Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Dec 2023

I welcome the fact the Minister issued a statement recently about approvals for TAMS. I note there have been delays with TAMS and I very much welcome the issue of approvals. It is important to get approvals under way as quickly as possible. I am particularly anxious those approvals would be issued where people have applied for accommodation in respect of animal welfare issues and the storage of slurry and manure. I welcome that, once again, the Minister is attaching a priority to those types of applications. It is important from several points of view, both from animal welfare and from an environmental point of view, that those types of projects be given priority.

As then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith put in massive investment through the then TAMS which made a very substantial difference on farms. I thank the Deputy for raising the issue and for his continued pressing for this scheme and the successor scheme over recent months.

TAMS 3 provides grants to farmers to build and-or improve a specified range of farm buildings and equipment on their holdings. I have significantly increased the number of items that can be claimed for under TAMS 3 compared with before. Up to last year, there were 300 items which were eligible for either 40% or 60% grant aid. There are now approximately 430. It is a massive improvement from last year to this year in terms of Government backing of on-farm investment.

Overall, the scheme, as the Deputy can understand, has proved very popular as a result. The first tranche of TAMS 3, which closed on 30 June 2023, had a record 8,241 applications across the various sectors. Applications received across all of the measures in tranche 1 are being processed. Once the initial processing is completed, all applications are subject to a ranking and selection process, but we have accepted all 100% into that.

To assist farmers who required the construction of slurry and manure storage facilities for the spring and were waiting on approval and needed it urgently, I provided an urgent facilitation so that farmers who needed to get the work done were able to apply and able to do it this winter and into the spring. We have issued 252 in that regard. Non-priority approval letters for tranche 1 applications have commenced, starting with the solar capital investment scheme. It is anticipated the majority of approvals under tranche 1 will issue by April 2024. To address the issue where approval is required urgently, my Department is putting in place a mechanism that will allow applicants or their advisers who have an urgent need to commence works to contact their Department local office and to have their application expedited.

I thank the Minister for the reply and the progress he is making with TAMS. I understand why he would have a closing date tomorrow in regard to tranche 2. Planners have been under extreme pressure because of the number of schemes and, unfortunately, some may be caught who have not submitted applications. I understand at the same time that the Minister wants to get to the next cohort of farmers as well, and it is important they are processed as quickly as possible. When people make plans, they are putting in place financial arrangements and, unfortunately, costs continue to rise.

I would make one point with regard to housing and slurry and manure storage capacity. I am aware from my time in the Department with the farm waste management scheme of how important it was for farms, especially in the less advantaged areas. One issue, and it is not strictly within the question today, is the exclusion of dribble bars from grant aid. The Minister will be familiar with the type of terrain - the drumlin country - we have in Cavan-Monaghan, etc. We have hilly land and heavy land which is not free drainage. The exclusion of dribble bars creates particular problems for those smaller scale farmers who want to do as much environmental work as possible. Maybe that could be considered for inclusion once again.

I thank Deputy Smith. To follow on from what I was saying earlier, 100% of the 8,000 plus applications that applied in tranche 1 were approved. Anybody who applied was eligible for the grant.

Yesterday, I made a decision on tranche 2. It has been open since the start of July. Anybody can apply between July and now. Up to a few days ago, we had almost 3,000 applications. I wanted to make sure we could close that tranche in a way that they could start to be processed because I want those who have applied for that who want to do their work next year to be able to get on with it. If I had let that tranche run much longer, it would have run until the start of next year and would have affected that.

By announcing a closing date, I did not want to announce it for 1 January. Advisers have had a tough enough year and I did not want them having an avalanche of new applicants coming at them in the next week or two running up to Christmas. I wanted, at the same time, to give two or three days so that if they had something on their desk which was near completion, they could get it in. That is why the closing date is tomorrow evening. I also announced in the process that the next closing date will be 12 April. The next tranche will close on 12 April. Anyone who wishes to submit an application from next week onwards will have to 12 April.

I am still considering the dribble bar issue and I acknowledge the points the Deputy makes in that regard.

I very much welcome the Minister's confirmation that he is considering the dribble bar. In my own territory - we all are more familiar with our own constituencies than elsewhere - farmers want to invest but there are big costs involved. It should be borne in mind the difficulty that will arise for those now with 150 kg N/ha and that they have to invest in particular machinery and may not be able to get grant aid. If the Minister can make progress on including the dribble bar again, it will be beneficial, both from an environmental point of view and for the individual farmers as well.

The point Deputy Smith makes about terrain is a fair one and it has been made to me. Under the outgoing TAMS scheme up to the end of last year, for a dribble bar for low-emission slurry spreading or for the trailing shoe one, the grant aid was 40%. The trailing shoe machine is more expensive than the dribble bar and it is also bigger, but some of the research that came through to me was that the emissions reductions and the efficiency of the trailing shoe was much better than the dribble bar. That is why we have not included the dribble bar at present. If you are making a big long-term investment such as that, you want to make sure it will be good and efficient. We increased to 60% the grant aid for the more expensive trailing shoe machine so that the net cost to the farmer would be the same as if he or she had bought a dribble bar.

