Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Feb 2018

Vol. 965 No. 8

Supporting the Suckling Sector: Motion [Private Members]

I move:

“That Dáil Éireann:

notes:

— the almost one million suckler cow herd kept on over 75,000 farms;

— how the suckler sector is a vital component of Ireland’s rural economy and a wealth enabler, with every €1 of support provided to suckler farmers generating over €4 of economic activity in rural villages, towns and parishes;

— the suckler herd underpins Irish beef exports of €2.5 billion annually;

— that suckler farmers continue to depend exclusively on Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) direct payments for their livelihoods with average incomes just below €13,000, according to Teagasc;

— the Beef Data and Genomics Programme (BDGP), which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the Irish beef herd;

— Brexit poses one of the biggest ever threats to suckler farmers, exporters and beef sector jobs, with over 50 per cent of all beef exports to the UK;

— the ‘Ireland and the Impacts of Brexit’ report prepared for the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, which shows a reduction in Irish beef exports of 35 per cent by 2030 in a World Trade Organization (WTO) tariff scenario;

— how the Beef Forum has become a talking shop and failed to deliver for farmers;

— the ‘Cumulative economic impact of future trade agreements on EU agriculture’ report by the European Commission, which illustrates how additional beef imports from South American Mercosur countries would reduce prices by up to 16 per cent and cost the European Union (EU) beef sector an estimated €5 billion annually;

— that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine underspent its expenditure budget by €106 million in 2016 and €78 million in 2017; and

— the significant underspend across several schemes under the 2014-2020 Rural Development Programme (RDP); and

calls on the Government to:

— deliver a fully funded, fair, and simpler CAP post-2020 that safeguards direct payments with measures to directly support all low-income sectors including sucklers;

— protect suckler farmers and the beef sector in all upcoming EU trade deals and reject increased beef access in any potential agreement with South American Mercosur countries;

— work towards introducing a €200 payment per suckler cow via the current BDGP;

— seek EU recognition of the negative impact of Brexit, and any Mercosur deal on suckler farmers’ incomes, and request funding supports including CAP market disturbance funds, while increasing market diversification supports;

— secure additional funding in the next CAP programme to achieve a suckler cow support payment of €200 per cow; and

— instruct the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to review the current underspend accruing across several 2014-2020 RDP schemes and report back within two months to the Oireachtas on a roadmap towards targeting RDP underspend to suckler and other vulnerable sectors;

— such a review to outline the specific progress to date on the participation and expenditure targets set originally for the following schemes over the 2014-2020 RDP window:-

— GLAS (Green, Low-Carbon, Agri-Environment Scheme): €1.4 billion committed and 50,000 participants targeted (February 2015);

— BDGP: €300 million committed and 35,000 participants targeted (May 2015);

— Knowledge Transfer Scheme: €100m committed and 27,000 participants targeted (May 2016);

— TAMS (Targeted Agricultural Modernisation Schemes) II: €395 million committed (April 2015);

— Sheep Welfare Scheme: €100 million committed (December 2016); and

— Hen Harrier Programme: €25 million committed (December 2017).”

I hope that after the debate on this motion tonight we will see the Government for once change its tack on the level of support being given to Ireland's suckler cow beef sector. Up to now, unfortunately, we have seen unwillingness from the Government to actually recognise the need to provide that support.

This is a crucial sector. It underpins Ireland's €2.5 billion beef exports. More than 70,000 farm families are involved in the suckler cow sector and depend on it for their income. For every €1 invested in the suckler cow sector there is a €4 return to the local economy in which the farm families play such a crucial role.

Fianna Fáil has supported this measure for a long time and it was part of our manifesto during the last general election. I put it to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, that this is a measure we want to see delivered. This is being strongly advocated by the farming organisations. I welcome to the Public Gallery a delegation from the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, led by their livestock chairman, Mr. Angus Woods. I also welcome to the Public Gallery the president of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, Mr. Patrick Kent. I acknowledge the tremendous work and campaigning by the Irish Farmers' Journal and the IFA as part of that campaign, led very much by the Irish Farmers' Journal beef and suckler editor, Mr. Adam Woods.

I shall outline the key parts of the motion that we have put before the Minister. My party members will speak on this and I know we will receive strong support from Sinn Féin and other Members. The motion focuses first of all on the need to support the suckler herd. The motion calls for us to look at the underspend in the rural development programme so we can increase the funding available to the beef data genomics programme, towards €200 in this current CAP. The motion also calls for the introduction of a support of €200 per suckler cow within the next CAP programme. Given the pressure that will be on the beef sector as a result of Brexit, and also as a result of Mercosur, the Minister needs to seek additional funds to target the sector because it is especially exposed.

The motion also highlights the importance of a strongly-funded CAP programme from 2020 onwards, and it highlights the importance of the Government contributing to that and ensuring it is delivered at EU level. The motion calls for the Government to row back and refute the moves we see at EU level to introduce and agree a beef non-tariff rate quota with Mercosur countries. This is already being offered at 70,000 tonnes, and it will end up at a higher figure if a deal is done. Unfortunately, the Minister's answers to my parliamentary questions up to this point indicate that the 70,000 tonnes is pretty much going to be agreed and accepted de facto as part of that deal. This will have grave repercussions for our beef sector.

The motion looks for a clear and comprehensive review of the rural development programme and the underspend in this regard.

It sets a deadline of two months for the Minister, working with his Department, to fully review the spending that has already occurred within the rural development programme, programme by programme, and to revert to the Dáil with a clear outline as to how targets are being met, or not being met, as is unfortunately the case. We can then, as a Dáil, work to ensure that money is spent and is targeted towards the suckler cow in terms of increasing funding to the beef data genomics programme and the areas of natural constraint programme.

I just want to touch on the level of underspend across a few of the programmes. When the Government announced the GLAS programme, it committed to spending €1.4 billion. As of now it has only spent €300 million. Some 78% of the commitment remains unspent. It is clear from the replies I have received to parliamentary questions that by the end of 2020-2021, the Department will only have spent €1 billion of that funding, leaving a €400 million shortfall. Similarly, targets under the beef data genomics programme, the knowledge transfer programme and the targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS, have not been met and there will be an underspend in these areas. We believe that underspend should be targeted towards the suckler cow. In terms of funding the €200 per head payment, the Minister needs to get fresh money as part of the next CAP in light of Brexit and Mercosur.

I compliment my colleague, Deputy McConalogue, for bringing forward this very important Private Members' Bill. Our suckler cow herd is a key cornerstone of rural Ireland. It is worth €2.5 billion in exports. Every euro that is earned from the sector is worth €4 to the rural economies. In my own area, towns such as Rathdowney, Roscrea, Cahir and Nenagh are dependent on the processing sector for jobs. These are parts of the country which would find it very hard to bring in alternative employment.

I know the Minister will say that if we are to bring in a payment such as this for suckler cows there will have be a cut across the board in the single farm payment. The single farm payment budget must be ring-fenced and protected in the next round of the CAP negotiations. We are looking for extra funding for suckler cows and low-income farmers. There can be no soft negotiations this time and no concessions on our single farm payment. That €400 billion budget has to be maintained. This extra funding must be found in the next round of CAP negotiations.

There are two unprecedented challenges facing our beef industry. The first one is Brexit. Our Taoiseach came home before Christmas and told us that everything in the garden was going to be hunky-dory. Unfortunately, the developments of the past week have shown that a hard border looks set to be the outcome of Brexit. That is going to put huge pressure on our beef industry. Our dependence on the UK market grew in 2017 in spite of the best efforts of Bord Bia. Some 50% of our beef is sold in the UK market and a hard border would put huge pressure on our beef industry. We also have the challenge of Mercosur. Already the European Commission has offered 70,000 tonnes of tariff-free beef to South American countries and we hear on the grapevine that it is prepared to increase that offer to 99,000 tonnes. When is our Commissioner going to say stop and that enough is enough? When will our Government and governments across the EU step in and protect the European beef sector? What is proposed at the moment could already cost the European beef sector €5 billion and this Mercosur trade deal, coupled with Brexit, is the reason our sector must get support and must get it now.

Any time we talk about agriculture now we have to square up to climate change. The beef data genomics programme, if properly funded, has a role to play in reducing our emissions and carbon footprint. As I have said, the next round of CAP negotiations has to look at low-income sectors and extra funding has to be found if we are to avoid land abandonment in certain areas. The case for sucklers is clear. I would also like to mention hill sheep farmers. An extra €10 per ewe is needed to keep land in mountain and hill areas farmed. Again, this has a key role to play in lowering our emissions and decreasing our carbon footprint. I would be remiss to not also refer to the hen harrier scheme introduced by the Minister in recent weeks. This scheme will be judged on whether it restores the value of land in those designated areas. In the view of the farmers in those areas, this scheme will fail miserably.

