Vol. 1067 No. 4
109. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views on the need to urgently review the relevant parts of Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 that cover the structure and operation of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority to ensure a harmonisation of regulation with the rest of the European Union (details supplied). [25830/25]
This question asks the views of the Minister of State, Deputy Timmy Dooley, on the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. The Minister of State will know already from his brief the serious concerns of people in the fishing and seafood industry about the approach of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, in comparison to other regulators across Europe.
I want to have an exchange with the Minister of State at this early stage in his new role. Our committee will do likewise in the next month or so.
I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. He will be aware of the engagement I have had with the industry in recent weeks and my commitment to continued engagement with him on the issue. I am looking forward to an opportunity for the committee to address various matters that arise, and I intend to work with the Deputy on that. I will put a few facts on the record first.
The fisheries control regulation provides for a Union fisheries control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy and establishing a level playing field across the EU on fisheries control. The current control regulation entered into force in January 2024 and updates and amends the previous regulation from 2009. The Department is working with the SFPA and relevant Departments and agencies to introduce the required measures to implement the relevant provisions of the updated control regulation at national level. While this may involve amending existing legislation or introducing new legislation, including in respect of certain enforcement measures, it is not envisioned that there will be a review of the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006 in the manner suggested by the Deputy at this time.
On the accountability of the SFPA, section 48 of the 2006 Act provides for the establishment of an SFPA consultative committee for the purposes of consultation and liaison with the sea-fisheries and seafood sectors and other relevant interests on matters relating to the functions of the authority. In addition, section 68 provides for the accountability of the SFPA to committees of the Oireachtas generally. There is an opportunity to exercise this provision. I am conscious that the consultative committee has a number of vacancies. I intend to address that matter relatively shortly and look forward to the committee engaging with us on it.
An independent review of the organisational capability of the SFPA was completed in April 2020. I will come back to the Deputy in a supplementary reply.
I shared with the Minister of State my direct eyewitness account of the incredible level of oversight that the SFPA has of the industry. I witnessed in a fish factory in Killybegs CCTV cameras and access to the building at any time. Even that was not enough. I do not know of any industry where there would be cameras literally in the workplace every day, with images going directly from the factory floor to the regulator, and yet that is not enough. We have got to the point where it is out of control. I am reliably informed that this type of approach exists nowhere else in Europe. It impacts on the ability of the industry to attract boats to land and do business. Irish boats are going elsewhere because they do not face the same approach. This has to change. The approach that we have seen is over the top and not justified in any way, shape or form.
The principal objective of the review, which was carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers, was to contribute to the ongoing and future development of the organisation. The areas covered by the review were the organisational capabilities of the SFPA to deliver on its mission for the effective and fair regulation - and I emphasise fair regulation - of the sea-fishing and seafood sectors that fall within its mandate. I have to accept that fishermen, fisherwomen and processors do not believe that it is fair. That is their view. The Deputy is entitled to express that here. It would be useful for the matter to be discussed at the committee.
The report contained 46 recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the organisation and the process of implementing the review findings has been completed. The implementation of the recommendations has required investment in systems, restructuring and personnel. An independent advisory board nominated by the Department assisted the management of the SFPA in implementing the recommendations. The Department has provided significant additional resources to the authority in recent years to strengthen it and ensure that it delivers to a high standard in the context of its core responsibilities.
I recognise the point the Deputy raised. These matters can be thrashed out by the new committee. I am pleased that there is a new committee and that it will focus, in particular, on fisheries and the marine.