The Deputy has a point regarding the terrain. I will consider that and I am also finalising further research on the emissions efficiency before making a final decision on whether we will include it.

In the decisions I made yesterday on tranche 2, I have once again approved 100% of all valid applicants. Anyone who has a mobile application can go ahead and buy at their own risk on the basis that they will recoup the cost.

I thank Deputy Farrell for raising this matter. I can confirm that Teagasc has submitted a preliminary proposal to my Department to establish a centre for sustainable animal and grassland research at Moorepark in Fermoy. The new centre will replace the existing, out-of-date grassland laboratory and metabolism house facilities in Moorepark. Teagasc developed this proposal with the objective of facilitating research that can provide innovative solutions to improve the environmental sustainability of our very good pasture-based systems.

I was pleased last week to attend a Teagasc event to announce that the FBD Group has agreed to provide €6 million towards the development of the centre. This is a very significant contribution by the group and a welcome development for farmers and the agriculture sector in general. I thank the FBD Group for its very generous financial support towards this project.

Teagasc will now be engaging in detailed planning and design of the new centre, which will be subject to the normal approvals process and controls for capital projects in the public sector as set out in the public spending code. I also add that last week we announced that the new centre will be called the Padraig Walshe centre for sustainable animal and grassland research in recognition of his contribution to Irish farming, and indeed at the time of his untimely passing he was chair of FBD. This €6 million towards this project has come forward from the FBD Group in recognition of his legacy. I look forward to the detailed plans being developed in the months ahead and their submission to my Department for approval, in consultation with the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform.

I commend Teagasc on bringing the project to this stage of development. We are very fortunate, as I am sure Deputy Farrell will agree, to have an organisation like Teagasc to support farmers on the journey to drive down greenhouse gas emissions and further improve the sustainability of the agriculture sector. It is very important it continues to play a very significant role, which it has always done so well, in producing food.

I thank the Minister very much for the response. I am very fortunate to be very familiar with Teagasc's operations. It has two in Fingal, one large and one small, and it plays an invaluable role in agriculture. This is a relatively new departure for myself in the sense of the sustainable farming model, which is extraordinarily important as we move towards 2030 and beyond, in particular in the level of research required to ensure we are as sustainable as possible and to ensure we are able to support farm families, which, of course, is critical to the process of decarbonising all sectors of our society.

I very much welcome the information that the Minister has provided me with. It is very good to hear about FBD's very significant contribution, and it certainly is that. I do not think any organisation putting €6 million into a research project facility is taking its responsibilities lightly. I commend it on doing so and I look forward to the progress that will be made within the new facility in Fermoy.

I thank the Deputy for those comments. This is an exciting new development. That new centre for sustainable animal and grassland research will be an important project in reaching 25% emissions reductions by 2030. With the challenges facing the dairy industry in the form of emissions, the centre will help Teagasc to expand its research capacity in grass physiology, animal physiology, animal nutrition and animal health. That will make a real impact in the years ahead.

It will also help the agriculture sector in adapting to climate change by facilitating research in the development of new cultivars of grass and clover that are resilient to changes in weather patterns and that will reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture. We are all very much aware that issues like water quality are equally very challenging, and we need more research in this area to bring forward solutions. It will be helpful in that regard. Moorepark has made a very significant contribution to our agricultural food scientific development in recent years and this will help to ensure that is the case in the years ahead.

When we talk about sustainable farming, there is a great deal of talk about sustainability generally, and everybody claims to be sustainable. For example, Amazon is very sustainable, notwithstanding the very large proportion of returns which went to landfill and the fact it is wiping out shops in small towns and villages across Ireland. This firm claims to be sustainable.

Likewise, a big discount retailer-----

Yes it is, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Big discount retailers stick a seeding roof on their shop and call themselves sustainable. When we talk about sustainable agriculture, we have to know exactly what we mean by sustainable. It is very important to define that.

I know that a newly elected Green Party councillor in 2019 said that Origin Green was painting a false image to the world and that it will come back to bite us. That Green Party councillor back then was right. That would be my worry. If we are talking about sustainability, we have to be able to show it is actually sustainable.

We absolutely have to do so. We have an opportunity in Origin Green, and we have put together a package which reflects what we do in Ireland and tells that story across the world. The fact we are pasture- and grass-based makes us unique compared with many other food-producing nations. It also has great advantages in animal welfare as well as the fact it is a very sustainable way of producing livestock and of turning grass into either beef, lamb or dairy products.