In the past the Commission has stepped in when countries were in need. When the ban on exports to Russia was introduced the Commission stepped in and provided a fund for the Balkan countries affected. We are now in a similar position. Brexit and Mercosur are coming down the tracks towards us. The case for funding is clear. As has been stated by my colleague, the suckler cow sector needs that extra €200 per cow if we are to maintain our beef herd. The hill ewe also needs that extra premium and proper compensation must be provided to restore the value of designated land. The beef forum that has been established has failed to deliver. The arguments are clear. The underspend in the Department in 2016 was €106 million and it was €78 million in 2017. That money can be used to fund the low-income sectors while we wait for increased funding from the next round of the CAP.

I remind speakers that four Fianna Fáil Members have indicated and they have a total of nine minutes between them.

Obviously, I support the motion. I have a number of points to raise. The north west of the country in particular has often been described as the engine room in terms of the production of weanlings for the suckler herd in Ireland. We are under threat of land abandonment in that part of the country given the low incomes of many farming families - some €13,000 a year. Without the introduction of a scheme such as that advocated by my colleagues, Deputies McConalogue and Cahill, we are heading down the road of land abandonment.

When the underspend across various schemes is considered, it is vitally important that we put the money where it is needed in order to support farming families and the great culture of beef production in this country. The industry is worth €2.5 billion in income per annum. As a former exporter who exported 35,000 cattle's worth of processed beef to 46 countries throughout the world, I know the importance of the industry and I also see the dangers of a lack of targeted supports of this nature. While as a party we are certainly advocating for a scheme of €200 a head, from a personal perspective I think there is an argument to consider even more than that and for a higher amount to be given for the first ten cows belonging to our many small farmers. That is certainly something to consider.

The money is available but we are not using it. It is critical that we come up with a scheme to ensure that we give the necessary supports. It plays into our hand in terms of European policy in respect of food security. Without it, we will see land abandonment in many parts of our country, particularly in the north west where I am from. Deputy Cahill has rightly made a point about a number of schemes in respect of sheep needing to be continued and increased. As Deputy McConalogue said, all this money is spent locally. It supports the local economy. It is not going out of the country. Finally, I would advise caution on the beef data genomics scheme. Again as a former beef exporter, I feel it needs to be examined for fear that it will create a substantially maternal herd, which would affect confirmation and the quality of beef we are producing. I ask the Minister to look at that.

Before the last election I proposed a €200 per head payment for suckler cows. I was derided by the Minister at the time. Slowly but surely the farming organisations came on board.

The last CAP was very bad for suckler farmers, particularly for those west of the Shannon. Many of them used to export or sell the young cattle up the country before they got the ten-month punch. We need to support all farmers. We need all land farmed. That is the point that the Minister's predecessor failed to grasp and I am not sure anything has changed. I ask the Minister to give consideration to this now. It could be done quite simply. There is a lot of money unspent under the CAP. At the end of the day, we need our farming industry. It is an indigenous industry with a very high export ratio to inputs. I urge the Minister to be brave and do this.

We are raising this matter to highlight the absolute necessity of prioritising the suckler sector with targeted supports for these farmers. They are under threat from many fronts such as Brexit and South American beef and are at the same time struggling with an average income of less than €13,000 per annum. Many are farming part time and after finishing a day's work are going back out feeding cattle and doing another day's work. Their business is in rural areas and they are supporting local employment, spending income locally in the co-op, the vet, the shop or wherever. We need to support these rural enterprises. If a farm stops, it is a rural business closing down and a loss of income for the rural community. There is a knock-on effect for so many other rural services and businesses. The whole community suffers.

The suckler is not paying and the national herd is dropping away as farmers move out of the business. Around the Macroom hinterland, for example, as many as 1,000 suckler cows are gone. The Minister will know many of the farmers who have gotten rid of the cows. On good land there may be the option of supporting dairy, contract rearing or leasing land. On the more marginal land there are not the same options and the farmer could very likely be planted. That is squeezing rural communities. If they move towards fattening from the dairy herd, that is reducing the quality of the product.

The Minister needs a scheme targeting the suckler farmer - €200 a cow. There is a significant underspend across several schemes under the 2014-2020 rural development programme, which is running behind targets. The beef genomics scheme, for example, did not get the planned take-up. Farmers felt that there was so much paperwork for a low return that it was not worth it. People are even dropping out of it and there is a 52% underspend. The Minister needs to look at the unspent funds and find ways of directing funding towards a €200 suckler cow scheme for rural communities and farmers.

I wholeheartedly support the motion tabled by my party's agriculture spokesman, Deputy Charlie McConalogue. The suckler sector and the beef producers of this country need proper supports to ensure that we can continue to deliver high quality beef cuts to the housewives at home and abroad. I urge the Minister not to go down the same road as his predecessor when the current Tánaiste, Deputy Simon Coveney, told our tillage sector to switch to alternative agriculture operations, i.e. to start milking cows. That was only a couple of years ago with the abolition of milk quotas.

I remind the Minister of the programme for Government, which states that:

A strong commitment to ensure sustained profitability in the beef sector will be at the heart of a new Government. Market volatility and a fair return from the market place are ongoing concerns for the industry. A new Government will focus on bringing about change by encouraging profitability through greater efficiencies... Maintaining a strong and viable suckler herd is a key priority and this will be a focus of the work of the beef forum.

Aid is needed in this sector. Another item from the programme for Government, under the heading "trade negotiations", states:

A priority for the new Government will be to safeguard Ireland’s defensive and offensive interests in the context of any future international trade negotiations (such as a potential Mercosur deal). We will ensure that our national interests are protected in any future trade discussions, with a particular focus on beef and food safety standards. We will work with the European Commission and colleagues across the EU to ensure the best possible outcome for Ireland in any future negotiations.

I may have hit close to plagiarism here, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I must ask if Phil Hogan has his heart in the right place. I ask him to pull back, especially with Brexit pending. It is important that these negotiations are suspended given Brexit and the crisis in the beef sector.

I am sharing time with Deputy Deering and Deputy Peter Burke.

I am pleased to speak to the House on this important issue on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Michael Creed. The Government is very much aware of the importance of the suckler sector to Ireland's rural economy and the wider agri-food industry. In addition to its contribution to Irish beef exports of €2.4 billion last year, it helps to support farm income for around 70,000 farm households directly. Indirectly, it supports jobs in the meat processing sector, co-ops, feed merchants, agri-contractors and other local businesses. The Government strongly supports a vibrant and productive national suckler herd.

The beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, is the main support specifically targeted at the suckler sector and provides Irish beef farmers with some €300 million in funding over the current rural development programme period. So far under this programme, approximately €125 million has been paid out to farmers and the Government will continue to support the programme through the lifetime of the current rural development programme. This scheme, in addition to providing targeted support to Irish suckler farmers, is an important component of our national efforts to reducing the carbon footprint of our agricultural output. The BDGP was approved following extensive negotiations with the European Commission for this innovative programme. Supports under the programme are paid on the basis of costs incurred and income foregone by suckler farmers.

In addition to the BDGP, the Government provides a range of other supports which are available to suckler farmers, including GLAS and TAMS in addition to the basic payment scheme and disadvantaged area payments. The Government has argued and will continue to argue for as strong a CAP budget as is possible post-2020. The Government is particularly aware of the potential future threat of Brexit and any Mercosur trade deal to the national suckler herd. The Government is committed to working to ensure that Ireland's interests are strongly articulated during negotiations on Brexit. We will continue to work with like-minded member states to protect the interests of the EU beef sector in the context of EU discussions on a trade deal with Mercosur countries. The Government fully acknowledges the important contribution of the suckler herd to Ireland's beef exports which in 2017 amounted to €2.4 billion. Additionally, the beef produced by our pasture-based suckler farmers gives us a unique marketing advantage throughout the world. Ireland continues to increase its footprint in international markets, which in 2017 accounted for 6% of total beef exports compared to 3% in 2016.

Since he took office the Minister, Deputy Creed, has made increasing the levels of live exports a priority. The number of live animals exported in 2017 increased by 30% compared to 2016. I know the Minister sees a vibrant live export trade as an important source of income for suckler farmers and will continue his efforts in this area in 2018. The Government's view is that any future supports to the suckler herd should be designed to ensure that the national suckler herd is developed in a sustainable and efficient manner in line with the food wise strategy for the sustainable development of the agri-food sector as a whole.

