Matt Carthy
Question:118. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the measures under budget 2023 that will redress the injustice borne by the group of famers known as the so-called forgotten farmers. [61287/22]
Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions
Agriculture Schemes
I welcome the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, and the Minister of State, Senator Hackett. The term “forgotten farmer” is used to describe those young farmers who had typically set up their agricultural holdings before 2008, who were under the age of 40 in 2015 but who did not qualify for the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, supports, as other young farmers did. Will the Minister outline his proposals to address that anomaly?
As the Deputy will be aware, I have committed to helping the cohort of farmers known as “forgotten farmers”. This has been a long-standing commitment of mine from the time that I was in opposition to the time that I entered the Government. I ensured that it was part of the programme for Government commitments, and I have been following through on it since. The Department has developed a preliminary outline of a proposal to provide support to this group. I was pleased to have the opportunity at the recent Macra na Feirme conference in Ballykisteen to announce details of proposals that had been developed to address the issue of. I am engaging with my colleague the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, regarding the funding required.
The details of the eligibility requirements and benefits to successful applicants for a scheme to support the forgotten farmer group have yet to be fully finalised and we are working hard to finish this work to open the scheme for applications. Many of these farmers have found themselves in this position through no fault of their own. They have spent a considerable time operating their business at a disadvantage and I am moving as quickly as possible to address this anomaly. The eligibility requirements and other scheme details will be made publicly available as soon as this process has been completed. A lot of work is going to do it. It is complex in terms of the detail, identifying the different cohorts and being able to step it out. There will be significant work in processing the scheme as well but our commitment is crystal clear to follow through on this. There will be a scheme. We are stepping it out and we are now getting to the stage where we are finalising it to open it for applications
The Minister knows that I have been raising this issue with him since his appointment and I acknowledge that each time he has indicated that he is committed to addressing this issue. However, it still has not been resolved and I would like to know where the resistance is or why we have had these delays.
In February 2021, he told me that he was "fully committed to addressing this issue in a way that is fair to this cohort of farmers under the next CAP". In May of that year, he stated: "The programme for Government contains a commitment to seek to resolve under the next CAP the issue of support for this category of farmers." However, by December 2021, which was a full year ago, the language had changed. The Minister then said: "I have asked officials in my Department to examine options to address the issue of forgotten farmers both through the next CAP and also other measures." It, therefore, appears that even as far back as last year, the Minister was of the view that perhaps CAP could not resolve this matter. By October of this year, all references to CAP were removed. Why has there been a delay? Is there resistance? Most particularly, how much is the Minister planning to allocate for this scheme?
There is no resistance and the commitment is crystal clear. For many years, there had been no commitment to these farmers. There was no proposal, plan or Government commitment to address them and to making sure that a scheme was put in place to reflect the fact that they did not get a fair crack of the whip. I made sure when I came out of opposition and went into government that it was a programme for Government commitment and that there would be a commitment by the Government to deliver on it. I have been working that through now as Minister. There has been much work and assessment going into it to identify the different cohorts that are involved and to pull it all together. We are finalising the criteria and the strands around that so that we can go forward with an application process. However, let there be no doubt this is going to happen. This is a commitment. There is going to be a scheme for these farmers that has not been there before. It will be there, and it is a matter stepping it out. There is a lot of work involved in it and it is taking a bit of time, but it is coming. It will be there for them and rightly so.
I will acknowledge that this is an anomaly that was around long before the Minister was in office. It is disgraceful that his predecessors did not resolve it. I acknowledge again that he has committed to resolving it, but for the farmers who are affected, he has yet to do so. I know that he has made statements on the issue in public, but we do not have the necessary clarity. There was no announcement in budget 2022 about how this scheme will be funded, yet, in January, just a couple of months later, the Minister leaked to the media that these farmers would receive up to €5,000 in a lump sum, as well as enhanced targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS, payments. There was not an announcement though in this year's budget either, but now we have public criteria. The Minister suggested that he is in negotiations with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. How much has he sought for the scheme? How much does he envisage that it will be worth to these young farmers who have been disenfranchised for so long?
I am engaged with Department of Public Expenditure and Reform around what will be required to deliver a scheme. That will become clear whenever we publish the application criteria and the detail around it, and not until then. What is clear at this point is the commitment from me to drive this forward and to deliver on it, as well as to deliver on the promise that I made to the forgotten farmers of Ireland, which was that if I got into government I would deliver on this. That is why I went into government. I want to be in government to make differences such as this. There is complexity to it and that is why it is taking time. The officials have been working diligently on it and it will now step out. It will take a bit of time once the applications are open to process it, because quite a bit of administration will be required to work our way through that. However, let there be no doubt that the scheme will be in place, and the farmers will at long last get recognition of the fact that they did not get a fair crack of the whip when installation aid, etc, was interrupted and taken away and they no longer had the opportunity to avail of it.
