Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Members now have the option of being physically present in the committee room or may join the meeting via MS Teams from their Leinster House offices. Members may not participate in the meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts.

It is important to note that in order to participate in a division in committee, members must be physically present in the committee room. If joining on Microsoft Teams, members should please mute their microphones when not contributing and I ask that they use the raised-hand function to indicate. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

This meeting has been convened in order to consider the 2024 Supplementary Estimates for Vote 30 – Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which was referred to us by the Dáil on 23 October 2024. I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Charlie McConalogue, and his officials. I understand the Minister is accompanied by Mr. Gordon Conroy, assistant secretary, finance and State bodies, Ms Siobhán Dowling, principal officer, finance division and central procurement development division, and Mr. Paul McNally, assistant principal officer in the finance division. They are all very welcome.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Acting Chair and the committee for facilitating the discussion today on the Supplementary Estimate for 2024. It is required to make use of savings on the Department’s Vote. It is also required to provide additional funding to meet liabilities in a number of areas. These include 2024 costs apportioned to my Department for the development of the border control post in Rosslare, TB-related cost pressures and farm payments due under schemes such as the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES.

An additional €200 million, representing an increase of 10.2% on my Department’s gross 2024 allocation, is required to meet costs that will arise in 2024. The Supplementary Estimate will also provide for the movement of savings of €46 million across a number of subheads to meet expenditure pressures arising in other areas. As these proposed transfers and additional expenditure involve changes to the original 2024 voted allocations, I believe it is important to seek the committee’s input and approval.

The areas where savings have emerged reflect the very dynamic and challenging environment in which the sector and the Department operate. Despite the continuing challenges facing the agrifood sector, including unpredictable weather patterns, high input costs and the delivery of a range of new CSP schemes, farmers have demonstrated their adaptability and resilience and have continued to deliver safe and nutritious food for Irish and international markets.

To support farmers to meet these challenges, since the beginning of September this year, advance payments totalling €874 million have been made by my Department to a record number of farmers in respect of their 2024 basic income support for sustainability, BISS, complementary redistributive income support for sustainability, CRISS, payment scheme, eco-schemes and areas of natural constraint scheme payments. The balancing payments in respect of these schemes are due to commence in early December.

My Department has provided committee members with more detailed briefing material on the specifics of the Supplementary Estimate, but I will now highlight some of its key elements, broken down by the four programme areas under which expenditure occurs in my Department.

Programme A, on food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare, is being increased by 17%, or just over €63 million. The main reason for this increase is that the level of bovine TB in Ireland has increased in 2024. The 12-month rolling TB herd level herd incidence on 22 September 2024 stood at 5.6%, compared with 4.74% on the 24 September 2023. The 12-month rolling number of TB reactors on 23 September 2024 stood at 37,685, compared with 26,039 on 24 September 2023. This reinforces the need to support the TB programme not just financially, but also ensure that the policies the TB forum develops are implemented in a robust manner.

The on-farm market valuation scheme is the principal compensation measure to herdowners whose herds are affected by the disease. It is available under the TB eradication scheme. This compensation is based on the market value of that animal, subject to individual animal ceilings under the on-farm market valuation scheme. While market values have broadly remained static since 2023, weakened factory salvage recovered against animals, primarily dairy animals, removed under the scheme has resulted in the average compensation per head rising by 23.5% year-on-year.

The large increase on the administration side of programme A is, in the main, due to the OPW payment for the Rosslare development. As I have highlighted to the committee previously, the upgrade to Rosslare Europort is a critical project to develop the necessary permanent infrastructure required as a result of Brexit. Some €21.5 million will go to the Office of Public Works as my Department’s apportionment of the 2024 development costs.

Programme B relates to farm sector supports and controls. Its total allocation is being increased by €117.72 million. This includes an additional €106 million for ACRES and €9 million for residual payments on the 2023 Ukraine-related tillage schemes and the 2024 national sheep scheme.

In addition, with the savings identified throughout the Vote, I have allocated extra funding to programme B as follows: €11.6 million for organics; €0.5m for multi-species sward-red clover; €1.32 million for the sheep improvement scheme; and €28.6 million for ACRES. In respect of ACRES alone, this will bring the total 2024 expenditure to some €334 million. As the committee members are aware, ACRES is my Department’s flagship agri-environmental scheme, with an allocation of €1.5 billion over the period to 2027. In response to the exceptional demand from farmers, I was delighted to be able to secure places for all 55,000 farmers who applied under tranches 1 and 2, and this additional funding of €134.6 million will provide for substantial payments to farmers in respect of 2024. I reassure members that I will ensure the maximum levels of funding will be paid out under all farmer schemes to farm families between now and the end of the year.

