we look at the figures I quoted, however, and we publish our TAMS figures weekly on the website, it will be seen that the approvals have been picking up in a very consistent and considerable way. We are pretty much through the first two tranches of approvals for TAMS 3. We are working through tranche 3 and are also into the stage where we are starting to process payments. We are catching up. It is hoped that when the current tranche closes in September, we will be at the point of essentially catching up and getting back in line with the timelines we saw previously under TAMS 2. That would be approximately 14 weeks from the point where an application-----

I ask the Department to get the payments for TAMS out as quickly as possible. Farmers need that money. They have been waiting for it. The Department allowed large numbers of people into that scheme last year, which was appreciated. It is a good scheme. I ask the Department to try to get the payments out to farmers because, as I said, they are in need of that payment.

I will be brief. I only have a couple of questions. I will not go over ground that has already been covered. Most of our questioning and commentary in situations like this are based on the representations or the volume of calls we get in respect of or relating to particular schemes. Based on that, if I were to honestly answer with regard to my workload since the introduction of ACRES, the biggest issue to highlight, or the greatest number of calls or most contact I had, related to agents. There was a serious issue with the technology agents were putting in plans, in particular, trying to download photographs. There were a few instances where agents were sure they successfully submitted applications only to find out subsequently that not all of the applications went through. There was a great deal of toing and froing with the Department's technology unit, for want of a better term; I do not know if that is what it is called. It took a long time for an admission but, in the end, there was an admission from the Department that it had an issue too. There are customer relations in that regard.

It should have been state upfront that there was an issue with the technology. In fairness to them, some agents carried the can for farmers. If a farmer did not get paid, the first person he or she blamed was the agent. I would like a comment on that side of the technology. We seem to get the technology line when we are talking about payments and the fact payments were delayed or whatever, but there were technology issues long before we ever got the payments, as far as I am aware anyway. I know of many agents who had sleepless nights, as the Secretary General said during the previous session, with regard to this and stuff not getting through. The officials might comment on that with regard to ACRES.

I reiterate a comment I made at a previous meeting at which ACRES was discussed. If it is being rolled out again, even as part of the next CAP, what review of the scheme does the Department do? Did we get the greatest benefit from it? I feel obliged to comment on something I saw first hand that I mentioned previously. I am talking about getting the maximum out of these schemes, in particular with regard to water quality. I am in ACRES. I did the day's training at Teagasc, as did my agent. The farm we were brought to was close to a lake where there were swans. That farmer was in that particular scheme, which meant that he had to strip the land in October. There was a river alongside the field that was all fenced off on the side where we were standing. This was in October. The land had been stripped and the cattle had been moved to the field on the other side of the river, which was not fenced off. Those cattle were drinking from and urinating in the same river for which payment was being made to keep them out of for the previous six months of the year. That was not doing anything for water quality. I would say it was an oversight. I know it was a choice and you did not have to put your entire farm into the scheme, but that was how that particular example panned out. If we are to get maximum benefit from this, what we were gaining in that example as regards water quality going forward was zero. What reviews does the Department do in respect of situations or examples like that in improving the scheme? I am not being critical. It was probably an oversight. It was never thought that kind of contradictory situation could arise but, to avoid that happening again in the next tranche or roll-out of a similar scheme, what internal reviews does the Department do? What improvements do the officials see being made?

Deputy Fitzmaurice covered most of the questions I was going to ask with regard to TAMS other than the reference cost when it comes to the buildings, tanks and sheds. I get a good deal of stuff form the Department about the difference in the Department's reference cost being due to everything that happened over the past couple of years or 18 months with regard to inflation and the war in Ukraine. We know about all the different things that have put upward pressure on prices, especially metals and concrete on the construction side of things. There is a serious gap between the Department's reference cost for a TAMS project and what the project will eventually cost the farmer by the time it has been finished to the specifications that TAMS will make him or her finish it to. I raised this with the Minister previously as a Commencement matter in the Seanad. Where is the Department at with regard to reviewing its reference cost upwards with regard to TAMS bands? Sin é for now.