The committee met earlier today. We looked at our work plan. We will be bringing in the fishing representative organisations, the Irish Fishing and Seafood Alliance, the National Inshore Fishermen's Organisation, and the Irish Islands Marine Resource Organisation, which represents the inshore and islands, in order that they can have their say in how this is being implemented. We will look at how it compares to other European states. We need to make sure that we harmonise regulation across Europe and that there is a level playing pitch for all fishermen. As the Minister of State knows, their livelihoods are at stake. The law can criminalise fishermen. If one speaks to fishermen, as I know the Minister of State and many of our TDs do, they are fearful to speak out. They are afraid for their livelihoods. They will tell you in quiet whispers what they have experienced. I compare it with An Garda Síochána. We have all seen examples of great policing, but sometimes there is also bad policing. Bad policing undermines the confidence of the people you are dealing with. Good policing does the opposite. We have to get back to universally consistent, good policing in the State when it comes to our fishermen.
I thank the Deputy for his intervention. He is raising concerns and issues that have been shared with him and with me. I met the SFPA. The people I met and the various sections of the organisation are fulfilling their mandate to the best of their ability. We have to recognise that the authority's role is prescribed in legislation. We are precluded from involving ourselves directly in any decisions it takes. The Deputy raised points that are relevant and that can be discussed at the committee.
We also have to recognise that there is an important role for the SFPA in ensuring that we meet our commitments at European level regarding our quota management, landings and all of that activity. We need to look to a future that will involve greater use of technology, as the Deputy identified and as was identified for those of us who had an opportunity to visit the ports, and the level of scrutiny that is now available through such technology. That is where we have to go ultimately, because the sense I get is that the fishing industry generally is committed to doing what is right. We need to work with those on all sides to ensure that this happens.
110. Deputy Robert O'Donoghue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine Ireland's position on the emerging proposals from the European Commission to allow payments for compliance with good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, 2, requirements under the CAP simplification package; if he will advocate for strong support measures for Irish farmers managing peatlands and wetlands; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25745/25]
Will the Minister outline Ireland's stance on the European Commission's new proposals to allow the payment for farmers who meet GAEC 2 requirements under the CAP simplification package? Will he push for strong support measures for Irish farmers who are managing peatlands and wetlands, given the challenges that they face?
I thank the Deputy for raising this important matter, which is topical after last week's announcements. The proposals for CAP simplification were published on 14 May by Commissioner Hansen. I welcome any proposals that will simplify and reduce the administrative burden for farmers and for national administrations. However, as with any new legislation, we will need to carefully examine the details of the proposals and evaluate the potential impact for Ireland. My Department will analyse the proposals, and will engage with stakeholders through the forum of the CAP strategic plan monitoring committee once the possibilities are well understood.
It is worth emphasising that the draft amending regulation will only take legal effect after it goes through the process of co-decision, with input from the European Parliament and the Council. This will take some time. Any changes proposed can only be introduced after that process has concluded.
On my position on these proposals, my Department provided input to the Commission on options for simplification, some of which are reflected in the Commission's package.
On conditionality, through my Department, I asked for the removal of GAEC 2 from the regulations on the basis of overlap between these requirements and other national and EU legislation. However, the removal of GAEC 2 has not been included in the Commission proposal so GAEC 2 will remain a conditionality requirement and will have to be applied from this year onwards. GAEC 2 is a mandatory condition of the payment of the basic income support for sustainability for farmers, as I know the Deputy is aware. The intention behind it is to protect wetlands and peatlands. EU regulations require all member states to have a standard in place from the start of this year.
The simplification proposal provides that costs arising from GAEC 2 compliance can now be included in the calculation of costs for eco-schemes or agri-environmental schemes.
It is important to note two points regarding the possibility of providing specific support measures under the CAP strategic plan for GAEC 2 requirements. First, Ireland's CAP strategic plan funding is already fully committed to under the existing schemes and no new funding is available as part of the simplification proposals. Second, the GAEC 2 standard for Ireland, as recently introduced, is based on existing national legislation and usual farming practices.
