Vol. 1070 No. 4
80. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he is aware that only 52 persons have availed of fish assist across the State as of 31 May 2025; and if the Minister of State with responsibility for the marine and his Department officials will now engage with the representative POs for inshore and islands fishermen to discuss a financial support or subsidy scheme for the sector. [36266/25]
I ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he is aware that only 52 persons have availed of fish assist across the State as of 31 May 2025; and if the Minister of State with responsibility for the marine and his Department officials will now engage with the representative producer organisations, POs, for inshore and islands fishermen to discuss a financial support or subsidy scheme for the sector.
I thank the Deputy for the question. As he knows, the operation of the fish assist scheme is a matter for the Department of Social Protection. The primary source of funding for the Irish commercial seafood sector, including inshore and island fishermen and fisherwomen, is Ireland's seafood development programme, which is co-funded by the Irish Government and the European Commission under the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, EMFAF, 2021-2027. The measures which are eligible for aid are set out in the regulation governing the implementation of the EMFAF regulation, which is aligned with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. There is no provision for direct income supports in relation to primary producers in the seafood sector under the Common Fisheries Policy. The EMFAF regulation does not make provision for the use of EMFAF funds to provide income supports to primary producers in the seafood sector.
Equally, there is no provision in the relevant EU regulations governing state aid that would allow any Exchequer-funded subsidy scheme for the seafood sector or for fishermen, in particular. I note the Deputy's question revolves principally around the ability of fishermen and fisherwomen to engage with the Department of Social Protection on that. I assure the Deputy that whatever we can do on engaging with that sector, we are happy to do so. By the Deputy raising the question today, it has the capacity to highlight to those people who work in this sector that there is aid and support there, as there is with farm assist, which is again administered through the Department of Social Protection.
I am happy to assist in disseminating that information. It may be something that can be done through press releases by all of us to remind those who find themselves in difficult circumstances that the supports of the Department of Social Protection are there to assist all concerned.
I thank the Minister. The figures are glaring. There are 13,000 active fishermen in the State and the idea that only 52 of them are in need of support is absurd. There is a disconnect. No one can seriously claim the sector is not under pressure. My understanding and sense of it from the figures, which back this up, is the fish assist scheme is too restrictive and limited. It is not that fishermen and fisherwomen are not aware of it - they know about it - but it is too limited and restrictive and it is not fit for purpose. That is why they are not applying but the need is there. The need is in every coastal community and we see it.
Inshore and island fishing communities have been systemically starved of opportunity, denied a fair share of the fish in their own waters, and Government policy has failed them again and again but they are not asking for handouts. These are proud people. They are asking for a viable future. They are asking for proper financial support or a subsidy scheme of some sort that reflects the reality of that situation. The Minister of State and I know it is needed. Will the Minister of State engage with the Minister for Social Protection on foot of this question and debate and collectively take action?
As I outlined in my initial response to the Deputy, it is not possible to apportion any of the funding available to our Department through EMFAF to the income support he talks about. As he knows, and as is the case with farm assist, income support comes through the Department of Social Protection. While that does not fall within my responsibility, I am happy to have a conversation with the Minister, Deputy Calleary, on that. I am also conscious that the supports that are generally available through the Department of Social Protection are funds for individuals in really difficult circumstances. They are not seen as income support. They are really a means to allow individuals to get through a really difficult time, whether it be fluctuations of income or whatever. They are means tested and not really designed to be income supports. I am happy to communicate with the Minister but I do not want to give the Deputy false hope either.
The Deputy talks about the disparity between the numbers of those who are engaged in the sector and those who are drawing down those income supports. I am conscious that no more than in farming, there are some part-time fishermen and fisherwomen who operate in that sector and have income from other sources so their combined income would certainly put them outside the threshold of means testing. It is important to put that on the record as well.
I thank the Minister. To his credit, I know he is engaging with the sector and he has heard from fishermen around the coast.
However, the figures still speak for themselves, notwithstanding that some may be disqualified on income grounds. Some may not need the scheme but we know there is great hardship in the sector. This is not necessarily about creating a new subsidy from EMFAF funding; it is about making the existing scheme work for fishermen. The feedback we are getting and the figures released to my colleague Pádraig Mac Lochlainn in response to his parliamentary question to the Department of Social Protection back that up.
Fishing communities are on their knees in many respects and fishing activity is under huge pressure. The input costs for fisheries are going up. Those concerned have asked time and again for a fuel scheme to help to ease the pressure but the Minister of State’s predecessor refused it time and again. The Minister of State says the door is open and the community has his ear. His engagement is really welcome but we need it to inform not just his work and that of his Department but also that of the whole of government to ensure we will have a sustainable fishing industry.
I recognise that. When I was before the committee chaired by Deputy McGuinness recently, I informed it that I have asked an outside interlocutor to work with the sector generally. Mr. Kieran Mulvey has accepted the role of working with all stakeholders in the sector to identify areas where we can assist and develop a way forward or pathway as part of a strategy that the Department will develop under the programme for Government.