Funding within programme C, policy and strategy, is used to optimise the sustainable development of the agrifood sector and, following this Supplementary Estimate, programme C will increase by €22 million, to €447.8 million. My Department leads on Ireland’s engagement with the World Food Programme, WFP, and a significant percentage of this increase relates to the WFP. The WFP is funded exclusively from voluntary contributions and works in partnership with other UN and international organisations, NGOs, civil society and the private sector to enable communities and countries to meet their own food needs.

I reinforced Ireland’s commitment to the WFP on my visit to the Horn of Africa earlier this year. In doing so, I pledged a total of €105 million for the period 2025 to 2027 to directly fund the WFP’s global humanitarian work. This represents a 40% increase on the funding made under the previous three-year period. The advance of €18 million in 2024 on next year’s commitment will help save lives by supporting food security and nutrition in very fragile humanitarian settings. It reaffirms Ireland’s role as one of the WFP’s most engaged partners.

Under this programme, an additional €5 million is also being provided to support the sustainable beef and lamb quality assurance scheme, which is managed by Bord Bia. This sum represents an advance payment to Bord Bia in respect of 2025.

The allocation within programme D, for the seafood sector, has been reduced from €170.6 million to €167.34 million. Savings on both the current and capital within programme D were identified and used elsewhere within the Vote. Some of the savings in programme D are payroll savings that have been declared by the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority and Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

This is a necessary and important Supplementary Estimate which I recommend to the committee for support. I am happy to respond to any questions members may have.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will now take questions from the members. My nearest neighbour, Deputy Kenny, is first in.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that this is all work we have to do to get it out of the way and clear the decks. However, I am particularly interested in the section of the Minister’s opening statement where he referred to ACRES. The amount of difficulties and problems people are having with that across the country, particularly in the co-operative sector, is something that really needs to be addressed. We have farmers coming to us all the time who are really frustrated, having applied for what they thought was a scheme that would be rolled out over five years. Some of them are two years into it and still do not know their score. They do not know where they stand. The opportunity to carry out other activities on the farm which would enhance their score has basically been denied them because they have not had the opportunity to get the reassessment done. It is an extremely disappointing situation, particularly with ACRES, because farmers want to play their part. They want to do the right thing for the environment and everything else and they deserve to get a payment for the public good they carry out. I think we all concur and agree with that. The least we can expect is that the Department and the Government would keep their side of the bargain and come up with a scheme that is workable and suitable and that farmers can adhere to without too much difficulty and work it out from there. That certainly is not the case with ACRES.

I have raised previously with the Minister the issue of TAMS grants, particularly those for the replacement of slats on slatted sheds.

I still believe there is a difficulty in respect of people getting payments for them. I have been told it is an issue of approval having to come from the office of the Minister to get the payments made. There is a list of people who have been waiting for that for quite some time and still have not received any payments. While it is all well and good coming here and putting a certain amount of money into all of the various schemes, if farmers cannot get access to those schemes or find it difficult and onerous to do so, there needs to be reassessment.

The Minister cannot control the weather nor can he really control the prices. The one thing he should be able to control is the schemes created and administered by the Department, and they continually are failures. We hear about problems with IT and this, that and the other. We should be long past the stage where these schemes are so difficult and continue to cause frustration. For very many years we have heard about simplification within many of these schemes. It seems they keep becoming more complex and difficult. This is an opportunity for the Minister to clear the air in respect of that and set out where and why we are in this situation where we continually have such problems with these schemes.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ensuring farmers get the service they are entitled to from the Department and in terms of the schemes we run is something I take very seriously. The CAP programme last year and all of the schemes operated in a good manner, with payments made on the dates we set out, with the exception of ACRES. ACRES has been a challenge but the other schemes have worked. For the first year the CAP worked remarkably well in terms of payments. We did set dates which were between two and four weeks later than what would have been the norm under CAP. The reason for that was because we wanted to make sure we set a date we could deliver on and, in fairness, within the Department that was delivered on.

The challenge has been with ACRES, which is the most complex scheme within CAP. I have worked to try to make sure the issues that arose with ACRES are being addressed in the best way possible to try to support farmers, but there have been real challenges. A big part of that has been the payment delays and the associated administrative challenges. For example, farmers did not get their scores when they should have, and those administration delays were a frustration for all farmers in the scheme.

