Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Sep 2024

This is my first opportunity to be here for Question Time as my party's spokesperson on agriculture. I am delighted to hold the brief. The way was well ploughed by Deputy Kerrane, who was spokesperson before me. I am delighted to be here this morning.

I want to ask the Minister about ACRES payments and get information on the number of farmers who have been scored for the scheme so far, the number who have received their scores and the payments they have received. Many farmers around the country who have been involved in this very important scheme to enhance biodiversity feel very much at a loss. They also feel that the Department has let them down regarding their payments and scores and in the context of opportunities to enhance their scores in the future.

I thank Deputy Kenny very much. I wish him well and congratulate him on being appointed as Opposition spokesperson on agriculture, food and the marine. I look forward to working with him. We both worked on the same side of the House previously. He has extensive experience and an understanding of the sector. I acknowledge the significant contribution made by Deputy Kerrane as Opposition spokesperson during her time. I wish her well also in her new spokesperson role.

I thank Deputy Kenny for his question on ACRES. It is appropriate that this is the first question we are dealing with today because it is such an important scheme. It is one that has seen some challenges in the course of the past year with the roll-out of the first year of the scheme. I am very determined to make sure that these challenges are addressed and not repeated as we go into the second year of the scheme.

Last year was the first year of the new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. All of the schemes were new – the suckler scheme, the sheep scheme, ACRES, the organic scheme, the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, etc. By and large, the introduction of all of the schemes worked pretty well, or as well as we could have hoped. The payment dates that were set last year were largely adhered to. The one challenge has been ACRES. In many ways, it is not a surprise that it would be because it is the most administratively complex one. It is also the scheme that is most impacted by the fact that the CAP at European level had to adjust to a results-based approach, as opposed to the previous compliance approach. There have been challenges with the payments and there has also been disappointment with some of the scoring.

My objective is to make sure the scheme works well for everyone. This is the reason I made sure that everyone who applied in the first and second tranches was accepted. It is also the reason I intervened when there were delays with payments . I did so to ensure that everybody who had not received their advance payment by the end of last year got an interim payment of either €4,000 or €5,000 at the start of this year instead. This is the first time that ever happened. We are now working our way through the balancing payments. Some 82% got their balancing payment as of the end of last month.

I appreciate that. I understand that the reason for the interim payment was because of the delays and difficulties, but I come back to the point that very many farmers do not know what scores they were awarded. They have seven to ten plots but they do not know the score for each plot. As the Minister is aware, they also have an opportunity to enhance those scores through non-productive investments, NPIs, whereby they can do fencing, gates, hedging or whatever else. They do not know where they stand in that respect either because it is not open to them yet, although they are rolling into the next year. Some of them have had a second round of inspections and they still do not know the results of the first round. The co-operation element seems to be the most difficult aspect to try and sort out. Matters seem to be somewhat easier when it comes to the general scheme, but there are problems with this as well.

One of the issues we have - this relates to all agriculture sectors - is that every time schemes are rolled out by the Department, there are delays and difficulties. People cannot get payments and they do not know where they stand. If there is even a small problem, their money is held up. This seems to be an ongoing issue with the Department that one of the Ministers needs to deal with.

I know what it is like to have delayed payments and to wait for payments to arrive because I grew up on a family farm where our income was based on the activity relating to the farm. That is why I have given such attention to making sure there are no issues with payments. Farmers had certainty last year as to what the dates would be. We gave the dates last March and we adhered to all of them. There were very high payment percentages on those dates. The one exception was ACRES.

Understanding the importance of payments and the fact that people were waiting for them, for the first time ever I took the step of issuing interim payments because I wanted farmers to get as close to the majority of their payment as possible. We issued payments of either €4,000 or €5,000. Some 82% had their balancing payment by the end of last month. We hope it will be 95% by the end of this month. In some cases, when an interim payment is made, given that it is a blunt instrument, as such, and I wanted to give a strong interim payment, there were some situations of overpayment. We are putting measures in place to understand the position of farmers as much as possible in that regard.