I will deal with the general question around reviewing, reviewing ACRES and what the Department will do in the context of moving into the next programme. The Senator talked about this a little in terms of how we review the effectiveness of the programme on an ongoing basis. I will take the evolution of ACRES as it stands now into what a new scheme might potentially look like in the next CAP. It is, as a matter of course, our practice to review the experience under the environmental programme when we come to look at a new environmental programme under a new CAP regime. As I mentioned, in the context of looking at a successor to GLAS in the previous programme, we reviewed the experience, performance and impact of GLAS. We reviewed where we got to regarding REAP, as I mentioned, in addition to our experience with the European Innovation Partnership programme. It is fair to say we draw on all the possible information on and experience of implementing the schemes at our disposal before we move into the next iteration of whatever the environmental programme is. That will be a feature next time around as well. When we come around and see the regulatory framework that will be delivered after the next negotiations, we will look at that and at what lessons can be learned from the implementation of ACRES.

We made the point, as did the Secretary General, that there has been a huge shift in the ambition we tried to achieve with ACRES.

The results-based approach to schemes is something that has not been done before. It is a genuine attempt to measure the benefit of environmental expenditure. We are also trying to achieve better results across the board in what we are doing and to get better value for public money at the end of the day. From that point of view, it has been a major step forward. As it was said earlier, we would be happy to let that evolve and continue. It will depend upon what the next framework will look like in the context of the scope we will have to do that.

Overall, this current CAP has moved into a more performance-based approach than was the previous case. There is a new delivery model associated with the implementation of the CAP. Member states are given responsibility to go ahead and design their programmes but they have to be done in a way that is demonstrably contributing to EU objectives. We must be able to demonstrate to the Commission that what we are proposing is going to contribute to the overall EU objectives in the context of the legislation. After that, it is up to us to implement the schemes as effectively and efficiently as we can. They are the things that we will combine and reconcile next time round. We will look at ACRES, at the experience, evaluation and monitoring that we carry out and we will feed that into a consideration for what the next framework will allow us to do. That will certainly be a part of it.

On the training and the water quality issue the Senator mentioned that referred to land stripped and cattle effectively urinating in the water, I am not sure what the Senator was saying there. Was there fencing removed after it had been put in place or was there a reversal of an action that somebody had undertaken?

It was an anomaly that I do not want to see happen again going forward. It was by virtue of the fact that farmers did not have to put their entire holding into ACRES. It was the farm that Teagasc was using for the evening part of the day course. We were in the field that was in ACRES and the watercourse was fenced off. The cattle had been taken off that field by either the first or last day of October. They were moved to the field on the other side of the watercourse, which was not in ACRES and was not fenced. While I do not like to be overcritical, we have to able to avoid situations like that, especially when the watercourse in question is in the one ownership. If it were two different farms, I would say we cannot force the second fellow to come in but the fellow on this side is able to account for it.. It was not a river, it had been drained but it was a good watercourse. Both sides of the watercourse were owned by the same man but only one side was in ACRES. He had got funding through ACRES to fence it off. The cattle were not allowed into it but once he moved them to the other side of the water, that was not doing anything for the water quality.

I might ask Mr. Muldowney to come in on that in a moment. I might ask him to comment on the reference costs as well, after an introductory comment from myself. I want to come back to the point made about the advisers, not just on the problems when it comes to making payments, but problems regarding technology and advisory engagement over the course of the scheme. We have had issues from time to time with access and functioning of systems. There will always be problems with new schemes or systems being put in place, as well as with new technology and new methods being applied to the schemes that might not have been the case previously. There will be issues there, even in terms of capacity, because of the sheer volume of information that is being processed and the number of people who have to engage with the system. We have over 850 advisers around the country who are engaging with ACRES. There will be problems from time to time from an IT point of view. It happens in all walks of life. We try to resolve those issues as quickly as we can. Our IT colleagues are very efficient at resolving those issues where they involve connectivity or capacity issues in order that people can get access. On the administration side, we try to ensure that we are engaging with advisers on an ongoing basis, and try to identify those issues and have them resolved as soon as we can.

There were issues, for instance, where advisers might not have put in the full application. They had put in the farm sustainability plan and thought they had pressed the submit button but they had not. When we were going back over it, we then had not accepted those applications as fully valid applications. When it came to our attention, we went back and reviewed those applications and took action where appropriate. We are happy to do that and to follow up on those things. In the day-to-day access to and functioning of systems, we monitor that closely and we try to respond as quickly as we can to fix those issues. That will again, continue to be a feature of how we do things. As the systems bed down and as we go through this first year of payments and on into the second year, the likelihood is that those systems will settle down and the capacity issues will tend to resolve themselves as people become more familiar with the systems as well. That should be less of a feature for the future. Again, it is something that we will keep under ongoing review.