Taking a step back from it, it is important to break it down and look at it. For a significant majority of farmers in ACRES, it is working out reasonably well in terms of their payments. The average payment is where we predicted it would be, at €5,100 to €5,200. Obviously, for farmers who have got the payment they expected, ACRES is working as they would have hoped. When you break it down between the general and the co-operation streams, two thirds of farmers are in the general stream and it is working pretty well. Obviously, farmers have been affected by the delays in delivering scores but they are being given top-ups now. In terms of the actual farmer experience of the practicality of the scheme at farm level, feedback is good for those in the general stream, by and large, and the experience has been good. The co-operation stream has been much more challenging. For more than half of farmers, it is working out similar to what they would have expected in terms of their scores, but for a good minority it is not. Their scores are not what they would have expected and payments are, therefore, much lower than expected.

I want to see ACRES work for and benefit everyone and to see everyone being able to participate in it in a strong way. That is why I intervened, which I think is the first time ever to have happened, in order that everyone who applied got accepted in tranche 1 and tranche 2. That had not happened previously with environmental schemes. Also, when there were payment challenges with ACRES because of the administrative challenges, in March I directed that any farmer at that point who had not got an advance payment of 85% would either get a €4,000 or €5,000 interim payment. That meant everyone who took part in ACRES, bar those who might have had a conveyancing issue or something like that with their land parcels, would have got either their advance payment or a €4,000 or €5,0000 interim payment by the end of March, and then balancing payments and scores issued over the summer. I absolutely accept the scores were late and that must be addressed by the next year of the scheme. That has created challenges in respect of giving farmers line of sight of their scores, what they would be, and time this year, for example, to improve on them. Over recent weeks and three or four months, farmers would have got their scores and balancing payments, and between 2,000 and 2,500 farmers, or 5%, await their balancing payment.

Now that we have reached the point where farmers, by and large, have their scores and there is clarity on what their payments are, and on the fact that, for a significant minority, the CP scheme is not working out the way they, or certainly I, would have liked to see it work out for them, I have initiated a review with the specific targeted objective of trying to identify how we can make the scheme work for all farmers, particularly those who have ended up with lower payments than what they might have been expecting, and maybe in some cases lower payments than what they might have been getting under GLAS. I want to see what we can do now and I have put in place a timeline of the end of the year for that review to be completed. I specifically asked and directed that, as part of that review, I want to see potential options that can be taken to enhance the score and payments for those for whom the co-operation stream is not working out in the way we would all like it to work out.

It is important to say that for the two thirds in the general stream, the experience at farm level has been pretty good by and large. The co-operation stream has been much more challenging. The payments for a good majority of those in the CP are working out along the lines they would have hoped, but it is not for a significant minority, and I want to see how we can address that.

On NPIs and landscape actions, it is important that farmers do get those approvals. Again, that has been affected. The scheme is complex and more complex than it should be. There are no two ways about that. There would have been engagement, discussion and consultation on how it would be framed. We do not have a clean sheet on this either because we must work within the results-based structure of the current CAP, which is more complicated than the previous one. We have to make sure we make the scheme work as well as possible. Overall, the outcome and objectives behind the scheme are very good. It is just the complexity, especially the complexity of administration and IT challenges associated with it. I will consider how we can address these matters.

On TAMS, the approvals and payments have been issuing in good numbers over recent months. I will look at the specific issue the Deputy has raised. If there are a certain number who have indicated their views to him, he might pass on the details to me and I will look at it. Certainly, the scheme took a bit of time to get motoring but it is motoring pretty well now in terms of approvals and payments and we need to ensure that momentum is sustained.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would appreciate if the Minister would do that. I know there is a review of ACRES. I think it will find the clear problems where they exist. From the very outset, when people measured the plots, set them out and all of that, they had to immediately upload the information to a portal. They often had to travel a couple of miles down the road to get broadband coverage to do that. There are issues like that where an element of common sense needs to be applied, and that seems to be vacant in this context.