One of the core issues is how land is being mapped. Farmers are reporting that productive land is being wrongly classified as peatland with very little consultation or clarity coming towards them. Once land is labelled under GAEC 2, strict restrictions apply. There can be no drainage, no receding and limited grazing, which can have a major impact on farm income, especially in the midlands and the west. There is also a real worry about the retrospective impact and fears that this could lead to future land designations. There has been a lack of clarity from the Department and farmers feel environmental demands are rising without adequate support or compensation. Representative groups are calling for a pause on the implementation until these issues are resolved. That is a fair and reasonable ask.
I have been on the record a number of times on this but I am happy to reassure farmers again that there is nothing to fear in the baseline rationality around GAEC 2. Farmers can continue to do all of their normal farming activity on a day-to-day basis. That is not going to be undermined by this. It is just a baseline requirement for the basic income support process, or what farmers would know as the single farm payment. I know there are a lot of concerns around this. We had to have a minimum controllable area which we can justify to the Commission that we are able to monitor activity on. That was the land parcel identification system, LPIS. With that, we set a baseline figure using the Hammond Teagasc map from 2009 as the most accurate way of doing that. This was a baseline figure of at least 50% peat in the LPIS for it to come in under GAEC 2. That brought in some mineral soils - about 100,000 ha - but if we did not have that and if there had been any peat in the LPIS, it would have brought in 880,000 ha of mineral soils. I can expand on that further later.
I thank the Minister.
Bogaimid ar aghaidh go dtí an chéad cheist eile. Questions Nos. 111 and 114 are grouped and in ainmneacha na Teachtaí Kenny agus Aird. We will begin with an Teachta Kenny.
111. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he has had discussions with his counterparts in the EU on the future of the CAP budget; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25995/25]
114. Deputy William Aird asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will outline the strategies he and his Department are taking to ensure a fully funded, designated CAP budget; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26071/25]
I raise with the Minister an issue with regard to where Ireland stands on the upcoming CAP negotiations. Farmers envisage a lot of difficulties in the future. While prices are high at the farm gate, farmers will still depend on having an adequate CAP in place to guarantee their future and sustainability. There are serious concerns around this kite that has been flown about changing Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 and maybe amalgamating them with other areas. There are concerns that this funding will not be ring-fenced or available in the future. We would like to get reassurance on what the Minister's proposals will be going forward.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 111 and 114 together.
As Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I am working closely with the EU institutions and my counterparts in other member states to try to influence the next Common Agriculture Policy. The CAP is central to the EU’s success in ensuring food security, supporting farm incomes and developing rural areas. The CAP also remains critical to the agrifood sector’s resilience and competitiveness, as it has since Ireland joined the EU more than 50 years ago.
I recently set out my four key priorities for the next CAP. First, we need a CAP that is more straightforward for farmers. Second, we need a more flexible and responsive CAP. We need a CAP that has an appropriate balance between all elements of sustainability. Finally, and most importantly perhaps, an adequate and dedicated budget is needed for an effective CAP, as Deputy Kenny outlined and with which I am sure Deputy Aird will concur.
I am determined that the CAP will continue to play a positive role in supporting Irish farmers, our food industry, rural communities and the wider economy into the future. It is a key responsibility of the Government to raise Ireland's concerns with our EU partners and to try to influence EU policy. For my part as Minister, I meet my counterparts in the AGRIFISH Council every month to discuss and shape agriculture and food policy in the EU. I will continue to engage with Christophe Hansen, the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Food, and my fellow EU ministers on the issues affecting the agrifood sector, including the CAP post-2027, at Council meetings, as well as in bilateral discussions that occur on every occasion. My next meeting of the AGRIFISH Council is next Monday in Brussels and I will travel there on Sunday evening. I will prioritise these engagements at a European level, particularly in preparation for Ireland’s Presidency of the EU in the second half of 2026 which will be a pivotal time.
The point Deputy Kenny raised relates to the initial multi-annual financial framework, MFF, and the overall budget, which is obviously a critical part of this. That is why, as one of my top priorities in my role, I have set in train the process of putting the building blocks in place. Ensuring a foundation is in place means my 26 EU colleagues, the other ministers for agriculture, know what our priorities are. They want to tell me what their priorities are before we have the Presidency and before I take the chair as planned in July next year.