There is a significant amount of ambiguity surrounding the Fianna Fáil motion. Looking in detail at the CAP in 2015, when the decoupled payment system came in, and following through the content of the motion, a coupled based system under Pillar 1 would have significant implications for the budget and could in my view necessitate an 18% cut in the basic payment system. We need to be very careful here. We have to support the suckler sector and that is one thing the Minister is very keen on doing. The strong way to do that is through the CAP post-2020, ensuring that we negotiate strongly on behalf of the Irish Government through Europe and working with our counterparts in that. We should especially take into account the 80-20 redistribution of resources. That is a key point. At the European Parliament, the Taoiseach indicated his willingness to raise these issues and the contribution to the EU budget.

When we listen to some of the debate, it is incredible.

If we look back at what happened at some of the meetings held in Tuam in 2015, many of the Fianna Fáil representatives were castigating the beef genomics and data programme, BGDP. A few weeks later there were press releases asking for the basic payment to be doubled. Fianna Fáil was speaking out of both sides of its mouth to a significant degree. We need to be very clear. We have to encourage efficiency and good farming practices. The Minister has been very strong in ensuring farmers get the best out of their herds in order that Ireland will prosper as an agricultural nation. In terms of export earnings, there are €2.5 billion worth of beef sales. We have to work hard to ensure that figure will continues to grow. I have full confidence that the Minister and the Government will continue that work.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak about this issue. We do not often get an opportunity to speak about agricultural issues and I believe we should have more opportunities to do so.

The livestock census figures for the years 2010 to 2017, inclusive, show that the number of suckler cows in the national herd has reduced from approximately 1.15 million to 1.08 million, a reduction of around 7%. Following the removal of milk quotas in 2015, it was anticipated that there would be a substantial reduction in the size of the national suckler cow herd. While there has been movement from suckler cows to dairying in traditionally strong dairy counties, the overall reduction in the size of the herd has been much less than anticipated, which is very encouraging. There are around 33,000 farmers whose main enterprise is suckler cow or cattle rearing, accounting for 23% of all farms in Ireland. These farms are particularly reliant on direct payments to cover production costs, with average direct payments of approximately €14,500, accounting for 115% of family farm income, according to Teagasc’s national farm survey 2016.

Furthermore, an analysis of the national diary farm survey data shows that existing direct payments to suckler cow farmers provide support equivalent to approximately €500 per suckler cow. The BDGP which has been mentioned regularly in the House today is the main support specifically targeted at the suckler cow sector. It will provide beef farmers with some €300 million in funding during the current rural development programme period. There are approximately 25,000 herds covered by the programme and approximately €125 million has been paid out so far. The basis of the programme is that genetic improvements are to be delivered by improving the maternal efficiency traits of the national herd, which will result in a corresponding reduction in the level of greenhouse gasses, GHG, per kilogram of beef produced by suckler beef animals. Research data allow us to quantify the reduction in GHG emissions associated with each day a cow's calving interval is shortened, each day younger at which a cow produces its first calf and each kilogram heavier a calf is at the time of weaning. These are the key objectives of the programme.

The BDGP was agreed with the European Commission as part of Ireland’s rural development plan for the period 2014 to 2020, alongside a number of other schemes such as the areas of natural constraint, ANC, scheme; the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, and the targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS, which also benefit suckler cow farmers. We have heard, in the past few minutes in particular, about the underspend under different schemes. I challenge Fianna Fáil to outline where the underspend is occurring. GLAS and TAMS payments are built into the process. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not going to sort out this problem. Pitting farmers one against the other is not going to sort it out. There is no way one can look for €200 under the current system.

The current model of funding via the BDGP provides support to enable suckler cow farmers to improve efficiency and profitability by improving the overall genetic merit of their beef herd. I firmly believe the scheme will deliver tangible long-term and cumulative positive effects for both suckler cow farmers participating in the scheme and farmers who buy the progeny of suckler cows for further finishing. That is the only way forward. I recently had the opportunity to attend a beef trial farm in my constituency, where there was collaborative work done between the processors, the researchers, Teagasc, the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, and farmers. The tangible effects of that research can be seen in the period since. It has only been available for three years and they are planning for the future. The fact is that there are more dairy herd animals coming into the system as a result of the increase in the size of the dairy herd and we can get the best produce from them. The same applies to the beef cow herd. We have learned how Angus and Hereford cattle can be produced more efficiently in the beef cow sector, how an easier calving animal is produced and how we can achieve a beefier animal. That is the only way forward. Extra funds could be made available under CAP 2020, but we have to have the technology and genomics programme needed. Technology and genomics will help to make the beef sector more competitive and efficient for the future.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion which was brought forward by Deputy Charlie McConalogue. The element on which Deputies have been focusing is the suckler cow sector, as well as where the suckler cow scheme is at and how we move forward.

Many farmers have found the BDGP very useful. There are approximately 25,000 farmers participating in the scheme, but we know that there are three times that number of suckler cow farmers. In that respect, there has been quite a low uptake. While €125 million has been spent in the first three years, it is only two thirds of the spend envisaged. I acknowledge that there is a plea made in the motion for a review and for the Minister to state what is going to happen in the future. I expect what we will hear is that the money will be drawn down over a period, that after 2020 there will be money left over and that there is always this type of roll-over. That is what we always hear. The problem is that farmers in suckler cow areas which are mainly along the western seaboard have an average herd of approximately 18 cows. Many of them are in my constituency. The reality is that they are struggling to survive because every year a cow calves and the calf is reared as a weanling. The farmer then goes to the mart and it is pot luck whether he or she will get a decent price. Sometimes it works out well and sometimes it does not. Even in the years farmers achieve a good price, they are still the farmers with the lowest incomes in the farming sector. They have few options beyond pursuing this type of farming on the marginal land they own. As most of them are smallholders, engaging in dairying is not an option. The land is not really good enough for them to do so. The viable options involve rearing sheep or suckler cows and engaging in forestry. The reality is that these options are not very good.

These farmers provide a service for the excellent beef sector because they are the root from which it grows. The quality of weanlings produced is excellent and there should be some recognition of this. On the figure of €200 mentioned by Deputy Pat Deering, we can all do the sums. There are 1 million suckler cows. If €200 was to be paid for 500,000 of them, it would work out as €100 million per year. We know that there is a cost, but at this stage, if we are serious about protecting the sector, we have to try to find that money. There is an argument to be made for increasing it even further and front-loading some of the money for smaller farmers who are producing great weanlings.

Other issues are raised in the motion. I particularly want to talk about Mercosur. The deal will have a huge impact on the beef sector in Ireland. If prime cuts of beef come into Europe from Latin America, at the levels being discussed or perhaps higher, it will have a very negative impact on the beef sector here. That negative impact, coupled with the effects of Brexit, will mean serious trouble which will feed all the way back to the suckler cow sector.

The reality is that there is a problem with the intensification of farming. This and other Governments for as long as we can remember have encouraged farmers to produce more in order to achieve the same income. I know men who have been farming for 40 years who tell me that their income is lower now than it was 30 years ago when they had less cattle. They now have less income in doing the same amount of work. We will soon end up in a situation where more and more small family farms will go to the wall. I do not believe that should be allowed to happen. The farming community does not just provide a service for the beef sector which is a big employer in the country but also for the entire community. We need to understand carbon sequestration is part of what we are doing. It is part of where our green and clean image as a meat and food producing country comes from. It comes from the family farm which must be protected and the only way it can be protected is if the Government steps up to the mark and provides for it.

Other schemes mentioned include GLAS, the BDGP, the knowledge transfer scheme, TAMs and the new sheep scheme, all of which provide a little hope for farmers.

Unfortunately, for very many of them, that hope is waning constantly because they see that the level of return they get for the actual food they produce is being squeezed. That is something that must be recognised.

We had representatives of the meat industry before the committee yesterday and we asked them why Irish farmers were getting only an average price in the factory compared to farmers in the rest of Europe when the cattle in many parts of Europe are produced in a totally different way. We have the cream of the crop, yet we get only an average price. Those questions have to be put strongly to the entire sector. We need to recognise that it is not all about the cheque in the post. That said, the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, budget has to be maintained. We have to ensure that we have an adequate budget to provide for farmers into the future.