There is one other thing I want to mention to the Minister, and it is appropriate given there is a protest going on outside the gates of this building today by several of the farm organisations concerning the Mercosur trade deal, something that has been tumbling along for years. I know the Minister attended the event last week, as I did, with the IFA at the Curragh racecourse. I note that the Taoiseach, when he spoke about Mercosur-----

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind the Deputy that is not really the remit for today.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is the remit of the people who want to ensure they can get a fair price for their beef, which they are entitled to, and I suggest it is an opportunity for the Minister to at least respond.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You have had an opportunity to raise it, and I will leave it with the Minister to respond if he wants.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is unfortunate the Taoiseach did not give a clear commitment the other day that the Government would oppose Mercosur.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have been forthright and to the forefront at European level in relation to opposing the structure of Mercosur and the proposal on the table. We have been insisting that the same standards we would expect from ourselves must be applied to any importer into the EU. The other key thing, of course, is that we have also been emphasising the absolute importance of minimising the outcome from the trade deal in terms of those key interests we have in the agricultural sector. We will continue to take this strong line. The proposal on the table has not been and is not acceptable. We are insisting that the EU continue to engage to ensure these issues are addressed and the same standards we expect of ourselves are expected from those countries we trade with and are verifiable in terms of implementation.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister would accept those standards are simply not there and, therefore, there could not be a deal if we continue in this way.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must be able to ensure the same standards are applied to those we trade with as to ourselves.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister. I thank the Acting Chair for his indulgence.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is okay. I call Deputy Fitzmaurice.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for coming in. Going through the Estimates, the allocation for food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare is down 4%. Why is this the case?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Which line is the Deputy talking about?

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is near the beginning of the document supplied. It is table 3 on page 5.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Savings were identified in several areas in subhead A3 and transferred to subhead A4 for TB eradication during the year. Some savings were identified over the year and then transferred into the TB eradication programme.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How is this the case? This is what I am trying to establish when we are talking about animal and plant health.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Savings were made, for example, in the targeted advisory service on animal health, TASAH, programme, the anti-parasitic programme and in some disease monitoring costs. The total was approximately €3.7 million.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding the TB budget, there has been a fair explosion in TB this year. Is the Department concerned that a bigger budget will be needed in this area? I ask this because my understanding from talking to farmers, especially in the dairy sector, is that the EBI value of a cow has been cut by €50 to €60 in those assessments in the last month. Is this a cut by the Department? I refer to the context of more money being put in. Is this going to set a trend if more cattle get TB? Will there start to be a tightening in the price of the stock? I talked to some dairy farmers whose cows, unfortunately, would have gone earlier in the year and the same cow with the same EBI has now got less. The farmers are saying the decrease has been between €60 and €100. Is this the case?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Deputy talking about whenever an animal is sold as a breeding animal or when an animal is slaughtered and the price being achieved?

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. I am talking about TB.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The payment under the compensation scheme-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, if we look at the difference-----

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----is reducing in terms of-----

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, it has reduced. There is a different assessment if we look at a dairy cow. Is it correct that the EBI chart has changed?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Over the course of the last year, for example, the payments in terms of compensation per animal from the scheme would be up by 20% on average. This was primarily related to the fact that more dairy animals were going through the TB programme. As a result, carcase weights would have been less than perhaps the previous balance.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would part of that have been based on the EBI?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amount of funding to make it up, then, increased as a result.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am talking about what we are hearing now. The Minister might check it out with farmers.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are hearing about a change in the EBI from a few months ago. Farmers are concerned about it.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When the Deputy refers to EBI, is that the economic benefit index?

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the assessment of the productivity of a cow. It is separate from its carcase weight.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but it all feeds into the one algorithm.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. That would be an assessment and would be monitored and carried out through the ICBF in terms of monitoring data and information coming in. That point had not been raised with me and I am not aware of it having been the case.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Right. The Minister might check into it.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, I will look into it further.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I see there is approximately €3 million or €3.5 million in the context of the carbon tax. How much does the Department get in total budget from the Department of Finance in respect of the carbon tax?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure that we have a note on it. We do not have a figure for that amount here.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can we get a figure?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, we can. We do have one. I can get a note on it but I cannot recall it from memory.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am referring to a figure for the total amount the Department gets from the Department of Finance for the carbon tax. I thank the Minister.

Turning to forestry, I see there is no change in this area. How is it possible to gauge forestry when, if we look at the budget for it, we are probably sowing a fifth of what our target is? Should this not be a fifth less of the money used? Our target is 8,000 ha.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. In terms of new planting, a big percentage of what goes out in forestry is accounted for by the annual premiums. These last for 15 or 20 years now. This part is predictable because those trees will be there for that length of time. Where we do not have the same predictability is in planting. We have much more predictability over felling, although there is not the same cost associated with it.