I should note that the funding for the CAP forms part of the broader EU budget known as the MFF. This is ultimately agreed by Heads of State and Government at the European Council. The European Commission is due to set out proposals for the next MFF this July. Commission proposals for CAP post-2027 negotiations are likely to follow shortly after that, with negotiations on both the future MFF and future CAP running in parallel.
Ensuring the CAP remains a priority in the next MFF is essential. While the EU faces rising demands in areas such as defence, security and competitiveness, we must ensure the social cohesion and stability of our rural communities is maintained. Achieving an adequate and dedicated CAP budget and retaining the full toolbox of support measures under Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 will be challenging, given the other pressures on the EU budget and proposals for new MFF funding structures. However, I am working closely with colleagues across the Government and with my counterparts in member states to underline the importance of food security to EU autonomy and security. We should not be talking about defence and security without including food security as part of that conversation. I will also underline the vital role farming and food plays in our rural communities and economies and the important contribution farming and food make to EU competitiveness, innovation and climate and biodiversity ambitions.
As CAP and the MFF negotiations progress, Ireland will continue to advocate for a simplified, well-funded and adaptable CAP framework that supports farm resilience, environmental ambition and rural development. Ireland will play a key role in these negotiations in the run-up to and during our Presidency of the EU in the second half of 2026.
It is clear that the multi-annual financial framework is going to be vital going forward and we will get a sense of where it is at. The key issue for farmers is that there are so many competing interests. The Minister mentioned defence and security which is the one in the headlines at the moment. I concur with him that food security is vital for everyone across the European Union and across the globe. When we have huge problems, such as those we have at the moment where we see great uncertainty from the point of view of conflict and tariffs, all of which can have a huge impact, it is vital in Ireland and across Europe that farmers are made sustainable. It is vital to know we can produce our own food to feed our people and that farmers can do so in a way that gives them an income and keeps them sustainable. That is what we need to do. We need a longer CAP, one which stretches out further so there can be more assurance into the future. That is vital because the short-term nature of CAP so far has been to the detriment of Irish and European farmers.
Recent reports that the European Commission is considering dismantling the ring-fenced CAP budget are very worrying. This move would be a dangerous mistake for Irish agriculture, rural communities and food security across Europe. Agriculture cannot be sacrificed to meet other EU priorities such as defence or security. We cannot take food security for granted. I and farmers like me work tirelessly to produce safe, sustainable and affordable food. Farmers must not be left carrying the financial burden of broader policy shifts.
I know the Minister is aware that what we are facing is potentially the most serious threat to CAP in a generation. The CAP budget must remain strong, separate and, most importantly, increased. Rising costs and inflation have already reduced its value. The CAP budget must be increased to ensure it reflects the real economic challenges facing farmers today.
I thank both Deputies for their contributions. It is very important when we have questions on agriculture, food and the marine that CAP is at their heart because it really is so important to everything we are doing. On Deputy Kenny's point about a longer CAP, a longer budget period would be needed for that because the budget drives the other.
On the concerns, this night last week I gave an address at the IFA CAP conference held at the Kilashee Hotel in County Kildare. It was very well attended by more than 500 farmers. There was a lot of concern, as Deputy Aird outlined, but I made the point that historically CAP proposals have come after the MFF and that has not always served us particularly well. Some very big decisions can be made during the MFF process on the budget that CAP had to then deal with afterwards.
Commissioner Hansen saying he will come up with proposals in July, at the same time as CAP, has concerned some people and farm organisations but it is better if we try to do them concurrently and try to engage. I look forward to meeting the Commissioner again next Monday and when we attend a number of events together in the coming weeks, I will convey those points back to him.