We have to continue to do way more and to continue to stay in the leadership position in this regard. We must continue to look to see how we can reduce emissions in growing grass and, in particular and more importantly, how we can reduce emissions from animals. Research on that will be very important and the work will go on at this new scientific centre which will be very important in adding to our already very strong credentials.

I return to the same subject, by and large. The importance of TAMS is illustrated by the Minister's statement that 3,000 applications have been received under tranche 2. Again I appeal for the timeline to be met as much as is possible because when farmers plan to invest, they need to be given every possible assistance.

With regard to the dribble bar, one of the other points which farmers in my territory made to me was that, apart from the cost, there might be some argument about the better result from the machinery where the land is not fit to carry machinery that is not a dribble bar. The heavier machinery is not suitable for some of that land.

I thank Deputy Smith for his question. On the dribble bar, that is something I will also be considering in the mix on the emissions aspect, but also there is the usability of it. Taking that into account is something I will be considering in the round.

On the timelines, as the Deputy will know, we have a budget of €370 million over the period from this year to 2027. Tranche 1 of TAMS 3 closed on 30 June 2023, with 8,241 applications received. Overall, the scheme has proved very popular, with an unprecedented level of applications received which was almost four times the average number received per tranche under TAMS 2, or under any tranche in the previous TAMS scheme.

The solar capital investment scheme opened for applications in February 2023, with the remaining ten measures opening on a phased basis. The final measure was the women farmers capital investment scheme which opened for applications in June 2023. That is a new category with 60% grant aid to encourage and address the imbalance we see at farm gate level in the number of female farmers and female herd and farm owners.

Tranche 2 of TAMS 3 will close this Friday at 5 p.m., based on a decision I made yesterday. Tranche 3 of the scheme will open on Monday and run until Friday, 12 April 2024. This will ensure applications received since the current tranche opened in July can be proceeded with as efficiently as possible. I made the decision to close tomorrow so we can get on with processing applications and ensure those in the tranche who need work to be carried out in a timely manner next year can be prioritised where necessary to get on with their work.

Applications received across all measures in tranche 1 are currently being processed. Once the initial processing is completed, all applications will be subject to ranking and the applicants will be informed. Yesterday, I published, in the comprehensive statement I made, the schedule according to which each category will get approval.

Unfortunately, both public and private providers have been hit by rising costs in recent years, particularly since Mr. Putin's evil war against Ukraine was launched. I wish to raise the reference costs regarding the scheme and the investment. It is outside the remit of the Minister but there is much concern among farmers over the changes and the interpretations of rules recently introduced by Revenue. This is resulting in additional costs for farmers because, in some instances, where they hoped to get a VAT reclaim on milk bulk tanks, slurry scrapers or milking equipment, it is no longer available. Therefore, it is important that the reference costs reflect the reality of investment. Unfortunately, there has been an escalation in costs across all sectors, and the farming and construction communities are not immune from this.

The rising costs have been a genuine issue over recent years. There have been adjustments at different points to change the reference costs for TAMS. Thankfully, over the past few months, we have seen an easing of inflation affecting construction, machinery and materials. There were unprecedented increases in the year to 18 months before that. We continue to monitor this and adjust on a phased basis as we go forward from tranche to tranche.

The Deputy raised the issue of reclaimable VAT for mobile equipment. That is a matter for Revenue to interpret but it is an important issue for farmers making an investment decision. I have made my staff available to Revenue to be helpful in any way we can in providing practical information on this. I accept this is an important issue, but it is outside my remit. It is within the remit of Revenue.

I sincerely hope Revenue revisits this very important matter.

I am not clear on whether there are still young farmer and woman farmer cohorts within the application process. It is important that these cohorts of the overall farming community be supported.

Will the Department issue detailed data on what is necessary to get a priority classification?

There is a young farmer category. Under this, a young farmer will get a grant rate of 60% as opposed to 40%, which is the standard. Also, for the first time ever, I have included a female farmer category, whereby a female farmer can get a grant rate of 60%. We need to send out a definite message across the sector that we want to see women taking their rightful place as the heads of farms. The measure is a deliberate one to encourage and facilitate this.

On the prioritisation, we operated a system over the past couple of months whereby people who needed priority could come forward and explain their need for it and whereby their cases for the prioritisation of their applications could be considered at local office level. We will take the same approach for people who need this next year.

I have outlined the timetable. Approvals have started. Between now and next April, approvals will be issued across all the categories. This will meet the needs of the vast majority of farmers. However, those who need approval urgently can contact their local office and have their cases dealt with there.

Will the Minister promulgate emergency interim measures to allow farmers and knackeries to dispose of dead animals in light of their accumulation, with the resulting risk to sanitation, due to the strike by renderers since 1 December 2023? Will he make a statement on the matter? Perhaps that statement might address whether the concentration of power and ownership in the processing sector is now coming back to bite the Department, as it has been biting primary producers for a very long time.