I will ask Mr. Muldowney to come in on that water quality issue that the Senator mentioned. On the TAMS reference costs, there has been some commentary around this. We will review reference costs and do it on an ongoing basis. The last time we reviewed them was in late 2022 and early 2023, before we introduced TAMS. Mr. Muldowney can correct me if I am wrong but that was the last review. From the evidence we have seen, we are still not too far off the mark as far as reference costs are concerned. We will carry out a review and will look at the costs, the receipts and the evidence we have from the current scheme regarding people who have got their approvals and submitted their claims. We will look at those and at what the evidence is telling us. We will consider it in the broader background from an economic point of view of material and labour costs and other things that are feeding into the equation as well. That will be a feature. We will carry out a fairly extensive review in 2025 when we have the evidence fully there, based on the current payments we have coming through. That should allow us to address any particular issue regarding reference costs being out of kilter. Overall, the evidence is that, in large parts of TAMS, we are still on the money in respect of what the reference costs are, with some exceptions. Does Mr. Muldowney wish to comment any further on that or on the water quality point from earlier?

Starting with the reference costs, again Mr. Savage has highlighted a lot. We are keeping a close eye on what those are. At present, we are reasonably close for most items. There are one or two items where we are out of kilter but how we pull together the costs is based on receipts submitted by farmers. That is the evidence base of what farmers are doing on the ground, so we can see actual costs paid by farmers.

I apologise for interrupting but when both witnesses say the Department is basing its reference cost on receipts from farmers, does that mean it is monitoring or basing its reference costs on jobs that are about to start from the information that has been collected on jobs that are complete? Would that be correct?

That is part of what we look at. The other part we look at is data from quantity surveyors in Ireland and the CSO data, as well as doing spot surveys of engineering companies and building provider companies that are building these sheds with building samples that we have to get a sense of the direction of travel. We are matching up the trends that are there with the big databases like those of the CSO and the quantity surveyors to match with the trends that we are seeing in the receipts that are coming in to see the direction of travel. At no point do we want to race ahead of what the prices are. Otherwise, this simply spurs on the industry to push up the costs. This is always a hard balancing act. We have to try to manage the reference costs to keep them reasonable with what is there. There was a rising reference cost and between July 2021 and the end of 2022, our reference cost increased by nearly 30% in the figures. The Department is trying to track what progress is out there and as I say, at present, we are reasonably close and are happy with what is there for the most part. There are one or two items, machinery items in particular, where they might fall out of kilter for some particular reason but that is one that we keep a close eye on. There have been three reviews since July 2021, which is a lot considering the current trends that are happening there.

On the water quality issue, as Mr. Savage said we do a significant review of what has happened in the previous green environmental schemes and on what consultees have highlighted for improvements for agri-environment going forward. This particular issue was an area where there was a lot of feedback on GLAS to the effect that we were being harsh on farmers. Under GLAS, if a farmer selected the watercourse fencing, they had to fence all watercourses. What we were finding was that many farmers had some small element of a watercourse on a part of their holding that was not fenced properly and they were being penalised on it. This was a way to try to better manage that. Fences were put in targeted areas where there was most pressure. We used the EPA water pressure maps for flow pathways to try to target the most appropriate site for fencing.

In theory, it is not only livestock in the river that is potentially a problem but also the overland flow of everything that is happening in the adjacent area. We still argue that in cases where one side is fenced we see a reduction in nutrient loading from the area of land where the overland flow is coming from. There are swings and roundabouts in how much we want to do. We will take the feedback that perhaps there is something we can look at further with regard to cattle drinking rights. Our statistics illustrate that we have almost 6,500 km of fenced watercourse on farms for which farmers are paid under ACRES. It is a significant achievement and it makes a significant contribution to trying to address water quality, although there are anomalies as the Senator pointed out. It is difficult to address all of them.