I appeal to the Minister to remember that this is about the family farm. The suckler sector, and the sheep sector in particular, are crucial to this because they are the two sectors that are made up of the small family farms that are struggling to survive. They are the ones that need the most support, and they need that support as quickly as possible. I will conclude to allow my colleagues to contribute.

I want to begin by commending Deputy McConologue for bringing forward this very important motion. As we all know, the suckler sector is in crisis and is now referred to as the poor relation in Irish agriculture. It is a sad day when we see that happening. That has happened because of the lack of intervention, lack of political will and lack of support for the sector. Hopefully, that will change, and we are all here tonight to say that it has to change. These family farms need adequate supports. They are adding to our economy. They are playing a very important role in our country, and it has to change.

As we all know, the prospect of Ireland maintaining a viable suckler farming sector is diminishing. More and more marts host suckler dispersal sales. While nationally there has been a 6% decline in herd size since the abolition of milk quotas, some counties have experienced  greater losses. As an increasing number of farmers liquidate their stocks to finance a switch to dairy, there is a concern that, without intervention, our quality beef production industry may come under serious threat.

Despite the myth, beef from the dairy industry will not salvage the red meat sector. With dairy cows now producing 50% more milk than 30 years ago, sucklers are not being replaced in the milk sector by the same number of cows. It is clear that beyond 2020, the Common Agricultural Policy must include measures which allow for a degree of re-coupling which, in essence, means the reintroduction of headage payments for sucklers. Given that the value of the Irish beef export market is calculated at €2.5 billion and that the United Kingdom is the largest importer, there is merit in developing an intervention which seeks to mitigate the anticipated impact of Brexit on sales. The phased introduction of a payment to reach the proposed threshold of €200 direct support for these farmers would bring the subsidy in line with that currently being paid to French farmers.

Whether the current exodus from the beef market and transition into dairy is short-term or long-term remains to be seen, but what is evident is that sustaining the sector at this time and alleviating the hardship on small farmers is unattainable without a headage payment.

Ten thousand jobs are created by the beef sector, which means that any major decline in the industry will be detrimental for the people who depend on it. The Irish Farmers Journal recently reported that there has been a €177 per head drop in the level of funding for suckler farmers in the past decade. That is seen as the main reason for the current decline in the numbers engaged in the sector.

The annual incomes for suckler farmers average as low as €12,908. That is a fact. That fact clearly indicates that this sector is in deep crisis and that support and action from Government are urgently required. I call on the Minister to do just that.

Suckler farmers are existing; that is about it. They are existing on €13,000 a year, and many of them are on farm assist in order to survive. That is an indictment of the political establishment, the major political parties and some farming organisations. The fact that they are small farmers means they do not get the attention or the support they deserve to remain on their lands. Many of these small family suckler farms are based in the west and the south west. Obviously, the type of land is very marginal in many cases. We underestimate the contribution they make to our economy, and in particular to the processors, who are huge beneficiaries of the suckler farm. Can the Minister imagine the suckler farm sector collapsing and being unable to survive? Can he imagine the knock-on effect that will have on the processing sector, our exports and so forth? The €2.5 billion per year export market is dependent on 75,000 suckler farmers remaining in the sector. Any reduction in that number will have an effect on that €2.5 billion.

What suckler farmers need to survive, as a human right, is support, and part of that support has to be a headage payment to allow them stay on their farms. Can the Minister imagine the social consequences for rural Ireland if the suckler farm is gone off our landscape?

Currently, there is a huge debate around the effects of Brexit, in particular, the opening up of the British market to the likes of Brazilian beef and so forth and how that will affect producers here. They are talking about a 16% reduction in income. A 16% reduction on €13,000 a year would be catastrophic. That needs to be taken into account, not least in terms of the beef we know and the standards we have set ourselves within the EU regarding traceability from conception to the table. That will no longer be the case, and that is what the Irish farming organisations will have to compete with.

During the next negotiation it is essential that every effort is made to try to ensure there will be a subsidy for each suckler farmer and each suckler cow, and €200 a head is small money when we consider the social consequences for rural Ireland. It is important to have that in terms of the survival of rural Ireland. The onus is on all of us here, and in particular the Government and the Minister, to ensure that is attainable. We, in Sinn Féin, did our sums on that and worked it out in our pre-budget submission, which the Minister probably has read. They show clearly that for the first 15 cows, there is a subsidy of €200 a head for the calf. That is attainable, and the Minister will find it in our submission.

I commend Deputy McConalogue for bringing this motion before the House. There is a tendency within the political establishment, and certainly within the economic establishment, to say that big is great, that it is all about getting bigger and that the small person is cannon fodder and should be forgotten. However, we have to stand up and fight for the small farmer because that is how we will be judged. We will not be judged well by erasing rural Ireland or the small suckler farmers. If 50% of them go, that leaves 37,500. If they go off the land, can the Minister see the consequences for rural Ireland? Can he see the effect it will have on the local economies in rural Ireland? Can he visualise the importance of their contribution? In his submission the Minister said that every €1 generates €4. I do not know if that is true, but it certainly generates a lot more than €1 when it is circulated within our rural communities.

It is about time the Government stood up and ensured a headage payment for each suckler cow to ensure the survival of the family suckler farm.

The onus is on each and every one of us to make sure of that. It is up to us to hold the Minister to account and it is up to him and the Government to deliver.

I will concentrate on the importance of the Mercosur negotiations. If their outcome and that of Brexit are not successful from our perspective, it is conceivable that our beef industry will be obliterated. Ireland's interest in the EU-Mercosur talks is clearly centred on beef. Irish farmers are understandably concerned that the EU may grant significant access to the EU for Mercosur beef. At present, the EU imports 247,000 tonnes of beef from Mercosur countries, representing three quarters of total beef imports. The EU has offered to allow an additional 70,000 tonnes of imports although the trade Commissioner, Ms Cecilia Malmström, seems willing to raise the offer to 100,000 tonnes. Mercosur, on the other hand, is demanding access for an additional 200,000 tonnes. Mercosur negotiators have argued that the additional 70,000 tonnes the EU seems willing to offer represents just two hamburgers per year for each EU citizen. As an average beef carcass yields only 12% of prime cuts, however, that 70,000 tonnes will require the slaughter of 600,000 tonnes of beef. That is actually greater than Ireland's total beef exports of 535,000 tonnes. While 70,000 tonnes might seem insignificant in an EU beef market of 7 million tonnes, Bord Bia points out that it will create significant competition for Ireland's high-quality beef cuts in the EU market. The EU's own research shows that increasing beef imports from Mercosur countries could reduce beef prices by 60%. Since we in Ireland export 90% of the beef we produce, the impact on Irish beef production would be greater. Increased Mercosur imports could lead to a 30% reduction in beef prices of €1 per kilogram. That would cost Irish beef farmers approximately €500 million per annum.

In Mercosur countries the regulation of beef production is minimal. Animal diseases like foot and mouth disease remain prevalent. Most Mercosur countries lack tagging, traceability or movement control systems for livestock and, as a result, cannot guarantee origin or food safety. These countries use branding as the main means of identification, which undermines the credibility of any certification process for beef exports into the EU. Many drugs, including some antibiotics and insecticides, which are banned in the EU are cleared for legal use in Mercosur countries with no controls on purchases or withdrawal periods. In addition, illegal drugs like hormones and clenbuterol are widely available and used in South American beef production. Most Mercosur beef is produced on huge ranches on which workers receive low pay and have poor working conditions.

Irish beef is produced on natural pasture whereas much of the pasture on which Brazilian beef is produced consists of land which was once rainforest, the clearance of which contributed greatly to climate change. The clearing of Amazonian rainforest accounts for 75% of Brazil’s contribution to global warming with 70% of the clearances being attributable to cattle ranching. Irish beef production systems are between two and four times more efficient than those in South America in terms of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions when land use changes are considered. Domestic EU beef production is far more sustainable in terms of carbon and water, with greenhouse gas emissions from Irish suckler beef production estimated at approximately a quarter of emissions from Brazil. While the EU purports to be concerned about the environmental impact of trade, it seems inconsistent to replace sustainable EU beef production for European consumers with products from South America which have a much higher carbon footprint.