I have been monitoring this very closely over the past week and a half. I have been quite concerned about it and have been making sure my team has been engaging to try to facilitate a resolution.

My Department operates a fallen animal scheme in which the Exchequer provides financial support to assist farmers with the disposal of animals that die on farm. This support is channelled through the animal collectors and rendering industry to subsidise the cost of rendering.

I am very aware of the challenge whereby renderers have recently increased their fees to animal collectors for rendering. Renderers took a decision on Friday, 1 December to no longer accept fallen animals.

My officials are continuing to engage with stakeholders to find a resolution to this issue. This engagement has included recent meetings with the Irish Category One Renderers Association, ICORA. However, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is not in dispute with either animal collectors or the rendering industry, and I have called on the renderers and collectors to engage proactively with each other to resolve their differences.

In the absence of a resolution between the two parties, in support of farmers and in recognition of the serious nature of this issue, I have acted to provide alternative options to farmers. I have now ensured animal collectors can access category 1 rendering facilities in Northern Ireland. To support collectors accessing this option, a guidance document outlining the requirements for dispatch to rendering plants in Northern Ireland has been sent to the animal collectors' association.

When a farmer discovers a fallen animal, the first contact point should be their local fallen animal collector. However, in exceptional circumstances, such as when a farmer is not able to get a collector to remove a dead animal carcase, burial on the farm may be considered. This requires a burial licence from my Department and understandably comes with strict environmental conditions. To obtain a licence, the herdkeeper must inform the local regional veterinary office of the Department, which will provide the information required.

I am very aware of the difficulties the situation is causing for farmers and I am doing everything I can to help resolve it as early as possible.

For parts of the country, it will be of great benefit to be able to dispose of animals in Northern Ireland; however, for the part of the country I represent, and I dare say any part south of that, it will be less helpful, purely because of the geography. The cost of driving dead animals from west Cork to Northern Ireland would be prohibitive. I do not know whether the Minister can tell us how many fallen animals have been sent to Northern Ireland since the agreement was made. It may well be that it is very helpful. It is good if it is in Border areas or even further south. However, in Clare, and, I dare say, any part of Munster or south Leinster, it is less of a solution.

With regard to the ability to dispose of animals on farm once strict environmental criteria are met, having applied to the Department of Agriculture, my question concerns the Department's expertise in applying the environmental criteria the Minister has set down. Will it cause a bottleneck? The Department has expertise in agriculture and perhaps veterinary matters but less so in environmental matters.

I accept it is not ideal and that the further you are from the North, the longer the journey and the less practical the arrangement. However, it is an option and an outlet. In the absence of the three rendering plants in the Republic accepting carcases, I have removed the rules that restricted the distance you can go with a fallen animal to 125 km. Now, no matter what part of the country you are in, you can go to the North. That outlet is available, although it is not nearly as practical as the previous one.

Thankfully, this is a colder time of the year, but this has been going on for a week and a half.

If a farmer has an animal that has fallen over a week ago and needs a solution, he or she should contact his or her animal collector first and foremost. The option is there for the collector to go to the North but in the absence of that, I provided an emergency option yesterday for farmers to contact their local Department regional veterinary office to get a licence to bury the animal. Up to 30 years ago, and including when I was growing up, all animals were buried on the farm. We have moved away from that practice and we need to stay away from that practice but there is an emergency because the three renderers are not accepting animal carcases at the moment so I am providing an opportunity to farmers to apply for that authorisation.

At the outset, I asked whether the Minister thinks that the concentration of ownership within the processing sector, which includes the rendering sector, is part of the problem and is coming back to bite the Department, as it has done. Farmers have been objecting to the concentration of power in the beef processing sector for a very long time. Is the fact that there are so few renderers and that they seem to be linked part of the problem? They are still accepting material from beef factories and those factories tend to be owned by the same people as the renderers. It is a cosy club in the beef sector to an extent, unless you are a primary producer and are outside of that.

Yesterday's development whereby people can now bury the carcase of an animal on their farm is welcome. I spoke to a farmer yesterday with a mini digger. It is an easy job for him to do but many more do not have such a digger so it requires them to contact a local contractor to come over and the contractor may not get there immediately. Could the Minister provide small grant assistance to farmers to allow them to hire someone because burying a cow carcase is quite a big task? You are not going to do it with a shovel on a Saturday afternoon.

The Minister held talks yesterday with the renderers. We are coming into the Christmas season when things wind down a bit. Will there be any talks between now and Christmas because there is a real worry out there? Deputy McNamara explained it well. The further south you go, the more likely it is that the option of going North will not be there. I cannot see any knackery truck from my part of the country traipsing over the Border and travelling that long distance so we are talking burials. A small amount of grant assistance to allow someone to bring over the local agri contractor with a mini digger would be very welcome.