In regard to the scoring, 35,000 scorecards have now been issued. We need to get the rest of them issued. Co-operation, CP, teams are also engaging with farmers and holding meetings on the scores for commonages. That has been a challenging process. I accept that farmers need to get their scores so that they know what steps they can take.

Does the Minister think it was fair to write to farmers demanding money back when they still did not know their score? That is one of the big gripes that many farmers have. They got the interim payment and the next contact they had from the Department was not to tell them where they stood or what the future would hold, but a letter demanding some of that money back - in some cases up to 80% of it.

As the Minister is aware, I come from a part of the country where there is low-intensity agriculture. Farmers survive on land that is in an area of natural constraint where we would expect the scores to be quite high, yet they were getting large demands for money back. There is a level of inconsistency here. That is one of the big problems farmers have with every scheme. This scheme has been particularly bad.

When farmers sign up for a scheme, they want to buy a tractor, build a shed or get a loan, knowing in their head that every year they are going to get a certain amount of money from the scheme and that it is going to be there. That is what they expect, yet with this scheme in particular they do not know where they stand. That is one of the difficulties we have. I have a question later on the future of agriculture. As we look to the future for family farming, we must have schemes in place on which farmers can rely. This scheme is certainly one farmers cannot rely on.

That is one of the challenges of a results-based scheme. I want to give farmers as much certainty as I possibly can in terms of the schemes I put in place. For example, with the suckler and calf schemes, I gave farmers a very clear task to carry out in order to get paid, whether it be weighing, clipping or dipping. We give as much certainty as we can. The environmental scheme must be results based under the new CAP and therefore it is dependent on scores. Like the farmer, I do not know what the score might be. There is uncertainty in regard to the first year. While overall the averages have worked out as expected, there are differences within them. That can also impact on the interim payment, which I gave because I wanted to get money to farmers as quickly as I could. If a score is low, there may be an overpayment. I put in place as much facilitation as I could so that the overpayment would be deducted from future ACRES payments. As soon as we know what a farmer's payment will be, there is an obligation to communicate that to them, not to demand that they would pay it but to bring clarity for them and also to give their balancing payment, if one is due, or else if there is an overpayment to give them the option to have it deducted from their next ACRES payment rather than any other payment. I want to be as flexible as I possibly can, but there is no taking away from the fact that the CP schemes in particular are score based and there is uncertainty about them in the first year. I want it to be a positive experience for every farmer.

I want to ask the Minister about the plans he hopefully has to extend the slurry season. As he will be aware, we have had a difficult and wet summer. The harvest was late and farmers in many parts of the country have had difficulty getting fodder saved, particularly in areas where there are wetter, heavier soils. As a result, many farmers are letting their cattle graze later in order to try and save their fodder. Now they are in a situation where they need to spread slurry out. It is has been difficult to do that up until now. The past two weeks of good weather have helped. Farmers have certainly not been able to spread slurry in many places. It would be appropriate, therefore, that, as happened last year, there be a short extension to the slurry-spreading season to ensure this can happen.

I thank Deputy Kenny for raising this matter. It is something that a number of people have raised with me over the past couple of weeks.

Unfortunately, and for very good reason, it is not something I intend or am in a position to do. Our collective priority has to be in terms of making sure that we improve water quality and, in particular, that we retain our nitrates derogation. The latter is dependent on good water quality.

The closed period is in place for good scientific reasons. Slurry is spread at a time of year when once the nutrients from it hit the ground, plants - be it grasses or crops - are able to utilise those nutrients, soak them up and grow as opposed to the nutrients just in the ground and not being utilised by plants, and potentially leaching into surrounding watercourses, which is what happens from this point of the year onwards.