While imports of beef to the EU from Mercosur countries are subject to EU food safety standards, the lower labour costs and environmental conditions will continue to give Mercosur producers a cost advantage. That must be considered when deciding what quota of beef imports will be allowed. The most effective way to protect EU beef producers while allowing some market access for Mercosur producers would be to negotiate tariff rate quotas. Under a tariff rate quota system, a limited amount of beef would be imported at low tariff while imports above that level would be subject to significantly higher targets. The threat to the Irish beef industry from increased Mercosur imports would be considerable if the UK were to remain within the EU. Brexit has added a further threat, however. A major argument put forward by Brexiteers in favour of the UK leaving the EU is the possibility of concluding more favourable trade deals with countries or groups of countries. While this is a very optimistic argument, the possibility that the UK will impose tariffs on EU beef after it leaves cannot be ruled out. Were the UK to conclude a deal on beef with Mercosur after Brexit, we could find that beef in Newry is half the price it is in Dundalk. This possibility makes it even more urgent for Ireland to resist any deal with Mercosur on beef which might lower beef prices and farmers' incomes significantly.

Fortunately, Ireland is not alone in opposing a significant increase in Mercosur beef imports. It should co-operate fully with the other EU member states which oppose the deal. As the French trade Minister, Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne said, negotiators should take their time to get the deal right. Lemoyne said that while France wants an agreement, it will not be rushed into it. He pointed out that a few years are not significant in negotiations which have been ongoing for 15 years. He also stated that France wants the EU to recognise that the market has evolved since the talks began. Lemoyne's views are shared by others, including Belgium, Romania and Slovenia. Ireland must resist being pressurised to agree a deal which would be very damaging for the beef industry by countries which stand to gain more than we do from an agreement. The Minister has our solid support to insist that the interests of the Irish and European beef sectors are safeguarded fully and protected in the conduct of the negotiations.

I hail from a mainly beef production area. Indeed, my brother is a suckler cow farmer. Longford-Westmeath is at the very heart of that. As such, I am aware of a significant decrease in suckler cow numbers in the past four years. Nationally, beef cow numbers have declined by approximately 6%. We must be truthful and stop codding here. The cause of that decline arises from a number of things, including the number of younger farmers in particular who have gone into milk production. I have seen it happening in my own area and have been warning them about it. I said it at the Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. They have opted to switch to dairy or to have integrated calf-to-beef systems. Large increases have taken place in the eastern and south-eastern counties. In my county, there has been a 3% drop in the number of suckler cows in the past four years. Longford has experienced a decline of just over 5% in the same period. With the removal of milk quotas and a continuing question of profitability, many experts anticipate the decline will be even greater. The advent of the beef data and genomics programme payment may have helped to stem the exit. I sat on an agriculture committee when Fianna Fáil nearly stopped the programme, together with the IFA. Former spokesperson Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív was there. I am 150% behind the programme however. It is worth approximately €80 to €100 per head but it should be increased to €130 or €140 per head. That is important because the only way we are going to increase efficiency is through genetic improvements in herds.

For suckler cow farmers, we must cut out this nonsense. We need to get the price right for them. Guaranteeing meat yield and higher prices for new grades and carcasses would help to boost suckler cow numbers. One has to take stock of the reality and start there. There is a €14 billion hole in the EU budget as a result of Britain leaving, of which €3 billion relates to CAP. There is a hole in the bucket and the only way to fill it is from individual European member states paying extra. We will have to pay more. Even to get them to pay for the €14 billion will be some achievement, in which respect we should not be trying to fool anyone. I will not fool any farmer. Farming or other organisations or political parties can do it, but I will not be part of it. I will tell the truth. I am only telling the truth to my own brother who is in the game.

I welcome the motion which I support fully. We talk about money. I tabled a question to the Department of Finance to ask what was given back by agriculture in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The Department replied that after taking account of capital carryover in the following year, the surplus to be surrendered to the Exchequer in 2015 was €57 million and in 2016 it was €231 million.

The reality is that 70% of the suckler herd is from Donegal down to Clare and out to Longford. The reason we are losing cattle numbers is that when one goes to the mart to sell a weanling, the price is not there. The cow is costing too much. Unless we put a floor under the price, we are going nowhere. There was talk about beef genomics. I heard Deputy Penrose discuss it. For the export market and to get cattle to Turkey or wherever, we must have the Benson & Hedges coloured Charolais because that is what will make the money. One has to get €850 to €1,000 for a weanling or one is going nowhere with the suckler herd. We have to put a floor under the price.

In 2015, there were 40,000 herds with fewer than 12 cows. These are family farms. When CAP came out, they got shafted because 80% of the money went to 20% of the farmers. These farmers are not going into it. One looks at the statistics for the current year and has to ask why we have killed 10,000 more cattle but the tonnage was the same. It is because we are rearing narrow-arsed cattle that will not pull down the scale.

Whether people like to admit that or not, it is the reality. There is a question mark over some of the beef genomics at the moment because of the star rating. They are looking again at this because some bulls produced four or five calves and some produced 100 calves, but the ones that produced four or five had the higher star rating. We need to get realistic and produce the product that is required. Whether we like it or not, the farmer has to have an animal that will pull the scales down or have the shape for export. They are continental cattle. If we keep going the way we are going, we will drive the farmer out. From Donegal down along the west coast right down to Kerry and out as far as Longford - that is where the nucleus is of farmers. We have to protect them with money. That is what came back to me from the Department of Finance. It is not me saying it: I can give that reply to anybody any day.

I wish to share time with Deputies Michael Collins and Danny Healy-Rae.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion and I thank Deputy McConalogue for bringing it forward. Suckler cow numbers nationwide have declined by 4% according to official statistics from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This comes on the back of vast expansion in the country's dairy sector, particularly after the removal of milk quotas in 2015, since when the dairy herd has increased by 35%. In Clare the suckler sector is very important, with 70,000 suckler cows compared to 30,000 dairy cows because the land in the west is more suited to the suckler system of farming.

Supporting our farming community is essential to the sustainability of our rural towns and villages and maintaining the fabric of rural society. To keep suckler farmers sustainable and viable, there needs to be a targeted payments system, particularly for Clare farmers, who are dependent on the suckler trade. This targeted payment system should be there to support suckler farmers. The cost of maintaining a suckler cow is almost the same as the price one gets for selling the calf at the age of nine to 12 months. As there is very little money in the sector, supports are needed. The motion calls for a targeted payment of €200 per head, which is in keeping with what the farming organisations are calling for.

Some 5% of our beef production is for home consumption, 50% is for export to the UK market and the remainder is sold around the world to both EU and non-EU countries, in particular live exports to Turkey. Beef farming is also a major employer and it needs to be supported because it is a very important part of the rural Irish economy. The beef sector faces two major challenges. The first is Brexit, which threatens to be the most important challenge because there will be difficulties exporting beef into the UK if tariffs are put on Irish exports. Second, there will reduced CAP payments of up to 30% due to the loss of payments from the UK. Additionally, the Mercosur trade agreement threatens to flood the European market with cheap and lower quality beef. Europe wants to sell goods into the Mercosur trading area, which has some 260 million people, and in return we will be expected to accept South American beef. We need to keep that to the absolute minimum if we do accept Mercosur beef. We must also consider how farming is going to deal with meeting the climate change targets which are coming down the road.

We have to prepare our farming community for these eventualities. Targeted payments are key, as well as supporting CAP payments. We must plan to support our family farming communities.

I am happy to speak on the motion and I want to commend the Deputies in Fianna Fáil for bringing it forward. I have to admit I have a conflict of interest as I am a suckler cow farmer. Going back many years, when I took over the running of the farm, a wise neighbour told me, "Remember one thing, Collins, farming is from the shoulders up, and not down." My God, was that man ever so right in all of his life. Like many of my neighbours and friends who were reared in rural Ireland, I foolishly dreamed of working the farm and being able to live off the farm but, like many more, only for having an outside income to fund the farm, that same farm would be gone by now.

Farm incomes have been cut time and again down through the years. Last year, we saw the grain farmers doing a sit-in at Agriculture House, protesting at the crisis they found themselves in where they had been cut year after year. In my view, it was scandalous that they were left there, day after day, without any acknowledgement. I am particularly unhappy that in my county of Cork, where there were 86 applicants for compensation among grain farmers - although in my view it was poor compensation - only 32 of those farmers have been paid to date. This proves the compensation was over-complicated and very difficult to qualify for. The milk sector has gone through a good year, which was welcome after many years of hardship. However, as we all know, dairy farmers have huge costs, which leads to a lot of stress on farmers.

The Mercosur trade deal is make or break for Irish suckler farmers. In the current Mercosur trade talks, the EU’s latest offers would see Mercosur countries being allowed to export 70,000 tonnes of beef into the EU, while we are aware that the Mercosur countries are looking to be allowed to export 100,000 tonnes per year. Even at the figure of 70,000, this will have a detrimental effect on European and Irish beef producers. There is also a danger that it will expose customers to health risks.