The Department's contribution towards the rendering of animals and the very high percentage we pay the animal collectors for covering the rendering costs apply to rendering costs in the North as well. Obviously, it does not address transport. There has been an accumulation of more animals in some cases so the option is there for larger loads to go to the North but we are in an emergency and I hope to see this issue resolved in the near future.

The Deputy is right. I have dug many a hole to bury large animals in the past. It is not an easy job. There are more small diggers in the countryside than there were in the past but it is a real inconvenience. There is an emergency - we are doing something we would rather not be doing - and we need to provide farmers with solutions. It is not possible to put schemes in place in the very short term. I hope we will not need to do this tomorrow and I certainly hope we will not need to do this next week or the week after, but it is an option in an emergency where somebody has the capacity to find an alternative.

In response to Deputy McNamara's point, there are three renderers in the country. I would like to see more. All three are not accepting at the moment. There were many animal collectors in the country at one time - 30 or 40 - but they all stopped collecting a couple of years ago.

I am confident that the outlook for the Irish agrifood industries remains very positive. Food Vision 2030, our shared strategy for the sustainable development of the agrifood sector over the decade ahead, includes several actions to develop overseas market opportunities and envisages a sustainable increase in the value of Irish agrifood exports to €21 billion by 2030 driven by value rather than volume. This will, of course, benefit both our primary producers and our agrifood industry.

The Government is playing its part in assisting this sustainability. The Irish CAP strategic plan, which runs until 2027, has the highest ever available budget of €9.8 billion and more than 60% of that is targeted at supporting farm incomes. The CAP objectives aim to improve the economic, environmental and social sustainability of the agricultural sector. We have seen a real shift in focus towards supporting farmers to engage in practices that benefit the climate, environment and biodiversity. In Ireland’s case, a significant element of our CAP funding is targeted towards delivering on environmental and climate objectives. At EU level we have the second highest amount of CAP funding dedicated to environmental action, with almost 70% of the Pillar 2 rural development funding, including €1.5 billion for the new agri-environment scheme ACRES and a fivefold increase in funding for organic farming.

Similarly, much progress has been made in expanding the reach of Irish agrifood exports to consumers worldwide. Selling into international markets is challenging. The Minister of State, Deputy Heydon, is doing lots of work to develop and diversify new markets. The Minister of State, Senator Hackett, is doing significant work regarding opening up organic markets. This is a top priority for my Department in co-operation with Bord Bia.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

To support the strategic goals of developing and diversifying agrifood export markets, and to prepare the industry for any challenges it may face, Bord Bia received an allocation of €57 million in budget 2024, an increase on the previous year. This funding will enable Bord Bia to continue to invest in developing new markets, to defend and expand agrifood exports in existing markets and to build upon the reputation of Irish food across the globe in tandem with my Department's work programme to gain, maintain and enhance market access.

Another important component of the Government's strategy to develop and diversify markets is high-level ministerial trade missions. In recent months, I led trade missions to China and South Korea while the Minister of State, Deputy Heydon, led a trade mission to Malaysia and the Philippines.

Also essential to the development of new markets outside the EU is the technical work that frequently takes place behind the scenes. Technical negotiations with importing countries, including inward visits and inspection by their competent authorities, are typically a lengthy and multifaceted process often taking several years before bilateral agreements are concluded and trade can commence.

Specifically on meat exports, notable successes were achieved in the past year in terms of market access for Irish meat, including pork and pork products to Malaysia and beef, pigmeat and sheep meat to Cambodia. My Department also achieved enhanced access to markets including Singapore and the Philippines.

We are an exporting nation with 90% of our food produce leaving the island. My Department will continue to work with agrifood industries, Bord Bia, the Department of Foreign Affairs and our embassies in pursuit of new opportunities internationally. As a result of this, I have the utmost confidence that our agrifood sector is well placed to meet any challenges it may face and that it will continue to thrive.

Could the Minister tell me the extent to which volume in the various sectors is on the move in either a positive or negative direction and the degree to which any intervention can be made to ensure that volumes do not decrease too much given that the world population is increasing and demand is likely to increase? If the Irish agrifood sector cannot supply the various markets it has traditionally supplied and new markets, it will find itself in a situation where dependence for supply will go to other regions. While the value of exports is increasing, volume must also be maintained. Could the Minister indicate the extent to which he remains assured that volume levels are safe?

Volume levels are quite stable. We have seen a significant increase in value from 2021 to 2022. We set a record for agrifood exports last year, which were worth €19 billion, which from memory was up from €16 billion the year before so it was a significant increase. We had inflation across different categories and some of that will be factored in, but we were also building value during this time. That was against the backdrop of largely stable volume across beef, dairy, all our key main projects and seafood.