One of my main points is the issued raised by Deputy Aird about taking food security for granted. Before the illegal invasion by Russia of Ukraine, we did take some things for granted in Europe. We in Ireland did not. Enda Kenny and previous taoisigh asked other European colleagues to pay more into the overall budget so we could protect the CAP. It should be remembered that after Brexit there was talk about the CAP being decimated by up to 30%. Environmental money was used to supplement it and with that came the conditionality that farmers have stepped up to the plate to achieve. Overall, we cannot have food security taken for granted, the same way energy security has been challenged, and the Ukrainian crisis has focused minds in that regard. I very much hope it will focus minds in these negotiations as well.
I thank the Minister and recognise all of that. At the core of this, and it is the point our colleague from Laois made, is the issue of Pillars 1 and 2 and the kite being flown regarding where we will be in the future. It is something that really needs to be dealt with because farmers are fearful when change comes in like that that we will see an erosion, particularly of Pillar 1, which is the direct payment they get that they depend so much on throughout the country. It is particularly so along the western seaboard and in the west. Farmers are on more marginal land and are struggling more, and they need that payment and assurance into the future. It would be vital to make sure that happens.
On the budget itself, this point goes back many Governments. Every time we have a CAP we see the budget squeezed down a little bit. It has not kept up with inflation; it has actually reduced systematically for farmers. We need to see a reversal of that if we are to have a future for farming that will be sustainable across the country and across the European Union.
There is significant concern about the Commission's intention to release its vision for the post-2027 CAP at the same time as the EU budget plan. We cannot have this railroaded through. This approach, without consultation, is entirely unacceptable. Major decisions about the future of European agriculture must not be made behind closed doors in Brussels. Farmers must be heard. I urge the Minister to take a clear stance and, first, oppose any attempt to merge or dilute the CAP budget; second, ensure the CAP remains focused on its core goals of farm income for farmers, food security for Europeans and strong, sustainable communities, which is fierce important; and, finally, ensure proposals under the CAP simplification package deliver real, practical improvements at farm level and not more red tape.
I wish the Minister well in his CAP negotiations. The expectations of Irish farm families rest on his shoulders. They are trusting him to deliver. He cannot come home without a CAP budget that is ring-fenced for Irish farmers.
No pressure there. Thanks for that. I jest. The Deputy is dead right that it is that serious.
Yes.
It absolutely is. We know how well Irish agriculture has been served down through the years and through successive CAPS and the Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 structure. I have grave concerns around any attempt to change that. Not only do I have concerns for the impact on farming, which is why I will fight so hard to articulate the Irish position very clearly, but I also have concerns about the impact on the Single Market. If we go into national policies where everything is in there together, countries will very much go back to doing what they are doing alone. While there has been a lot of frustration with some elements of the CAP, and some very valid points have been raised here, the CAP has served us well in many other respects in terms of delivery. The point around the broader overall envelope and how much money there is to do this ultimately comes down to the appetite of member states. If there is an increased ambition in defence and other areas, is the appetite there for member states to ask their citizens to pay more to be a part of Europe? It is very difficult to see how all of the additional ambition can be delivered in a meaningful way from a pot that did not have the same level of expenditure on the likes of defence the last time. We hear of a lot of European countries with this level of ambition and this will be the kind of conversation that will have to happen across member states. They will happen at prime ministerial level as well and at the Council of Europe where they are doing that overall budget.
On Deputy Aird's final point about the focus and simplification of CAP, this really is two parts. The first part is about the budget and I am working with all colleagues across government to make sure we put our best foot forward on that one. The second is when we know the position we are in, we will continue to have that engagement across Europe but use the flexibility open to us to deliver the most focused, simplified CAP that works for our farmers and works our agrifood industry.