We have overbudgeted for the last two to four years because we have been budgeting based on meeting the target but we have not been meeting it. As the Deputy knows, the new forestry scheme we have brought in is very attractive and a big improvement on the previous scheme. Premiums have increased by up to 60%. Equally, the number of years farmers can get the premiums for has gone from 15 years to 20 years. Despite these changes, we are still not seeing a significant uptake in respect of the number of plantings. Confidence was definitely impacted by the licensing backlog we had to deal with. It was there when we came into office and we had to work our way through it. That is, thankfully, largely rectified now with much more regular timeframes in place in terms of the length of time taken to get a licence. I have no doubt but that the situation impacted morale across the sector too.

The other point, and the Deputy will know this too, is the general health of the alternative options in terms of land use, whether this concerns leasing land, dairying or the price of just renting generally. This aspect is impacting on farmers deciding whether to take a term of 15 years or longer in respect of a change of land use. We have made adjustments, though. In the most recent budget, we adjusted the forestry figures to take a more balanced approach to what we thought the likely uptake might be next year.

We would still like to reach the 8,000 but, judging by previous uptake, it would be a massive jump to get to that in a year.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will hardly even reach last year's figure but anyway, it might do. Regarding food aid, I remember a few years ago a plan was done out for how much we would give over a three-year period. We had actually paid a lot of it ahead of our time. I see there is a new figure for food aid. Why is that?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The coming year will be the first year of our new three-year agreement. I have increased the commitment to the World Food Programme by 40%. Previously, it was €25 million per year and it is now €35 million per year. We all know the good impact that has in very food vulnerable areas, which I saw myself last St. Patrick's Day. I chose to go to South Sudan, Ethiopia and Kenya to witness what was going on there and to engage with the WFP. As part of that, I announced our commitment to increasing our contribution by 40%, to €35 million. In recent years, we have often paid the WFP funding in advance where we could. The WFP is always willing to receive the payment early. It can also form part of the budgetary discussions and the engagements I have, whereby if I can find a way to pay it by the end of the year for the following year, it frees up more financial capacity to do the types of things I would like to do in the budget to support farmers. We are forward paying €18 million this year out of the €35 million. Last year, we paid the full €25 million early and paying the €18 million early this year will still leave €17 million for next year.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Organic is down 66%. What is the reason for that?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In 2024, organic payments were paid from B3 and savings in B15 were recycled within the Vote. B3 relates to agri-environmental schemes.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why would it be paid out of environmental?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We were utilising the remainder of the European Union recovery instrument, EURI, funding which is a specific stream of funding and it was 100% refundable. As the organic scheme is a continuation from the previous rural development programme, rather than being a new CAP scheme, it was one of the few schemes which was actually eligible for drawing down EURI funding. We redirected that in order to draw down the EURI funding to make sure we would fully utilise that allocation from Europe.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Kenny spoke about the ACRES budget. I know farmers got in on it and that is welcome. In fairness to the staff in Portlaoise they handled the BPS, CRISS, BISS, ANC, sheep welfare and the whole shebang. How come they are able to get all payments out perfectly but then in Wexford there are forestry schemes and ACRES and it seems to be the greatest nightmare that ever was. How come that is the case? Since I came into the Dáil, this seems to be a trend.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The big challenge relating to forestry was a court decision in 2019.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know that.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This radically changed the assessment process, overnight, for forestry licensing and meant that a very significant increase in human resources was required to be able to consider a licence. It led to the development of a very significant backlog, which took until the last year for us to be able to rectify. Unfortunately, ACRES has proven to be much more complex than many of the other schemes. It required a new IT system to be built and there were all of the complexities that go with that. I am certainly no expert on the ins and outs behind the screen in terms of all of the networks and technology involved. The ACRES speaks to many different parts of other activities that farmers carry out. For example, BISS payments are interrelated as well. Any change to a parcel can have an impact in respect of ACRES and there is also the scoring system. From an administrative point of view, it was very challenging and has continued to be such into this year. Thankfully, I think we are getting to a situation whereby it can operate as we would expect going into next year.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What I cannot understand is this. If the satellite shows something from the sky for the BISS and the feed inspection is done rapidly, in fairness to them, up to a month ago we did not have a system where they were able to feed the information into the ACRES side if it was an ACRES inspection. That is a year and a half down the road now. That is not tolerable, to be frank. In fairness, on the low land they got through the barriers but on the ACRES CP zones something needs to be done immediately. The Minister talked about farmers getting the money. Yes, they got the money, but then they got it after they had to pay money back. There was information that planners needed, such as score cards and stuff. They sent them in and then they were not able to give them the information out. It has been a pure nightmare for the planners and the farmers. In all fairness, I do not care who you are or whether it is 5% or 1%, if someone went in good faith and paid a planner in 2023, it is wrong that all those 2023 payments are stalled until January because they are trying to get out payments for 2024. It is not fair on any farmer to be treated in this way. Regardless of what the Department needed to do, we should pay them. In 2015 France was in trouble. It is there for anyone to read about. The French Government was able to get money from its Exchequer to pay the farmers. When they got all their IT problems sorted, they were able to put it back in. That 5% of farmers have their tongues out for money at the minute - they are ringing every one of us - but no one seems to be doing anything for them and they are getting awfully frustrated. The other part is that they could two bubbles in the one year and then they will have to deal with that.