Last year was very different. I gave a two-week extension last year but, as the Deputy will recall, the weather then was very different from what we have had in the past month to six weeks. The harvest was significantly different last year. There were lots of crops unharvested. That indicates what it was like on grasslands as well. Indeed, I had to compensate tillage farmers for the unprecedentedly difficult harvest we had last year.

Thankfully, there have been windows this year during which ground conditions have by and large been much better and the harvest has progressed. Certainly, in the south, the south east and the midlands, the ground has been very dry. It has been more challenging in the west and north west, but there have been windows there and opportunities.

The challenge is that 1 October is the deadline. If I were to extend the deadline to 8 October, slurry would be spread on that date with the with the objective of growing grass. When will that grass be fully grown? When will it be available? It may be mid- or late November, if it does grow. If it does not grow, the slurry will still be there in the ground waiting for weather events to bring it somewhere else. October is not the time of year to spread slurry. Spring or at other times of the year when conditions are there for plants, crops and grass to take up the nutrients and grow. It is a waste to be spreading slurry at this time of year.

Last year, I extended the deadline because of the weather conditions that obtained. That is not the situation this year. Our priority collectively has to be that we act in a sensible and proportionate way. If any farmers are experiencing difficulties, they should contact the Department and outline their circumstances. We are certainly not in a position to extend the deadline.

All of us recognise that both the quality of water and our waterways have to be protected. I suppose overuse of fertilisers, etc., can be a problem and is an issue in many cases. However, we also have to recognise that we were at the ploughing championships last week and it was more like a day in July than one in September. That can often happen. This is the problem when one farms by the calendar or one has strict rules set in the context of the dates that apply.

Grass will certainly have been growing very well in the past couple of weeks. We can see that. Indeed, even in this weather we have now, while there is a little bit of rain, there is still a lot of heat in the soil and in the air. Weather and climate patterns are changing. There needs to be more flexibility to recognise that if one simply sets dates for things, it will not work. If we looked back to maybe 30, 40 or 50 years ago, we could perhaps see that the climate was much more rigid than it is now. We are seeing much more movement as regards our climate.

I take the Minister's point that it is not good to be trying to grow grass in October. However, many farmers' slatted sheds are full. Up to now, it has been too wet to spread slurry. That is their difficulty. They have to put their cattle back in and they need to get the slurry out. They have not be able to do it up until now in many parts of the country, particularly in the north and the north west. There needs to be some flexibility.

If the Minister is saying that a person who is under pressure can contact the Department and that some arrangement can be arrived at, I welcome that. However, it needs to be clear what that arrangement will be.

It is always the case. There should be exceptional circumstances, and they would have to engage and explain those circumstances from an animal welfare point of view.

There is a long slurry-spreading season from early spring until 1 October. The use of chemical fertilisers finishes in mid-September. As I say, grass does not grow in mid- or late October and November in the same the way it does in April, May or June. As for nutrients, if they are applied, it is not the time to be spreading either fertiliser or manure because this is not the time of year for animals.

We hope to get a long growing season. It would be a good deal if animals could continue to graze until 1 November in most parts of the country but any land on which slurry is spread up to, for example 8 or 15 October, will not be ready for grazing by 1 November. Those nutrients will still be sitting in the soil in November. There is every likelihood and a high risk, subject to weather patterns, of their potentially ending up where we do not want them to end up, particularly if they are not utilised by plants. We cannot have such a situation.

I have considered this matter. I am always flexible in circumstances where it is absolutely needed, but autumn this year is, thankfully, very different from autumn last year. Our collective priority must be to protect water quality and ensure, through that, that we retain our nitrates derogation. The negotiations relating to the latter will take place in the coming year - in the spring and summer - and the objective is t have it renewed for the following year.

I appreciate and understand all of that, but a particular situation obtains in many parts of the country at present. Many farmers have been in contact with me - I am sure they have been in contact with the Minister's office - regarding the difficulties they have had in getting their slurry out because of the particularly wet summer and as a result of the situation they find themselves in whereby they will soon have to bring their cattle back in. Their slurry tanks are still practically full. If they can go to the Department and plead exceptional circumstances in that regard, that is fair enough.