Agriculture Schemes
Seán Canney
Question:119. Deputy Seán Canney asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will open applications for the ACRES in early 2023 to allow farmers who could not meet the 2022 application deadline to qualify for a payment in 2023; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [61447/22]
The application process for the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, closed yesterday evening and there was probably a frenzy of activity within the Department to handle all the applications that came in. My question relates to the farmers who have not applied or had time to apply or have missed the deadline through no fault of their own. The Minister intends to reopen the application process towards the end of next year. Can he do that earlier in the spring so that farmers can have some payment next year and will not have a gap year?
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. ACRES is part of the agri-environment climate measure in Ireland’s CAP strategic plan for 2023 to 2027. It is a voluntary scheme whereby farmers, when approved, will undertake certain actions on their land for at least five years. It closed last night and I want to recognise the massive work that has gone into the application process by the farmers and their advisers who have worked night and day over the recent period to get their farms walked and their applications in. I also want to recognise the massive work that is going on in my Department and the team there building this scheme, administering the applications process, and the massive job of work that is ahead of them to step that out. They have done tremendous work. It is a good scheme, which has been popular and well received by farmers. Once again it reflects the appetite of farmers to be involved in such a scheme. I recognise that and thank everybody for getting us to this stage.
There are two approaches available to farmers under ACRES, namely the general approach and the common approach. The Government has committed €1.5 billion to ACRES. It opened for applications on 17 October and I extended the closing date by two weeks until last night to give as many farmers as possible the opportunity to apply to participate next year. As the Deputy will be aware, we have allocated funding to provide for 30,000 farmers in the budget for next year so we will see what the numbers are after the closure of applications.
On the Deputy's point regarding a gap year, that is something I am conscious of and have discussed with farmers as well. It is also something I am reflecting on with our team as to how we may be able to accommodate that because for those who were previously involved in the green low carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS but who may not be involved in ACRES, that is a real challenge. It is a significant source of income as well as the contribution it facilitates farmers to make to working on environmental goods. It is something I am conscious of and will reflect on further.
I also thank the Minister for extending the scheme for two weeks and I know a number of Deputies, including myself, approached him about this and he did take action. I welcome the fact he will review this. Farmers rely on income supports and on these types of grants to make sure they have a cash flow. If farmers who were in GLAS cannot get into this scheme, there will be a gap in their income next year and many are wondering, as the Minister knows well, what will happen to them. I understand they have a severe workload right now but I encourage him and the Department to consider opening the scheme towards the end of March to get the next tranche ready and maybe some payment could be made to those farmers towards the end of the year. That would be important.
One other issue that has raised its head is that in the criteria for existing applications that went in towards the last week or so there were some small nuanced changes in the scheme. If farmers could get the opportunity to make corrections or adjustments to their applications over the next week or two to ensure they get the maximum return, that would also be appreciated.
It will not be possible to open the scheme earlier next year because there are specific workloads throughout the year. This puts a massive workload on advisers and March-April is the key time of year for basic income support through the basic payment scheme, BPS, applications. We have worked closely with the advisers and their representatives on the window for applying for ACRES and on how we will do it next year. We have discussed that for next year as to when that period will be and it will be the latter part of the year to open up for new applicants to participate fully again next year. It does have to go year to year because farmers need to be in for the full year to be able to participate in all of the actions and to have the scoring done, etc. There is the issue of the gap and that is something I will certainly reflect on. Now that the scheme is closed we will consider any issues that arise and I will certainly take the Deputy's points on board and consider them with the team.
No doubt from listening to farmers himself, the Minister does grasp that the important issue is that there is something done for people in a gap year so they are not just left in a vacuum. I also welcome his statement that he will examine any anomalies that arose in the process and in the criteria. If there is an issue, maybe farmers could access their application again over a short period so their planners could address the issue because it could affect the amount they receive. I have heard that from a number of planners in the past couple of days and rather than trying to reinvent the wheel or look for another extension, there could be a mechanism by which these issues could be resolved. As the Minister said, this is a scheme for farmers, and for the environment and it is very popular. He had to extend it because there was demand for it and the planners were flat out, the farmers were flat out and the Department was flat out trying to cope with all of that. Hopefully this will be good for farmers. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating but at least farmers are engaging, which they always said they would do, and that is a positive sign.
I thank the Deputy again for raising the matter. I have been pleased with the reaction to the ACRES scheme. It has been well received by farmers across the country. It was a key commitment from the two Ministers of State, Senator Hackett and Deputy Heydon and myself, representing three different parties, when we negotiated the programme for Government and went into government, to put a strong environmental scheme in place that would back family farms, provide income from them and enable and empower them to do significant work on ecosystem services and environmental goods. The farmers have responded strongly. I recognise again the massive work the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, will be well aware of that her team in the Department have done to get to this stage as well as the massive work that has gone on in farmyards and in advisory offices throughout the country over the past couple of months. We will certainly reflect now that the scheme is closed as to how we will step it forward and to continue to do the best job we can with it.
Agriculture Industry
Matt Carthy
Question:120. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he intends to introduce measures that will result in the destocking of suckler cows, as recommended by the food vision beef and sheep group, considering the significant economic impact that this would have and recognising that suckler beef production has a lower emission profile than other sectors for which similar proposals have not been made. [61288/22]
Many people were surprised to learn that between June 2017 and February 2020 there was a decrease of more than 18%, or 200,000 cattle, in the suckler herd. Does the Minister intend to introduce further measures aimed at the destocking of suckler cows and the ending of suckler farms as recommended by the food vision beef and sheep group?