112. Deputy Michael Collins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will reconsider the nitrates stocking rate map and make an adjustment to the Timoleague catchment stocking rate (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25786/25]
The recent changes made to the nitrates stocking rate map need to be reconsidered. Lowering the stocking rate to 220 kg N/ha in additional areas in west Cork will have minimal, if any, impact on water quality. The Timoleague catchment has demonstrated nitrates concentration in water does not proportionally increase when the stocking rates increase. Will the Minister please reconsider the map and make adjustments? I sent the Minister a more detailed outline of this to which he might have an answer.
I thank the Deputy for raising this very important issue. I recently met farmers from Timoleague, and I visited the area when I was a member of the previous Government. I am well aware of the great work that has happened down there, supported by Teagasc and others, how passionate farmers are, the pressure there is on land availability and how any changes can have an impact.
I am very committed to the objective of improving water quality and ensuring the strongest possible scientific case can be made for a continuation of Ireland's nitrates derogation beyond 1 January 2026. Those two things are connected.
Ireland implements a robust action programme of measures under our nitrates action plan. As part of the additional measures introduced under the interim review of the fifth nitrates action programme, with effect from this December, the maximum derogation stocking rate reduces to 220 kg organic N/ha in certain areas. The Timoleague catchment is one of the additional areas moving to this lower limit, as the Deputy highlighted. This change is happening in areas where the EPA has identified the need for nitrate reduction measures to improve water quality but that were not considered under the European Commission’s criteria for the two-year water quality review.
The measure becomes applicable from 1 December as it had to comply within the timeframe of the current nitrates action programme, which concludes at the end of 2025, so it was the latest point at which it could be brought in to count as a measure under this programme. This was necessary to best prepare for discussions with the Commission regarding Ireland’s next nitrates derogation. Within such a limited timeframe, the December date for implementation was selected to allow farmers in the Timoleague area, and indeed other areas affected, maximum time to prepare and manage their cows through the normal spring calving lactation cycle.
In simple terms, derogation farmers in these additional areas will have an effective limit of 247.5 kg N/ha this year, rather than 250 kg N/ha. I will give the rest of the information in my supplementary response.
I thank the Minister. This valuable catchment, which provides important research findings to the rest of the country through the agricultural catchment programme, will be subject to the stocking reduction of 220 kg N/ha from 1 December. This will make it impossible to decouple and quantify the impact of agricultural measures on water quality from a reduction in stocking rates.
In fact, critics of the sector will conveniently assume that any improvements in water quality from now on will be a consequence of a reduced stocking rate limit and ignore all the good work farmers have implemented over the years, which is now delivering.
SI 42 of 2025 states clearly that it is within the Minister's gift to determine what areas should be reduced to 220 kg N/ha. Following the interim review of the current and fifth nitrates action programme on the grounds of providing valuable scientific research, the Timoleague catchment needs to remain at the stocking rate of 250 kg N/ha. Will the Minister please reconsider the map and make adjustments?
I absolutely recognise the great work happening in the agricultural catchment programme. The most recently published Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, data shows nitrates concentrations nationally have reduced in a representative sample of our rivers last year. It is acknowledged and welcomed that nitrate levels have also reduced in the Timoleague catchment. Nitrates levels recorded in 2024 in Timoleague were at their lowest level since recording began in 2009. However, the nitrates concentrations in the river leaving the Timoleague catchment are still approximately double what they should be to achieve good ecological status in the adjoining estuary. This is why the catchment was identified by the EPA as an area requiring a nitrate reduction measure.
As committed to in the programme for Government, the Government is doing everything in its power to make the case at EU level to secure our next nitrates derogation, given our unique grass-based production system. Access to the derogation is contingent on improving water quality. The agrifood sector is engaging in significant, unprecedented and very welcome actions to reduce its impact on water quality. It is critical this good work continues and that it supports Ireland’s case and my case to retain the nitrates derogation post 2025, which is something I am actively working on and is of utmost importance to the Deputy's constituents and derogation farmers throughout the country.