Is the Department looking at some simple way to address these issues? I know the hill farmers have sent proposals to the Department. Are any of these being considered to try to get these people sorted? I do not care who they are; they do not deserve to be have been left waiting this length of time after paying people to get their plans in place.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What the Deputy described happening in France is pretty much what I have done here.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

France paid it all, in fairness.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have paid more than all of it, in some instances.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is debatable because the second part did not come.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the challenge with an interim payment; it is a blunt instrument. For example, farmers with a small landholding may not have been in line for a big score, yet they would have received the standard interim payment.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With all due respect, even if a farmer was paid €1,000 more, it is a five-year plan. There is no point whipping it off their BISS or their CRISS or whatever they are getting.

There is no point in sending out a letter the following week saying “I want this back” or “I want that back”. It is like waiting in the grass for someone. They will be paid for five years, so it is pretty simple. If they were willing to wait a year or a year and half for money, surely to God one could say to them that we can straighten matters out and balance it the following year.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have said that as well, though. That structure is in place. The default is that if there is an overpayment on a farmer's account from one scheme, it is taken off another. The structure I put in place was that any farmers who had overpayments could ask for it to be attached to their ACRES. Therefore, it will come out of their next ACRES payment or the one after that. It is ring-fenced. Where farmers requested that, it is ring-fenced in the context of their ACRES payments.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding the bovine TB eradication programme, there are a number of farmers around me - a couple of clusters - that are in serious trouble, with many animals going down with TB. Compensation schemes, etc., are in place. In fact, on the radio on the way up this morning there was a segment on that matter and a discussion about what we are doing and what we can do. I do not know how many decades the eradication programme has been in place, but the disease has still not been eradicated. Is it time to consider a vaccination programme of some kind? Badgers were vaccinated. I remember scratching my head a number of years ago and wondering why we were vaccinating badgers rather than cattle, which would have made more sense. I know there are technical issues involved in the context of markers and all the rest of it. Is the Department working to come up with an alternative or to reassess the programme, which, by and large, has been a failure for many farmers? People have all kinds of conspiracy theories about gravy trains and everything else. We certainly will not get into that. However, the truth is that farmers find it difficult to see large portions of money from the Department’s finances being allocated in respect of an eradication programme that is not delivering.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, I know. Nobody wants to see-----

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry, Minister. There is a vote in the Dáil..

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is research ongoing on vaccines in different spaces. The particular challenges for us, as an exporting nation, is that when you use the vaccine, whenever you test for TB, it is hard to identify if it is actually TB or the vaccine. That then becomes a challenge for us being able to export those animals. Since 90% of our animals are exported, that is a real difficulty. This is always being looked at but if we could find some way for a vaccine to work, it would make sense.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If a portion of the money that has been spent on the eradication programme down the years had been put into finding a solution, we might be further on.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Possibly. I hope we do find something. If we had a vaccine, it would have a significant role to play. In the meantime, we need to double back through the TB stakeholder forum. I have been engaging with the various members of the forum, as well as the farming organisations. We all need, through that forum, to look at the full suite of issues that are affecting the increase in TB levels and see what we can do to get it going in the right direction again. There has been a significant deterioration and it is not sustainable.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If there are no more questions, that concludes the select committee's consideration of the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 30 - Agriculture, Food and the Marine. In accordance with Standing Orders, a message to this effect will be sent to clerk of the Dáil.

On behalf of the select committee, I thank the Minister and his officials for assisting the committee with its consideration of the Supplementary Estimate for agriculture and for dealing comprehensively with the questions from my two colleagues. The select committee is now adjourned.