We saw significant expansion in the dairy sector after the removal of milk quotas in 2014. Much of that is built into the system. We have seen a stabilisation regarding animal numbers and output. This year, we will see a bit of a drop-off in milk supply because of the weather we had over the year, particularly in recent months with challenging weather conditions and poorer prices throughout October and particularly November. We saw earlier drying off of animals than we would have seen previously, so we will probably see a bit of a drop. That is weather-related.

Given that the agrifood sector in this country was instrumental in the recovery following the financial crash and there are many issues that will confront the sector in the future, some of which were referred to by the Minister, can he indicate the degree to which Irish agriculture can contribute to the world food supply? Approximately 40 million people are fed by the agrifood sector in this country. How is this likely to continue and what are the prospects ahead?

We will be continuing that; we have to. As a country that is so lucky given its place on the globe and the fact that the jet stream comes all the way up and keeps our climate very mild and gives us great growing conditions and great capacity to be productive regarding food, we must appreciate that gift and produce the food we need because many other parts of the world do not have the gift and capacity we have but they need that food.

The world population is increasing. It will reach close to 10 billion by 2050. It is getting harder and harder in many climate-vulnerable parts of the world to produce food. Our task, therefore, is to keep being productive and to back family farms producing food, which is massively important, while in the process reducing significantly the emissions footprint of that food as we produce it, and then to export it to those countries that need it. We need to keep that going, to back our farmers and their great work, and to back our industry and its great work. We also need to contribute to significantly reducing our emissions, which we all have to do across all sectors of the economy to address the challenges that are making it so hard to produce food in many climate-vulnerable countries.

The Minister knows that the inshore sector has been struggling. There has been a failure to look at giving herring and mackerel a broader fishery. The impact of Brexit has made that more difficult. There has been the failure of the Government to provide a fuel subsidy. We have huge increases in fuel costs. Now the latest is the collapse of the market for brown crab. Deputy McConalogue, as a Minister from Donegal, is aware of the serious impact that is having. What financial supports will he provide? What intervention will he make?

I am very closely considering this issue. I met a couple of weeks ago or so with a number of inshore fishers and representatives of all the producer organisations, POs, which have been established over the past three years. We previously did not have any and now we have two representing the inshore sector, which is really important. They are, however, under a lot of pressure at the moment. I have worked to try to support them as significantly as possible over the past two or three years. Over the past two years, we have run a scheme which delivered between €2,500 and €4,500 for the first time ever to the inshore sector. We are investing significantly in our piers and harbours as well, using the funding we can get from the Brexit adjustment reserve to drive that into piers and harbours funding in order to make sure we have the infrastructure there for the years ahead.

We are also seeing some progress on species which are important to the inshore sector. Last year, we got the spurdog fishery opened for the first time, and this year we have the north-west herring as a commercial fishery for the first time. There is always a contest between different categories of boats as to how that gets shared out, and that can be very contested and disputed. I will work to try to make sure there is as fair an approach to that as possible, but it is always a difficult space. I want to see the inshore sector supported in the time ahead. I am considering what the capacity is as regards the particular market conditions that are there at the moment. I do not believe that anything was ever done in the past to address market conditions. There are restrictions as regards the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, EMFAF, programme, for example, as to how we can use that, but I am exploring that, understanding the impact and income challenges we see in the inshore sector at the moment.

The Minister will know that this is the optimum time of year for the crab fishery. It has been devastating for them to hear that the factories have said they cannot take any more and just do not have a market. I think the European market has collapsed and the Chinese market has been impacted. This is, it appears to me, an unprecedented crisis when everything else is added. I appreciate that the Minister had a meeting recently with the different organisations. It is good that the islands and the Irish Islands Marine Resource Organisation, IIMRO, and the National Inshore Fishermen's Association, NIFA, have producer organisations, but they have to be resourced, supported and empowered. I would like to see a really dedicated focus. The reason I have raised this today is what I am hearing from our inshore fishermen. It should be remembered that they were denied salmon and do not have a share of herring or mackerel. The shellfish fishery is their livelihood and it is in collapse. There needs to be an intervention. I ask the Minister to examine all options to try to help them at this time.

I am looking at what is possible here. The inshore sector depends primarily on non-quota species - for example, our lobster and our crab. There are no quotas restricting how much of that can be fished. The fishermen themselves, working with Bord Iascaigh Mhara, have put in place management tools to try to make sure we have a sustainable fishery there into the future. We have seen the opening of the spurdog fishery, which was traditionally a really important fishery. It was a big step forward at last year's fisheries negotiations to get that reopened, but it will take time to develop that market and to get the value back to it.

The north-west herring fishery is an important fishery as well for inshore. That is shared out among those who have a track record. Some inshore boats have a track record; some do not. That was an issue this year too, and we will need to look to build on that. There is the issue with the price of crab and the price of lobster, particularly the price of crab, at the moment. It has caused a closedown really early, coming into what would normally be the best time of year. That is why I am looking to see what is possible here.