The suckler farmers have been continuously hit for years, with no voice in the political system working for them. A recent report by Teagasc states that the price of weanlings was down 4% last year. That is the difference between sinking and swimming for many suckler farmers. Payments for many farmers have been held up, in particular with GLAS and its so-called computer glitches. Many farmers are being unfairly treated and refused payments due to fires having been started on their lands due to no fault of their own. The area of natural constraint payment was cut in 2008 and that cut has not yet been restored ten years later. I would support any introduction of a €200 payment for a suckler cow grant. If this is to be introduced, however, the Minister should stop codding Irish farmers. If he is going to give some kind of payment to farmers, he should stop complicating it like the grain compensation and everything else, making it almost impossible for farmers to get the compensation. That kind of a system has to stop. The Minister should simplify the payment. He should work with the farmers, not against them.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of suckler farmers right around the western seaboard. I disagree with Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice who said this only extends from Donegal down to Clare and over to Longford.

I mentioned Kerry as well.

I can tell him there are very good suckler farmers in south and west Kerry and they pride themselves on farming and producing good weanlings.

Like everything, the source of the beef is the calf. If the calves are not going to be looked after, we are at a crossroads. I hear the vibes around the circuit that the suckler farmer is finding it very hard to continue and is very likely to cut down numbers or to get out of it altogether. I have no problem in telling the people on the eastern side of the country that the weanlings are coming from the west. They are coming into the mart of the Minister's town of Macroom and into Skibbereen, Kenmare, Milltown and Cahirciveen and that is where the drovers from up the country are getting their beef. If those fellows are not going to be looked after, they will disappear and it will be very hard to get them back because there is an awful lot involved in calving a cow and rearing the calf. Many farmers are experiencing challenges due to the volatility in the market, the difficulty in farming conditions, bad weather and losses. I am a suckler farmer myself. I bought a farm 25 years ago and in ten years I paid off the loan, but if I bought it today, I would not pay off the loan. With the cost of the land and what is being made from calves at present, it would be gone in a couple of years.

Some 35 or 36 years ago weanlings were making £700 to £750 but, today, they are making €700 to €750, so there is something wrong. That is the truth. Farmers need this €200 like they never needed it before. The cost of fertiliser and feed are going up every year but the price of the weanlings in the marts is not going up.

Something needs to be done to protect them and ensure that they continue because if we do not have the sucklers we will not have the beef down the line. Many of these farmers survive on very marginal farms and conditions. They pride themselves on the stock they produce.

They are combed and they are fed to the last coming into the marts. Some 90% of them are in Bord Bia and are experiencing inspections regularly.

The Deputy has exceeded his time.

They treat their animals better than they treat themselves.

The Deputy is ignoring the Chair.

I ask the Minister please to listen. It is a Fianna Fáil motion and I am glad to have the chance to speak on behalf of suckler cows-----

The Deputy is taking advantage.

Fianna Fáil must -----

Stop. I call Deputy Dara Calleary.

They are joined with Fine Gael in government and can put more of a squeeze on it and that is what I am asking it to do.

The Deputy cannot continue to ignore the Chair.

God, I am very sorry. I did not hear the Leas-Cheann Comhairle at all.

The Chairman is losing the vice grip.

Deputy Dara Calleary is sharing time. The only Deputy I can see here is Deputy Niall Collins.

I commend Deputy McConalogue and Deputy Cahill for tabling this motion. In recent days the House has discussed the national planning framework and the national development plan. That is supposed to end two-legged exports from the western coast. It is full of brim and dazzle, with no substance. Deputy McConalogue's proposal this evening relates to stopping the export of four-legged animals from the west, which is full of substance and should be listened to and not dismissed in the manner that I heard Deputy Pat Deering do earlier in a broadcast this evening, forgetting his role as Chairman of the agriculture committee.

I was speaking facts.

The Minister is travelling the country at the moment, which I welcome. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Andrew Doyle, is in Mayo this evening listening to the stories from the core of Irish farming. The Minister will know that in many ways it stands at a cliff edge at this time. We face the challenge of Mercosur and the decline in quality which that might bring with it; Brexit and the decline that represents in our main market and also the detrimental effect that will have on the CAP budget, which still underpins the entire rural economy whether we like it or not. Then there are the various fluctuations in price. Everyone here has praised the dairymen this evening but we all know that could change as quickly as an outbreak in China or any of our main markets. It is unpredictable and unsustainable.

Looking at the Government's response to the motion, its actions and its standing by departmental under-spends year after year while there are also delays in payments, it strikes me that the Minister does not understand the severity or urgency of the challenge which is what tonight is about. Tonight's proposals are about putting a foundation on our beef industry which is one of our green flag industries, one which successive Governments and various bodies put huge resources behind promoting, one whose quality and standards we are very proud of, one where our farmers are put the pin of their collar every day to maintain those standards, inspection after inspection, cross-compliance and every other thing. Yet, here we are with a substantial proposal to put a foundation under that industry and say we are taking it seriously and it is being ignored and dismissed.

Recognising this challenge will involve supporting the motion and putting in place a review of the underspend in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It does not make sense for that underspend to continue year after year. There are difficulties around late claims, especially on the capital side, but why does this happen year after year? As noted earlier, we were here around this time last year with an emergency motion around tillage farmers. Very little came of that. We are here tonight over sucklers: we could be here again about dairy. Nevertheless, the issues I receive in my office relate to payments that are consistently delayed and difficulties in getting them. I take this opportunity to commend the staff who work in the Minister's Oireachtas unit who go beyond the call of duty each time to assist Members but that should not be necessary. We should not have to do that. The Minister should take on board the seriousness of this motion and the serious crisis that faces the suckler sector, particularly on the west coast. He should put his money where his mouth is in terms of his commitment to farming and support farmers on this occasion.

The Minister's constituency neighbours my own and he will know the importance of the agricultural sector to the mid-west, to Limerick and to my constituency. There is in excess of 5,900 farms in County Limerick, of which 2,500 are less than 30 hectares with an average farm size of 35 hectares. We rely heavily on farming as a livelihood and many farm families rely on the income derived from farming. They are under huge pressure, as the Minister knows. The greatest issue in farming now is uncertainty about Brexit, Mercosur and the other extraneous factors such as the loan sale in Permanent TSB which will affect many farmsteads. There is also the issue of insurance costs. All these outside factors feed in. If tonight's motion does anything, I would like to be able to tell farmers in County Limerick, who rely heavily on the suckler sector because we have a lot of marginal land especially in west Limerick, where the income derived from it is crucial that the Minister could support the €200 payment and carry out the review of the rural development programme. The underspend in relation to GLAS is 78%, the TAMS has a 92% underspend and the hen harrier designated land has a 100% underspend, which I know has to kick off. It is of great importance to so many farmers in west Limerick.

I will speak briefly to accommodate my two colleagues. In putting down this motion, my colleague, Deputy McConalogue, is making a clear statement on the future of the suckler scheme. The cost of the suckler farming scheme is now a serious matter. This proposal of €200 per suckler cow would be most beneficial. Looking at my constituency, in Elphin there is a fantastic mart where farmers come twice weekly. That mart and those farmers keep that little town going. There is very little else in it. It is the very same story in Castlerea in County Roscommon. The life brought to the town of Castlerea by the mart and the farmers is significant. It is the same in Roscommon town. Looking at the Galway end of my constituency, as Deputy Anne Rabbitte will know, in Ballinasloe and Mountbellew most of the farmers are suckler farmers and they desperately need a boost now. Remember too that in many of those towns there are farming businesses such as machinery businesses.

I must cut my contribution short but I urge the Minister to take this on board. This a very sensible proposal from Fianna Fáil. We need it in the west and along the west coast. If we do not get something like that, many farmers will be under threat and many more businesses which are under pressure now will be in bigger trouble.

The Minister has been a regular visitor to Cavan-Monaghan and will realise and appreciate the pressures that the agricultural sector is under and how much we depend on it. The almost 1 million suckler cow herd is pivotal to supporting the local economy in rural Ireland and Cavan-Monaghan is no different. Every €1 support to suckler farmers generates over €4 of economic activity in rural areas and should not be under-estimated. Suckler farm families underpin annual Irish beef exports worth €2.5 billion. However, suckler farmers' average incomes are below €13,000 and they are fully dependent on CAP supports to maintain their livelihoods.