I thank the Minister. I know he said he met the farmers in Timoleague. I think the Taoiseach has met them and the previous Taoiseach met them. The farmers there are doing everything and their utmost, and farmers who pull out all the stops need to be rewarded. It is within the Minister's remit to make changes here and make sure they do not end up in a situation where they are down to 220 kg N/ha on 1 December. It would set a good example to the dairy sector and for farmers who are making such severe efforts to put things right that they are rewarded for doing so. It looks to me as if we are not going to reward these farmers for doing so and we are going to tick the box putting them in the same category as those who did not make an effort.
Will the Minister make sure in the next few months that this stocking rate stays at 250 kg N/ha in the Timoleague catchment area to reward the farmers who have worked hard to put things right? They will continue to work hard if that reward is given to them, and I would appreciate it if the Minister would announce that here today.
I appreciate the Deputy's articulation of the concerns, the great work of his constituents and the frustration I know there is on the ground with this change. He talked about rewarding his constituents. The best reward I can get his constituents and the farmers in the Timoleague catchment area is to make sure there is a derogation beyond the end of this year, and that is not by any means guaranteed. In a way, I am a little concerned that there is complacency coming in around the country where people think we will have to get it. We know how important it is. This is absolutely critical for our rural economy, not just for the 7,000 derogation farmers. For a tillage farmer or some other farmer besides a derogation farmer, the impact on land availability if the derogation is gone or is reduced further will be really significant. We have a very strong story to tell because our farmers are making great efforts to maintain that derogation. That said, I cannot leave any weak spot in our case. It is my top priority in Europe to get a derogation beyond the end of this year. I have to implement all the measures we committed to in the previous action programmes, and this is a key part of that. It has been designed to have a minimal impact on the Deputy's constituents for this year, but the biggest reward I can get them is a derogation beyond the end of this year.
113. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine for an update on the TB summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25996/25]
I raise the issue of the tuberculosis, TB, forum, and some of the soundings that have come from it which have concerned many farm organisations and people on the ground. In my part of the world and in many places we have seen increased incidence of TB and huge problems on foot of that, with farmers being locked up and not being able to sell or trade their animals. The efforts that have been made over the decades have not yielded results, and there needs to be acknowledgment of that. The eradication programme has been, shall we call it, a failure. I think it is pretty much close to that at the moment, and I would like to see what exactly we can do to turn that around if at all possible.
I thank the Deputy for raising a very important point, and he is not the only Deputy here this evening to raise points about bovine TB. It is a really challenging disease to control and eradicate.
In recent years, bovine TB levels have continued to deteriorate here in Ireland. Herd incidence has increased from 4.31% in 2022 to 6.04% in 2024, resulting in a 36% increase in the number of herds restricted between those two years. As of 11 May 2025, over a 12-month period, we had a herd incidence of 6.3% with more than 42,200 reactors. This disease is having an impact on our farmers and their families, not just financially but also emotionally. It is a hugely traumatic time when this hits, and the Deputy knows that from his constituents, as I know from mine, and I know from lived experience as well.
At the February meeting of the TB forum, it was agreed that all stakeholders would provide proposals on new measures for inclusion in the TB programme aimed at reducing TB levels in cattle against the backdrop of surging disease levels. At the TB forum on 26 March - the following month - all stakeholders were provided the opportunity to present proposals on draft measures to be incorporated into the TB programme to address the recent increase in disease incidence over the past two years. Following that meeting, the chair of the forum wrote to me in early April outlining discussions at the meetings.
On 8 May 2025, I held a meeting of key stakeholders to address the deteriorating TB disease levels, where discussions were held on the most effective ways to mitigate the impact of bovine TB on farm families and to reduce herd incidence and spread of the disease. At that meeting, I presented 30 potential actions underpinned by five key pillars to address the current rate of bovine TB. Those five pillars were: to support herds free of bovine TB to remain free; reduce the impact of wildlife on the spread of bovine TB; detect and eliminate bovine TB infection as early as possible in herds with a TB breakdown and avoid a future breakdown; help farmers improve all areas of farm biosecurity; and reduce the impact of known high-risk animals in spreading bovine TB.