I take the Minister's point that it is not good practice to put nutrients on the soil at this time of year, particularly if we get harsher weather that leads to grass not growing and the nutrients just sitting there. We all understand that. On the other hand, people cannot simply leave slurry in their slatted sheds. What will happen in such circumstances? The cattle have to go somewhere. It is about finding a balance.

We are in a situation where we have had good weather for a couple of weeks. The ground has dried out a little and we will probably have growth a little later because of the way the weather patterns are looking. Obviously, there is an opportunity for farmers, who are operating in difficult circumstances, to spread their slurry. They should be allowed to do that because that is the only way they can manage. Otherwise, what will they do when they have to bring their cattle back in?

It is animal welfare considerations that we are talking about at this stage. Every year, from the start of the year onwards, there is a time to spread slurry and, as much as possible, to use it between grazing intervals as well.

Certainly, nobody should have full tanks. Especially in the context of the year that is in it, nobody should have full tanks at this point. If they do, they need to seriously examine what happened and how they got to this stage, because there have been opportunities for that not to be the case.

This is not the time of year to be spreading slurry. It is not the time of year when one gets value of it whereby it can be used to grow grass. From this point of the year on, there is a very high risk of slurry that has been spread impacting on water quality.

We all agree on the absolute importance of acting responsibly and proportionately and of making sure that we enhance water quality in order that we will keep our derogation, which is higher than what is available in other countries because of the fact that, over the course of the year, we can grow more grass and use more nutrients. That is why we feel we should have a higher allowance, but that is all dependent on us acting sensibly in a way that ensures water quality is protected. That is the reason, given the circumstances, why there will be no extension this year.

I want to get an update from the Minister in regard to the engagement he has had regarding the commission on generational renewal in farming that, I understand, he has established or is about to establish. We all recognise that many farmers are ageing and are looking around to see who will take over their farms and what will happen. There was talk recently of some kind of a retirement package or something else to encourage farmers to move out of farming. However, the difficulty is at the other end. I refer to is getting younger people to take up farming. Young people do not see a future in farming. They do not see a livelihood in it. They do not see the prospect that was there in the past. Many of our young people are better educated and have other options. That is excellent, but often in rural areas we find that family farms are not being utilised. We need to come up with solutions in respect of that.

I thank the Deputy. This is something that has to be at the core of all of our attention in the time ahead. We are blessed to have a wonderful food-producing country, to have a landscape and a climate that facilitate this and, indeed, to have a farming community which has the skill set and the passion to be able to ensure that the sector is as strong as it can be. However, in order for the agricultural sector to stay strong and to maximise our future potential, we are depending on bringing young people in to drive it on, manage it, be innovative and bring new ideas and new energy.

That has to be the absolute focus of all our policy going forward. It is something I have put a particular focus on over the past three or four years. I made sure it was a key aspect of the current CAP in terms of the funding we put in. I tripled the amount of funding under the CAP which is going to young farmers. That means, for example, young farmers participating in the young farmers scheme for the first five years of their farming life can now get a payment of €170 per ha every year for the first five years, compared with €68 per ha 18 months ago. It is now €170 per ha every year for the first five years. We have also put significant funding into the national reserve and into TAMS with a 60% grant as before, and a particular focus on women, also with 60% grant aid, to try to improve the gender balance at farm level and deliver the progress we have seen elsewhere in the food and farming sectors. It is slower to come about at farm level.

Going forward I have announced my intention to establish a commission on generational renewal gathering all ideas so we can put the young farmer at the centre. I am open and will be engaging and looking for submissions from all political parties and key stakeholders, but I am also open to any ideas the Deputy has about how best we can establish that commission in a way that will deliver the best results and make sure it delivers an outcome and pathway forward that puts young farmers at the centre.