The Government has refused at every point to examine all options to introduce a €200 payment per suckler cow in the current and future CAP. Fianna Fáil and Deputy McConalogue have been instrumental in the political campaign for this key policy. We will continue to push for its delivery. I compliment my colleague on his motion urging the Minister to review the current underspend accruing across several areas in the 2014-2020 rural development programme scheme and reporting back to the Oireachtas within two months with a roadmap towards meeting those targets as the underspend could be well utilised for the suckler and other vulnerable sectors in agriculture.

The underspend in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has soared, as the Minister will be aware, to €186 million over the past two years while several of the 2014-2020 rural development programme, RDP, schemes are now on course to underspend significantly. Fianna Fáil has exposed how the current green, low-carbon, agri-environment scheme, GLAS, which we all have heard talked about on many occasions in this Chamber, is on track to leave farmers missing out on payments of over €400 million up until 2020. It is an appalling situation, given the severe cashflow crisis that is facing farmers on a daily basis. Such moneys are needed to spend in the current RDP window.

I need not re-emphasise how Cavan-Monaghan is so dependent on this sector and with Brexit looming large and darkly across that sector too, one area on which the Minister needs to focus his attentions is the suckler farmers' income. The Government must immediately seek EU recognition of these and request funding supports, including CAP, to support the market disturbances funds.

I would ask the Minister to support this practical motion which will deliver for farmers on the ground. The Minister has the money, as he will be aware, in the Department. There are underspends in many of the different areas. Here is an opportunity. It is a reasonable, practical measure that the Minister can put in place and I would hope that he would support it.

I thank Deputy McConalogue and his colleagues for tabling this motion. The number of contributors to the debate is indicative of the seriousness of the issue. The motion touches on all the challenges we face, from Mercosur to Brexit to CAP.

In addition to ensuring that the national suckler herd is supported with strong direct payments, I am also anxious to ensure that the productivity and efficiency of the suckler herd continues to improve. The better farm programme is a prime example of how supports can improve both efficiency and profitability. Results from the programme show five star or higher genetic merit suckler cows calved younger, went back in calf earlier and produced heavier weanlings, when compared to one star or low genetic merit cows. This data is not research farm data, but ICBF analysis of data from farmer participants in the programme which clearly shows the benefit in increasing the genetic merit of the national suckler herd - the key objective of the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP. Such a model of ensuring that supports drive both economic and environmental efficiency is one that, in my view, represents the best way forward for supporting our national suckler herd in the future, in line with the Food Wise strategy for the sustainable growth of the agrifood sector as a whole.

I refer to any potential additional funding over and above existing supports to suckler farmers and the only possible sources of such funding. A fully Exchequer-funded support scheme would require approval by the European Commission under state aid regulations and would need to comply with our obligations under the WTO rules. Second, while there have been calls for the use of savings within the existing rural development programme, RDP, to be used for additional supports, I wish to restate and make absolutely clear that there are no surplus funds available within the rural development programme above and beyond the funding already allocated, which has been committed to existing schemes within the rural development programme. Finally, any allocation of funding under Pillar I of the CAP would in principle have required a linear reduction of an estimated 18% to all existing farmers basis payment scheme payments for redistribution. In fact, the deadline for any such change to the Pillar I scheme in the current round has already passed.

I want to make it clear that Ireland will continue to argue for as strong a CAP budget as possible post 2020. There will be budgetary challenges however, arising not only from the United Kingdom's decision to exit the EU, but also from the need to address other EU policy challenges such as those relating to migration, security and growth. On the Taoiseach's comments, which Deputy Burke referred to earlier, in the context of funding of a CAP where he stated in the European Parliament that Ireland was open to the issue of contributing additional funds to the Common Agricultural Policy, we need to be prudent around how we prosecute this debate because it would be rather foolish of us to have our hand up early indicating a willingness to increase our contribution if the final shape of the Common Agricultural Policy meant that such increased contribution from us was being spent elsewhere rather than domestically, and we need to be careful in that issue.

The case to be made to member states and European taxpayers for a strong CAP must be based on strong public good arguments. I will continue arguing strongly that the CAP provides vital support for the rural economy and society, provides a range of environmental benefits and supports an EU farming model that supports the production of high quality, safe food on family farms.

I am committed to ensuring that suckler farmers continue to receive strong support in the next CAP post 2020. However, I am strongly of the view that any such payments should not merely be supports for the sake of supports - suckler farmers must be supported and encouraged to make the best decisions possible to improve the profitability, and the economic and environmental efficiency of their farming system.

I can assure everyone I will work hard with my European counterparts to ensure that the CAP budget post-2020 provides a solid and effective foundation for the development of the sector.

I draw all Deputies attention to the current public consultation on the future of the CAP post-2020 which is being undertaken with a view to allowing all stakeholders in the next CAP to provide their thoughts and suggestions as to how elements of the next CAP are structured. I would encourage all stakeholders within the sector to contribute to this public consultation which will be an important part of the framing of the future CAP in Ireland.

In regard to the strength of the national suckler herd, according to the CSO June livestock census figures for the years 2010 to 2017, the number of suckler cows present in the national herd has reduced from approximately 1.15 million cows to 1.08 million cows, a reduction of approximately 6%. Since the removal of milk quotas in 2015, it was anticipated by many observers there would be a substantial reduction in the national suckler herd. While there has been a movement from sucklers to dairying in traditionally strong dairy counties, the extent of the overall reduction in the size of the herd is much less than anticipated. At county level, suckler cow numbers in Galway and Mayo, the two largest counties by herd size, have reduced by only 2% and 4%, respectively, in 2017 compared to 2010. By contrast, suckler numbers in Cork, the county with the third largest suckler herd, have reduced by 15% over the same period, most likely due to competition from dairying.

This Government is committed to suckler farming and will continue to ensure appropriate supports are targeted towards suckler farmers into the future. It is a sector that makes an enormous contribution to Ireland's rural economy, and a contribution which I see at first hand on a daily basis.

I acknowledge the comments of all contributors to the motion this evening and I can reassure Deputies that we have a common goal of supporting the sustainable development of the national suckler herd into the future, particularly in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy debate, which is under way, and determining the shape of the budget post-2020.

I will deal in more detail with the issue of a €200 suckler cow payment and how this would be funded. It simply is not an option because of WTO and state aid rules to have that funded from the Exchequer. The thrust of what Deputy McConalogue is saying - we have had this debate in the Chamber on a number of occasions - is that the capacity is there if only the political will were there to redirect funding under the rural development programme to the suckler cow scheme. By way of exposing what I think is the fallacy of that argument, I would point out that in 2008 - I generally prefer to look forward rather than look backwards - when disadvantaged area payments were slashed by the Fianna Fáil Government and when installation aid was abolished, the underspend in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine was €150 million. They are unconnected in many respects because the €150 million, as is the case in schemes today, was contractually committed to farmers under various schemes. The essence of the underspend argument is that somehow the Department should renege on the contractual commitments of funds under the rural development programme to the various schemes under Pillar II, be it areas of natural constraint, ANC, GLAS, knowledge transfer, beef data and genomics and targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS, or investments for various initiatives that can be drawn down under several subheads, and redirect that funding into a suckler cow scheme.

I will not do that. I will not break a contract to a farmer who is on GLAS or TAMS to shore up another payment, be it the beef data and genomics programme or any other way of getting payments to suckler farmers.

What is equally unclear from the motion is whether we are talking about a coupled payment or a payment under BDGP. It should be remembered that BDGP is about income forgone in terms of the farmer's commitment to it. Like all Administrations prior to me, I am adamant that we will not let a brown penny of EU money not be drawn down for the benefit of the Irish economy and under the rural development programme or any other heading. We have a track record, as do all other Administrations, of drawing down every last penny that is available, and we are at present in the vanguard at EU level of drawing down funding. Our drawdown at present is approximately 40% of our rural development programme. The average across the remaining member states is just north of 20%. We will draw down every last penny in funding. I reassure people that we are doing a great many things to try to support suckler farmers, and I am open, in the context of the CAP post 2020, to seeing how we can provide additional supports. However, a coupled payment will cut right across every initiative we have taken to improve the genetic merit of the herd and to liberate farmers from the compulsion to have the numbers to be able to guarantee drawdown of the payment. We liberate them from that and let them make more commercially focused decisions. However, if we introduce a coupled payment, it will undermine all the progress we have made to improve the genetic merit of the herd. This would be a huge mistake at a time when one of the biggest challenges we on the agriculture side face is to reduce our emissions.