I will pick up on the point on technology and advisers. We have fortnightly meetings with Teagasc and the Agricultural Consultants Association on the challenges they have to try to troubleshoot issues and ensure we address their needs. We are always trying to improve the technology. If we take the results-based scoring we have, as Mr. Savage said we scored more than 1 million ha and 6,000 ha of this was done by farm advisers. It would not have been possible without the phone app. This app has significantly improved functionality for 2024 with a view to trying to streamline how advisers engage with the system. It is quite demanding. It is not that we want to leave out advisers. We are trying to bring them along and address their concerns within the system to ensure we are fair and transparent to everyone in the process.

I want to ask about proposed grant that got approval from the European Commission for a 70% TAMS application. This grant was to be promoted to the tillage industry, in particular regarding the storage of slurry. I realise the Commission has given approval but I would like an update on where are we on the technical side to make sure the grant will be available. Does the Department have plans to engage with the tillage industry itself on the uptake of the grant? Some correspondence and papers suggest there is a low appetite for uptake in the industry. Will the witnesses outline their feelings on the grant? When will it happen and what might be the terms and conditions? How will we engage with the sector to make sure there will be appropriate uptake?

The Leas-Chathaoirleach is speaking about the nutrient importation scheme. We are working on it and our intention is to introduce it shortly. We have been developing the terms and conditions and we hope to finalise it very soon. The commitment is very clear that we will introduce the scheme as soon as we can. It will be introduced shortly.

Promoting the scheme and trying to get uptake and buy-in from the sector is a significant issue. There is resistance at some level in the industry regarding how inefficient it could be. What proposals does the Department have to engage directly with the tillage sector in particular to raise awareness of the scheme and to take into consideration the needs of farmers regarding what the scheme can do for them?

In the normal course of events we will announce, publish and publicise the scheme when it becomes available. We are happy to engage with stakeholders as appropriate on the detail of it and how we go about it in making sure people understand the contents of the scheme and how to go about participating in it. We will certainly be doing that and trying to publicise the scheme and making as many people as possible aware of it. We will wait and see what their reaction to it is, what the openness to it is and what the uptake will be. As with other schemes, we will respond accordingly to any issue or query raised by the industry or sector in how we might operate it or how it might suit them in terms of putting arrangements in place. It is probably fair to say we will engage in the normal way and we will endeavour to make sure people are fully aware of the provisions of the scheme and that anybody interested in participating in it has the opportunity to do so. This is essentially the plan from our point of view.

The other element we are looking at generally in TAMS is trying to provide leaflets that might be sector specific on the investments that are there. TAMS is quite a big beast with more than 400 sub-investment items. Very often we get messages back from various stakeholders that they are not aware of all of the items that are there. The question is how we break up 400 investment items into bite-sized packages to make it interesting. The 70% will get a lot of attention from people wondering whether it will suit them. Together with the accelerated capital allowance we are looking at a fairly cost-effective structure on the ground. As Mr. Savage said, we will be doing everything to engage with the sector to improve the uptake of what is there.

Regarding the regulation in place to make sure people qualify for the grant for storage in particular, there is fear in the agricultural sector that people must have enough storage before they can qualify for the grant. This is a barrier when we are looking at where we are going with water quality. Will the witnesses give an indication of this issue? Is this fear actually there with regard to the criteria? If so, what can be done about this issue?

In very simple terms we cannot use TAMS to support people to comply with the legislative requirements that are there. The issue is with regard to people making sure they are in compliance with the regulations in the first place before they seek to secure additional storage capacity through TAMS. There is little room for manoeuvre on this point. Legally from our point of view, people have to be in compliance with the requirements of the legislation. From an EU perspective, we are not in a position to fund any investment that only allows somebody to come up to the compliance threshold. For this reason it is pretty clear-cut that TAMS support will only be available to those who comply with the requirements.

I fully understand what Mr. Savage said. He explained it a lot better than I described it. It is the frustration in the system. We are trying to improve water quality and make sure as many farmers as possible have enough storage. It is about trying to encourage them along this road. It is about trying to make sure we have the potential to make sure everyone has the storage required. Unfortunately, there is the potential for there to be changes and limits with regard to organic excretion rates, which could put the majority of farmers under pressure. If these changes and limits in excretion rates come forward, and farmers are put in a situation whereby they go from being in compliance to being non-compliant, how will it work out? Teagasc produced a report, which meant the excretion rates of a cow were underestimated in recent years. We are now saying they are at a different level. This can take farmers from compliance to a different bracket and rule them out of the opportunity to apply for the grant. How can we round this circle to make sure we reach the water quality targets that have been spoken about so much in recent days?