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I thank all of those who participated in the food vision beef and sheep group as well as the stakeholders and representatives who participated in the food vision dairy group. As the Deputy will be aware, we have a 25% reduction in emissions to achieve by the end of 2030 from the agriculture sector as part of our overall contribution to achieving 51% economy-wide by 2030. The Deputy's party did not have a position on what the figures should be. I have worked hard to ensure the ultimate outcome in terms of the sectoral target for agriculture was kept manageable. It will stretch us at 25% but it is doable. I want to be informed by the sectors and farmer representatives in particular as to how we step this forward because working together is going to be key in delivery. Building on the massive work that family farmers done on the environment, improvements in emissions, and further efficiencies will be important but we have to step it out in a way that gets us to that 25% reduction by 2030.
I have received the two reports. I received the food vision dairy group report approximately three weeks ago and I received the food vision beef and sheep group report last week. I am reflecting on and considering it. It is a submission to me and not all the measures in it have the support of everyone, in particular the issue relating to the suckler herd. Whether there will be a voluntary scheme is something that does not have support from any of the farm organisations or, indeed, from the meat factories or processors. I will reflect on all of that and on the suite of options.
That is only one of the aspects but is the one that has received most attention. Both those reports contain many options that can make a difference in achieving our emissions reduction. The Deputy will be aware of my commitment to the suckler sector, which is the anchor of our beef industry and needs to remain so. I have a massive commitment to it which is why I have put in the new beef suckler scheme under the new CAP. I am not making a judgment one way or another on both reports until they are fully considered and then I will make my position clear.
We would have a much better agricultural policy and overall discussion if the Minister was willing to engage on issues. Through our suckler herd we produce some of the most sustainable beef in the world. The associated carbon emissions are half of that coming from South American beef. For the Government to even contemplate a forced reduction of Irish suckler cattle while the Mercosur trade agreement remains on the table would send a bad message to rural communities and would undermine climate action measures. Such a move would be rightly seen as hypocritical and counterproductive.
The suckler image is the brand of Ireland. It is what has given all sectors the reputation across the world as having a premium product. However, it is only sector to see a scheme introduced aimed at reduction through the ill-fated beef exceptional aid measure, BEAM, scheme. I accept that suckler farmers like those in every other sector must utilise every option to reduce emissions, including opportunities for diversification, but why has the Minister not ruled out such a move when he is on record as saying that 25% sectoral reductions can be achieved while "stabilising the herd", to use his language?
I have received the two reports and at this point I am not cherry-picking different options or proposals within either of them in advance of making a final decision on all of them. That is all I am saying. My commitment to the suckler herd is clear and that is why I have increased the payments next year under the beef suckler scheme from what had been €90 on the first ten cows under the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, to €150 from January, which is important for the sector. The suckler sector must remain the anchor of our beef sector. It is massively important and will continue to be fully supported by me.
Alongside meeting our emissions targets, we will provide new opportunities for all farmers in terms of energy, for example through anaerobic digestion and solar power. They provide important income streams for farmers. I hope all farmers consider that alongside the important work they are doing at the moment. I have made no decision and I will not cherry-pick one issue over the other. Those are not my proposals; they are two proposals from the food vision report on which different stakeholders have taken different views. I will fully consider them and then make my views clear.
As the Minister said, we have 80,000 suckler farms. They are a crucial economic driver in many rural communities. They are not the most profitable but they are often the most economically impactful. Before considering any suckler reduction scheme, will the Minister commit to considering the potential impact that such a scheme would have on the land mobility service by driving up the price of remaining agricultural land and what that could do for generational renewal? Will he ensure a full audit of factory-controlled feedlots and strive for a reduction within that cohort, which has experienced a 52% increase since 2017 and could hit 400,000 this year before targeting small suckler farms? Crucially, will he commit to carry out a full socioeconomic impact assessment before any scheme is introduced?
There are no plans at the moment to introduce such a scheme. We have two reports: the food vision dairy group report, which has proposed a voluntary reduction scheme for dairy farmers that had significant support among a number of stakeholders on the group. Some of the farm organisations reserved their position on that. We have another proposal from the beef and sheep group on which there are various views. Most of the farm organisations and the meat processors have not been in favour of any voluntary reduction in the suckler sector. I am considering both reports.
I have backed suckler beef farming and will continue to do so. That is why I put in place a new scheme from January next year that will pay €150 per cow for the first ten. It will improve the efficiency of the herd as well as reducing emissions and costs through improved genetics. I, as Minister, and we, as a Government, will continue to ensure that farm incomes are central for beef suckler farmers while in the process, try to reduce our emissions. I am considering both reports in the context of what we can do for our overall climate action plan targets. I will work closely with the sector to ensure incomes and the impact of any proposal is fully considered. Ultimately in anything we do, we need to see farm incomes increase in the process.