I accept the bona fides of the motion. Everyone who has contributed to the debate wants the optimum outcome for the sector. It is a very important sector socially, in the context of family farm structure and outside the farm gate, and the processing industry and foreign earnings and so on are very important. However, we need to be honest about how we can deliver for it. The most effective way we can do so is in the context of the CAP post 2020. I am acutely aware, having attended some of the public consultations, of the strength of feeling, particularly in the west, on the redistribution requirement in respect of scarce resources. We will have to take this on board. The spirit of this debate is that this sector needs additional consideration, and I am open to that in the context of the 2020 CAP negotiations.

We move back to the Fianna Fáil slot, for which there is a total of ten minutes. The speakers are Deputies Brassil, Butler, Scanlon, Rabbitte and McConalogue. I understand they have two minutes each.

The Minister's contribution was interesting. He is supportive of the sector, he recognises it is vital and is the cornerstone of the industry and he wants to help it. Unfortunately, however, other than a willingness to look at a post-2020 CAP, there is no concrete proposal. We have put forward a proposal-----

It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The proposal is to help the sector.

It must be realistic.

If the Minister cannot redirect funds, as we have suggested, and which he claims is undoable, what can he do? He is the man in power, the man in government. That is why we have put the motion before him and why we are asking him to help the sector. Recognising what it does and does not do and how valuable it is is just words. We want to do something that will be of concrete help to a sector that is under threat from Brexit and which has already conceded 99,000 tonnes under the Mercosur trade deal. What is the point in bringing forward a proposal only to have it shot down with nothing put forward as an alternative? If the Minister cannot work on our proposal, we ask him to come up with one that works.

I commend my colleague, Deputy McConalogue, on bringing forward this motion calling for direct suckler supports and targeted underspend to low-income farmers. The lure of dairy farming has seen suckler cow numbers fall by up to 20% in some eastern and south-eastern counties. In my county of Waterford we have seen the sharpest decrease in suckler numbers, a reduction of 18.9% since 2014 or a loss of a fifth of the herd. This is a decline from 22,400 to 18,240 in three years. This is substantial and is an extremely worrying trend. The suckler sector faces threats on many fronts, with successive Fine Gael-led Governments found wanting. Suckler farmers are being let down, with the Government accepting at least 70,000 extra tonnes of South American Mercosur beef into the EU. The timing of this could not be any worse for farmers, with Brexit having the potential to place tariffs on half of all our beef exports. As the Minister knows, 50% of all our beef is exported to the UK, and with the uncertainty of Brexit, I believe the numbers will fall even further. Many young farmers are opting to switch to dairying or calf-to-beef systems. Why is this? Why are they turning away from sucklers? To me, the answer is quite clear: they simply cannot make it pay. While suckler farmers underpin our €2.5 billion in beef exports, they generate average incomes below €13,000 each year and they are fully dependent on CAP supports to maintain their livelihoods. Farmers and rural communities depend and rely on this sector. There is no doubt that money earned locally is spent locally. The Government has refused at every avenue to look at any options to introduce a €200 payment per suckler cow. Fianna Fáil has championed this as a key policy and will continue to campaign for its delivery.

I thank Deputy McConalogue for tabling this motion. I come from the north west, as the Minister knows, and there is no doubt that the north west and the farmers there are the engine that drives the beef industry in this country. We produce the calves that are fed for beef, and I agree with Deputy Danny Healy-Rae that, as I said, the north west supplies the beef industry throughout the country. I am very much in touch with farmers and I know that if suckler farmers do not get some help, specifically a suckler grant of at least €200, they will not survive. There is a €2.5 billion industry here that will collapse. The farmers are put to the pin of their collar. They cannot go dairying because the land is so scattered. They can survive with suckler cows, and most of them are working as well. Even at that, they are struggling to survive and to keep their families and keep running their lands.

I just do not fully understand the beef data and genomics scheme. It is said we will reduce greenhouse gasses. I do not know the difference between a Friesian cow and a suckler cow or how this greenhouse gas will be reduced. I can tell the Minister that it will create a lot more greenhouse gasses trying to put flesh on the calf of a Friesian cow. I know from my 35 years spent in the butchering business what a Friesian cow will produce and what a good suckler cow will produce, whether it is Aberdeen Angus, Hereford, Charolais or Limousin. There is absolutely no comparison in the wide earthly world to what a Friesian cow will produce. This is wrong. We will destroy our beef industry. I know cases of Friesian cows with five stars and good suckler breeding stock, well-bred over many years, with one star and two stars. What is going on does not make a bit of sense to me.

I commend Deputy Charlie McConalogue on tabling the motion. Unless these farmers get support, we will not have to worry about them because there will be none of them left.

I also commend Deputies McConalogue and Cahill, Senator Paul Daly and the entire agriculture team at Fianna Fáil on bringing forward this Private Members' motion and standing up for the suckler farmer. In my constituency we have our own anthem composed by the famous Saw Doctors called "N17". The song is about emigration among the people of north Galway on their way to Shannon Airport. One of the lines of the song is "Stone walls and the grass is green", and the fields are small in north Galway. This is exactly why we have the largest suckler herd in the country. We have 87,000 suckler cows and 13,500 farmers but we are down 3.5%.

The Minister has heard all night this is not just about my constituency. The issue goes from Donegal all the way down to Cork and it goes all the way over as far as Longford. The average income is approximately €13,000 per annum. As Deputy Scanlon has said, these people have to work outside the home. This is not their only industry and they are barely living on subsistence. As Deputy Fitzmaurice said earlier, we need a lower limit and this is what Deputy McConalogue has brought before the House this evening.

The Minister said he likes to look forward and so do I. I do not like to look back. However, I need to remind the Minister that the Taoiseach has failed utterly to defend beef farmers and he broke the promise he made at a recent IFA annual general meeting, where he stated the Government would have the farmers' backs. Once again it was all spin and no delivery. Unless the EU and the Government move quickly to inject confidence into the suckler sector, farmers will face exit from the sector and it will accelerate financial consequences far beyond the farmers' gates.

I thank all of the Deputies who spoke and contributed to the debate for their widespread support for the motion. I thank Deputy Cahill and Senator Paul Daly, who worked alongside me as part of the agricultural team driving these issues at meetings of the agriculture committee.

In his response, the Minister indicated he does not wish to break any contract with farmers on rural development programme schemes and certainly Fianna Fáil is at one with him in this regard. All commitments should be honoured and followed through, and we believe this is very important. For a man who does not want to break any contracts in the rural development programme schemes, unfortunately as a Minister he has shown himself to be very willing to break his Government's promises on the overall spend there would be on those schemes. The biggest area where there is an underspend is GLAS, which is why we tabled a motion calling for a review.

I have the press release from when the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Coveney, announced the GLAS scheme. We do not need to go any further than the headline, which states "Coveney Announces €1.4Bbn GLAS Scheme to Open Monday". That was in February 2015. An explanatory note at the end outlines how the money was to be allocated to GLAS over the lifetime of the programme period to 2020. We are now four years into the seven-year rural development programme, and it is quite clear at this stage from replies to parliamentary questions I have received that the maximum spend there can be under the GLAS scheme, given the participants and the amount of time it has been opened, is €1 billion. This brings it to 2022, when everybody who is in GLAS is to be out of it. That is €400 million less than the former Minister promised farmers. Our motion calls for this underspend, the promise and the commitments on other rural development programme schemes to be assessed and reviewed, because it is time the Government's bluff was called on this, given the fact it is failing to deliver on the promises it made. It got the headlines at the time, with €1.4 billion for GLAS, but it will deliver €400 million less than this. We will hold the Minister to this.

There will be an underspend in many of the schemes, and as part of this motion we are seeking that underspend be put on the table after which we will assess how it can best be spent and how the beef data genomics programme can be increased as part of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is crucial that we find a mechanism to deliver €200 for suckler cows. The Minister is teeing us up to accept 70,000 tonnes of beef in the Mercosur agreement, and the Minister did not even mention this agreement in his contribution. The Minister needs to go to Europe to seek adjustment funding for the impact this will have on our beef sector, being the most exposed agrisector in Europe.

With regard to Brexit, we need to see additional funds which recognise the potential impact it might have. This is something the Minister needs to set as an objective to try to achieve it. We will work with the Minister. All Members in the House are agreed on this being an objective, but in the short term we need to see the beef data genomics programme increased and have the rural development programme underspend assessed. Under the CAP we have to find a mechanism to support the many farming families throughout the country who need that support to be able to sustain the Irish countryside. I commend the motion to the House and I thank everyone for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 22 February 2018.
Barr
Roinn