It is something we are watching closely. We are allowed flexibility in the CAP strategic plan. There is a two-year lag phase for funding received. Anybody who falls behind in compliance because of a change in standards has a two-year window to become compliant and to be paid to meet that compliance. We will use this to the maximum to try to optimise it. There was a one-year lead in the rural development programme. We have been following this, which is why there were changes to reduce the stocking band introduced in the regulation. We followed this a year behind its implementation date.

We are looking at a scenario whereby if the regulation were to change and we were to have a different excretion rate for cows, there would be a two-year lag period.

Will that timeline be announced when that report is published or does the Minister announce the timeline at some stage?

Some 19,150 people were paid the general advance payment between December 2023 and February of this year. At the point that second payment went to those general advance recipients, it was clear we were not going to be able to make the other payments in accordance with the schedule we had set out. That is why we moved down to the interim payments, which meant that the balance of people who had not received the advance payment were then paid the interim payment in February or March.

Regarding the 23,500 people who got the interim payment, obviously at the time they got that payment they were advised by letter that if their scores were different, there was a difference or shortfall or whatever it was, money would be listed as a debt and it would come off future payments. How is that going to work in respect of recoupment? Does the Department know how many of those 23,500 people who got the interim payment got more than they should have and will have a repayment to make?

People will have a number of options to repay. A letter will be going out to every participant who has an outstanding debt and they will be informed of the means by which they can repay that debt. A number of payment options are available to them. People can actually make the payment over the coming period, whatever period it might be. They can do it via electronic funds transfer, by phone, online, by cheque or bank draft and they can contact the Department to discharge that debt. That is available to them and they will be informed of that in writing. If they have not discharged the debt by the time the next payment comes around in respect of the next scheme, which will be the ANC scheme in September effectively, the debt will be recouped from that next payment. Farmers will have an opportunity to discharge it before we get into any further scheme-based payments. In fact, there is some evidence already that some farmers have paid off debt even since the interim payment was issued to them because they would have seen that their payment was higher than they might otherwise have got in ACRES.

The intention is to issue details to farmers around the scoring probably in two weeks. The information will be available on their agfood.ie accounts in approximately two weeks and then shortly after that they will receive that in writing. They will be given an indication of the scores they have achieved and they will also be informed of suggestions around management actions they can put in place to potentially improve their score and their payments.

I want to flag one other issue and then I have one question on TAMS. When ACRES first came out last year, there was huge pressure on advisers. It is important to make this point. In the end, the timeline was moved and that was good and welcome but I hope a lesson will have been learned on that because they were under huge pressure with TAMS, ACRES and everything else. Obviously, the scoring and all of that was there also as it was a new scheme. I presume a lesson will have been learned on that.

We appreciate the fact that there was a huge amount of pressure. The pressure was not just on the Department in introducing the scheme or getting payments up and running. We appreciate that advisers and co-operation project teams were under huge pressure to roll out the scheme; particularly when we decided to take in all applicants as well. That added huge pressure to the system and to advisers as much as anybody else. We are managing that again perhaps a little bit better over the next couple of years where we are allowing people to split the herd or to score in the second year. Some of the herds will be scored in the first year and then the rest will be put out to the third year. We are allowing people to spread that burden out over the remaining years of the programme. As I said earlier, we will work on an ongoing basis very closely and meeting with advisers, as we do on a fortnightly basis, to resolve any issues that are coming up. We will try to make sure the burden is easier and is more widely spread out.

In fact, as the Deputy mentioned, we had just been talking about that before she came back. We are at a pretty advanced stage in putting the scheme together and putting together terms and conditions on that. We are just finalising that at the moment and we hope to be in a position to announce the details of that scheme very shortly.

I thank the witnesses for their attendance. On behalf of the committee, I thank them for their contributions. The next public meeting will be held on Wednesday, 10 July at 5.30 p.m. when the committee will resume its examination of the issue regarding nitrates derogation and the impact of Ireland. Since there are no further matters, the meeting stands adjourned.