I thank the Minister. It is stark. That 36% increase really brings home the huge difficulty currently. Wildlife control is one of the serious impacts on all of this. We have to get to grips with the reality. In some parts of the country it is deer; in other parts of the country it is badgers. There are issues there that need to be dealt with.
The vaccination programme has also been a failure. It simply has not worked. I wonder, particularly in blackspots where we have serious outbreaks, whether we should have mandatory blood testing of all animals rather than just the skin test that is there at the moment. Is that something that needs to be considered?
The vaccination of animals at birth has not been rolled out anywhere yet. It is something we seriously need to look at as a method of control, that we can have the BCG vaccine for all calves when they are born and that would control them into the future. I know there will be issues the Minister will raise with regard to traceability, and whether they will have the same test for a positive in that respect as if they have got the TB from wherever else. I think there can be unique tracers put on the animals at the time they are given the vaccination. Everything needs to be considered because what we have done at the moment has simply failed.
I reassure the Deputy that everything that is possible is being considered and everything has been looked at. I have started an engagement with the farm organisations and key stakeholders since I was appointed in January, and since the February meeting of the TB forum I have been back and forth with them looking to get their feedback and submissions, having proposals that have come back through my chief veterinary officer, and then taking on board their reactions to those proposals. I made significant changes ahead of the TB summit I had a couple of weeks ago, and I am going to meet those stakeholders again later this week with a revised set of proposals that has taken on board their points. This has been a very deliberative process, but I have made the point that this process cannot go on forever such is the level of incidence.
I have proposals for very significant increases in investment in the wildlife programme and changes to the approach there. With respect to increases in blood testing, obviously we have the challenge with the skin test that there is only 80% efficacy, but it is very accurate. When it is right, it is right, but with the 20%, there are some that are missed. On the blood test side, that increases efficacy to over 90%. I will come back in a further supplementary.
I thank the Minister. He mentioned increased funding. I believe the eradication programme cost about €75 million in 2023. There is a lot of money being spent on this, going back over the decades. We talk about the price of the children's hospital. We are into that kind of money having been spent on trying to eradicate TB in this country, and we are probably worse now than we were many decades ago.
It is time to look at this anew. I respect that the Minister said he has taken on the views of many of the farm organisations and people who were at the forum who felt the initial proposals were trying to place the farmers very much in the firing line in relation to this. There has to be a way of dealing with it in a partnership way whereby everybody can work together to try to eradicate this disease. Ultimately, that is what we need to do. We need to build a consensus across the farm organisations, the Department and everybody involved in the food industry to ensure we can continue to produce the high quality beef product in Ireland that we can market all over the world and that we can guarantee we have eradicated this disease once and for all. It will take a Trojan effort and that is why the Minister needs to continue to work with everybody to make that happen.
I absolutely want to do this in partnership. I know the stress and strain of this. It goes beyond the financial but the financial is really significant. I want to provide a clear pathway for those 6,000 herds, their farmers and their families that are restricted and that have reactors. I want to give them a clear pathway to show that there is light at the end of the tunnel and a way out of this. Many of those who have multiple reactors really have a sense of hopelessness. I also want to make sure the 94% of farmers in this country who do not have it do not have to experience this. That is the partnership approach.
On the earlier point around wildlife, in my initial response I highlighted how I have very significant proposals on changing the approach to wildlife management and significant further investment in it. However, let us be really clear here. Any suggestion, and I am not saying it is the Deputy's suggestion but it can be suggested at times, that wildlife is the only problem is factually incorrect. There are three drivers of this disease among bovines. One is wildlife, the second is cattle-to-cattle transmission and the other is residual from a large outbreak in a herd.. If we do not tackle all three, we will leave a gap in the fence for this to continue to seep through and I cannot let that happen.