As the Minister is aware my colleagues, Deputies Kerrane and Carthy, put forward a proposal earlier this year with regard to having a commission on the future of the family farm. It is about more than generational renewal. In our view, what needs to happen is we need to look at the family farm in the whole to see what the future of it will be. That is for the suckler, sheep, pig and every sector. Where will they be in the future? What evidence is there, if you sit with a young person in their early 20s today, that there will be a future in ten, 15 or 20 years for them and their family? That needs to be at the core of whatever is done. That is why we felt it was about the future of the family farm and making the family farm a sustainable model as we move forward. In many cases a lot of young people do not see that future. They see it as a part-time occupation. A lot of people, particularly with the smaller holdings, need to have enough farm income. That is all fine, but often the family farm is being left behind and will fall into absolute neglect. We see the income coming from farming has gone down and down in the past. Key to it is the price farmers get for their produce and the schemes rolled out by Government to ensure they are effective and provide for farming.

The Deputy has identified the two key aspects in terms of economic viability for farming. Those are price and the economic schemes and supports we have in place to support food production and farmers' work at farm level. On price, 90% of our food is exported so it is dependent on the prices available internationally. However, the significant step I took as Minister was introducing the agrifood regulator with the objective of having a statutory independent agency to bring about as much transparency in the food supply chain as possible in how you trace back the prices available on the international markets we sell to, to the price that the farmer gets at the farm gate. That is the key job of work.

I turn to schemes. From a Government point of view, we have significantly increased, by 50%, the funding for all schemes because we want to make it worthwhile for all farmers. We particularly want to make sure it is worthwhile for young farmers. We have put significant additional funding into that. However, we have to look at how we can take that forward. That is why I am establishing the commission. I am open to ideas as to how that is structured in a way that will be most impactful and I will certainly be engaging to bring everybody's ideas into that to make sure it informs the final report. Bringing young people in and the family farm, which is the structure we want to maintain in this country, are dependent on bringing that next generation of family farmer through. That has been and will have to be my key focus, and that of our sector going forward.

A major issue is that the price the farmers get for their produce is dominated by processors and the big players. Often, they do not get an opportunity, because they are basically price takers. That is the key problem, along with how to organise and how to form production groups and so on to ensure we get a fair price for farmers. I was speaking to the grain growers at the ploughing last week. A lot of their grain goes to the alcohol industry. They said if they got 1 cent more per pint of alcohol - beer, Guinness or whatever - it would transform their possibility of making a livelihood; 1 cent more. We see the amount of money that industry spends on advertising and everything else, but it squeezes the farmer to the last. I think that is the same in many situations. It is the same in the beef sector, the milk sector and many others. We need to have a firm hand of Government to act as a regulator, not just to talk about it but actually do it, to regulate the market and ensure the farmer - the primary producer - who takes all the risk and puts all the effort in gets a price for the work they do. That would revolutionise the possibility of ensuring we can maintain the family farm not just for this generation but for future generations.

I agree with Deputy Kenny. That is why I took the unprecedented step of establishing a statutory legal authority to deliver on that. I have also asked it to continue to engage and update me on its progress and I will be stepping to enhance its powers further as is necessary to make sure that transparency is there throughout the supply chain. We obviously have to be proportionate in law in how we establish any agency, but we have to make sure it has all the powers it needs to be effective. I am determined to ensure that is the case and to work with it as it progresses to make sure it has the powers it needs. It has been doing really good work up to this point.

I turn to schemes and how we ensure we are continuing to fund schemes, funding farmers for food production and ensuring they have the capacity and economic reward for the work they are doing in sustainability, biodiversity and the potential for energy production. However, it all has to be about bringing young farmers in and that is about viable incomes but also lifestyles that are sustainable where you can compete with other jobs, you can have a life and you are not tied to the farm all of the time. It is about having a lifestyle, which can compete with any other sector. That has to be our objective in how we look at supporting young farmers into the future and how we make all of our schemes and policy pivot around them.