The Minister is right that it is crab and lobster on the east coast. It is razor clam and whelk, and indeed crab and lobster, right around the coast. The inshore sector is an industry that is struggling. The formation of the producer organisations is welcome. The engagement with the representative organisations is welcome. The Minister and I are both from coastal communities. We are from Inishowen. We are surrounded by mostly inshore fishermen. They were not organised in the past. Now they are organised and speaking for themselves. It would be an important acknowledgment to try to demonstrate that uniting together, organising and having a plan can deliver results for the sector. As I said, whatever can be done, I urge that it be done to get an immediate settling and just to keep the roofs over their heads for now. Then we will try to build it from there.

I acknowledge that and I am looking at it very closely. In the run-up to Christmas, particularly during what would normally be a peak time, a very difficult position is facing our inshore sector. It is related to the wider international markets and the cost-of-living crisis internationally. We have seen a fall in crab and lobster prices and in demand as a result of that, and that is having a real impact. Getting the inshore sector organised has been really important and is something I have sought to push over the past three years. There have been good moves under way previously through the Inshore Fisheries Forums and the National Inshore Fisheries Forum to do that. The Deputy is right that the sector did not speak with a clear, strong voice in the past and was not able to punch its weight, hold its ground or advocate for itself within the wider fishing sector. Thankfully, now we have two producer organisations. They are as well resourced as other producer organisations. They get funding the same as any others do. It is important that they are in place. This is a challenge, however. There is no straightforward solution here. The European funding looks like it might not be an option. The budgets for this year and next year are done as well. I am looking at this, I acknowledge the challenges and I will continue to expedite that work.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 22 together.

The ICBF is the body that is approved in Ireland in accordance with the relevant EU legislation to conduct testing, genetic evaluation and publication of breeding values for dairy and beef cattle. It has recently updated the beef breeding indices. This was the first major update of the beef breeding indices since 2015 and it is based mainly on changing economic drivers such as feed costs and beef prices. A modest adjustment also took place based on earlier slaughter of animals as well as tuberculosis resistance, carcase specifications and lower methane output.

I understand that prior to the updates, continentals such as Charolais, Limousin and Belgian Blue were the most desirable terminal cattle breeds, and that continues to be the case after the changes. With regard to the replacement index, the top three most desirable replacement breeds are Aberdeen Angus, Limousin and Simmental, and they remain the top three as well after the changes.

The ICBF has recently committed to convening an industry stakeholder forum to address issues and concerns raised by suckler farmers and pedigree breeders, and I welcome that engagement.

The SCEP aims to provide support to suckler farmers to improve the profitability and environmental sustainability of the national beef herd. I understand from the ICBF that 84% of 4-star and 5-star animals prior to the changes to the indices will retain that status after the changes. This means that 16% of 4-star and 5-star animals are adjusted.

Animals in SCEP herds whose index falls will not be impacted by the changes unless the SCEP participant sells an animal that has gone down in rating. It is only when this animal moves out of the herd that its 3-star rating, for example, will become applicable, rather than the previous 4-star or 5-star rating. I understand that any other issues arising will be addressed in the coming months in the stakeholder forum and communications will be issued to SCEP participants by ICBF. I will continue to monitor any impact on SCEP closely because I want to make sure that farmers know where they stand, are backed with their payments, and have the confidence to stay with it. I am confident that the amended indexes will contribute to the overall profitability and sustainability of beef production at farm level and my Department will continue to monitor the impact of the amended indexes on SCEP participants.

The data has changed. The evidence that has been gathered over the course of the last number of schemes and collated by the ICBF has changed. Whenever the evidence changes, it has to adjust its star ratings and apply them so that people know what they are dealing with. Regarding the impact on that SCEP programme, one has to have a certain percentage of 4-star and 5-star cows in the SCEP scheme to be paid. If a cow started off as a 4-star or 5-star cow in the SCEP scheme, even if the evidence now indicates that the cow would be a 3-star cow in future, in recognition of the fact that it was a 4-star or 5-star cow, as long as it stays in that herd it will continue to be paid for annually within the SCEP and to be able to meet the percentage thresholds that the farmer needs to meet while the cow stays there. Obviously the farmer then needs to adjust his breeding plans for replacements, so in the future he would seek replacement cows that are 4-star or 5-star cows, not ones that were 4-star or 5-star cows but were adjusted. To give that time and space to replenish with 4-star or 5-star cows, taking account of the new indexes, farmers will still get paid for the full duration of that cow being in the SCEP scheme. While that cow stays there, it will stay as a 4-star or 5-star cow and will get the €150 per year.

I thank the Minister for his response. I welcome the setting up of this forum because a certain amount of information needs to be given to farmers and others who are concerned about it. Would the Minister agree that, if the ratings are reduced, this would result in fewer high-quality exports, fewer animals hitting local marts every week and fewer top-quality animals going to factories, which would result in less income for the country through exports and cattle sales and less income for already struggling beef suckler farmers? Would he also agree that factories would need to kill a larger number of a herd of Angus cattle to make up for the loss of these continental breeds, because the other breeds simply do not carry the muscle mass or weight of continental breeds? Has any research been done into possible income loss for some of these farmers as a result of this change? Has consideration been given to compensating farmers for the income loss? Some of them are quite concerned that they may lose a considerable amount of income on this.

I do not see any impact on factories here. The animals are still the animals. Their breeding potential and capacity to be productive going forward is the key here. That is why it is important that evidence continues to be gathered about the performance of animals so that, going forward, we are breeding the highest performing animals, and that continues to improve profitability. Obviously as you get more data and research, it is important to adjust the ratings so the profitability index shows which are going to be the most profitable. I am stepping in to make sure that the 16% of cows in the SCEP programme that drop down, though 84% will not be changing, retain their star rating for the duration of the scheme and the duration of them being in the herd.

Going forward, people will have to adjust their breeding plans. It will lead to some adjustment for some animals. Some will go down as well as some going up. The important thing is that we are following the data and evidence. That is what farmers would expect of us. If we were-----

I thank the Minister for his response to the debate. Has any research been done on the possible loss to farmers as a result of these changes? Has that been quantified in any way? There is also an issue in that many farmers are uneasy that constantly selecting for easy calving will lead to cows with poor calving ability due to the smaller pelvic area. That is another concern that the Minister might address. With respect to the SCEP, when the changes come about and the animals move off the farm and are replaced, what will that mean for the income of farmers?

I must disclose that I keep a herd of Shorthorn Hereford cattle, so I have skin in the game here. One farmer at home put it well yesterday when he asked if you can imagine going to a 4-star hotelier and saying that you have looked at the hotel's costs and inputs and are now downgrading it to a 2-star hotel because that is what the market says it should be. That is what it feels like for many farmers. No matter how much the ICBF dressed it up yesterday at the Oireachtas agriculture committee, for many farmers this has meant a plummeting in star ratings. Some people expected there could be adjustments. Salers, Simmentals and Belgian Blues have seen a plummeting of stars, as have some show cattle and breeding replacements. With that collapse of stars, there has been a collapse in income. We want to hear if there will be a compensatory scheme. Realistically, I think this should all be suspended until February or March when the stakeholder forum takes place. The communications from the ICBF have left much to be desired.

I welcome that the ICBF is engaging with cattle breeders. The board of the ICBF is made up of farmers and farm representatives. It has an important task. Whenever it makes adjustments like this, they will not be easy. In the past, before we had the ICBF star ratings, one had to learn from experience, and one did not really know and had to figure out year to year, from hard learning, what was a good breed or what was not. The idea now is that with the star ratings and gathering evidence, people now have more certainty about what the merits of a particular animal are, which improves the profitability in the process. It is important that whenever one has a change of evidence and data, such as if the evidence in the review of a 4-star hotel indicated that it is now a 3-star hotel, there is no point in trying to tell people it still has four stars when it has three stars, and one has to try to work with that adjustment.

I am doing it with the SCEP scheme by saying that any cows in it which were 4-star or 5-star cows before the adjustment will continue to be paid as 4-star or 5-star cows. That gives farmers the capacity and space to be able to change their breeding policy for replacements. Given that 84% of animals are not changing from 4-star or 5-star animals, and there will be differences in different herds, where it will be more or less, if 84% of cows in the average herd stay the same and 16% adjust, farmers will be taking their replacements from the 84% that have stayed the same. They will plug that into their future breeding because that tells them where the profitability will be.

I know there has been much engagement about the way that the star ratings have been put together and whether it is appropriate. There needs to be good engagement on that. The ICBF does much work on that. I am being helpful in any way that I can with regard to the SCEP scheme because it is making farmers more profitable. That profitability is based on the fact that one adjusts the rating as one gathers more and more evidence. That is why it works and how one makes sure that people are as profitable as possible.

We currently have a budget of €256 million under the CAP for the organic sector. Organic farming in Carlow has seen significant growth over the past three years. There are currently 33 farmers from Carlow participating in the organic farming scheme. Under TAMS II, farmers in Carlow received grant aid under the organic capital investment scheme, which provides for on-farm investments such as upgrades to agricultural buildings and machinery and facilitates the adoption and application of new technologies. The organic processing investment grant scheme is also available to organic processors. If there are any of those in Carlow, I encourage them to take that up.

It was changed to 15 December. Lovely. I welcome that.

We have a huge farmers' market in Carlow which opened in 2004. It is one of the biggest markets in the south east.