The Department has significantly improved the financial supports available to the inshore fleet in the past year, having implemented a number of schemes to specifically support inshore fishers and improved the aid rates available. These schemes include the small-scale coastal fisheries schemes, which provide unprecedented enhanced grants of up to 80% to inshore fishers for both onboard and onshore investment. Grants of 100% are now in place for inshore fishermen and women participating in the lobster V-notching scheme. An innovative scheme to support the economic development of the inshore fishing fleet, the inshore fleet economic assessment scheme, was put in place in 2024.
Inshore fishers can also access supports under other schemes, such as the fleet safety scheme and the seafood training scheme. All these schemes are administered on behalf of my Department through BIM, as the Deputy knows. Further details on them are available from me. I am happy to continue to work with the sector to try to provide the most support possible, recognising that there are constraints set out in both domestic and European law.
81. Deputy Jennifer Whitmore asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine when the Agri-Food Regulator will be granted additional powers of compellability; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36023/25]
The establishment of the Agri-Food Regulator was a very welcome move but the body clearly does not have sufficient teeth. The regulators themselves have requested additional powers. When will the body be granted additional powers of compellability and could the Minister make a statement on the matter?
I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. As she will be aware, the independent Agri-Food Regulator, established under the Agricultural and Food Supply Chain Act 2023, performs two key functions: it enforces the law on unfair trading practices, and it performs a price and market analysis and reporting function. The regulator has, since its establishment at the end of 2023, been successful in delivering on these functions.
On the price and market analysis function, over the past year the regulator has published welcome analysis on the egg and horticulture sectors. Such reports are important to assist food suppliers in their decision-making. However, while there has been much positive engagement with the regulator from operators who have voluntarily responded to requests for information, a few operators did not provide the requested data. As a result, the two reports concerned were published using only publicly available data.
In light of its experience concerning these reports, the regulator has reported to me that it requires enhanced powers to compel businesses to provide financial information that is not in the public domain. The Act itself does not permit the regulator to compel the provision of such data; however, the Act provides that the Minister may make regulations on price and market information.
As I have previously stated, I am fully committed to ensuring the regulator is equipped with the necessary powers to fulfil its statutory function subject to the necessary consultative and legislative process. This is necessary to ensure that the additional powers granted are proportionate. I have to strike a balance and be very careful in any key decision I make, having engaged with all key stakeholders and taken on board the points of view of businesses, while also having been very clear and determined to ensure that our Agri-Food Regulator can continue to carry out the work we set it up to do.
I assure the Deputy that the process is under way and that it is a priority in my Department. The role in question is separate from the one associated with the very strong powers of enforcement the Agri-Food Regulator has in relation to unfair trading practices in the agrifood supply chain, in respect of which it continues to carry out work.
I thank the Minister. It is welcome that he is in the process of granting or providing the powers but we need to see a timeline. It has been quite a while since the regulators themselves raised the gaps in their powers and it is important that we see movement on this, particularly given how grocery prices are increasing at present. Members of the public need transparency when purchasing products so they will know where their money is going. There also needs to be fairness for producers. The risk – I think this is what is happening – is that producers will not get their fair share of the value of their produce. Therefore, the information is absolutely required. It is important that the regulator can get whatever data it needs to inform its analysis of pricing. Could the Minister give me a timeline for achieving this?
I want to do this as quickly as possible while also being respectful of a process that involves consultation, engagement with all sides and me listening to the concerns of the industry. The industry has concerns over how the information could be distorted by competitors abroad. The regulation applies only to our domestic market and we export 90% of the food and drink that we produce. These points will be made as well. I want to make sure there are no unintended consequences to giving the additional powers to the Agri-Food Regulator. I have engaged with the regulator on how it, as a controller of data, would handle data responsibly. This is serious, so while I want to give the powers, I want to do it right. I want to do it as quickly as possible but not at the expense of doing it the right way.
In providing the additional powers, is the Minister considering the likes of the large supermarkets and their profits? Obviously, we have a cost-of-living crisis and food prices are rising continually, and farmers are continuing to get less and less for their produce. One of the pieces of the data jigsaw that is missing concerns how much supermarkets are making in this country. Supermarkets must provide their data publicly in the UK, but when they have an Irish arm they have no obligation to provide the associated data on a quarterly basis. Will the Minister consider such provision as part of the process?
Section 12(3)(d) of the Act allows the regulator to seek data impacting on price and margins from businesses within the agricultural and food supply chain. The data include, but are not limited to, prices paid and received and margins. This answers the Deputy’s question in this regard.
I do not want any suggestion to land that the Agri-Food Regulator is not able to operate. It is operating very well and I commend it on its work, which has been valuable to date. I acknowledge the fact that the regulator secured, in November of last year, a conviction of a meat processor in the courts for the non-payment of a cattle farmer in the west. It is getting on with its work. It has highlighted to me some of the frustrations it has found in the system to date. I am reflecting on these and will implement the programme for Government commitment to provide enhanced powers to the Agri-Food Regulator, but I am doing that in a responsible way.
82. Deputy Jennifer Whitmore asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to outline his Department’s plans to deal with bovine TB; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36021/25]
Can the Minister outline the Department’s plans to deal with bovine TB, which he spoke about earlier, and particularly his approach to badger culling and badger vaccination as part of that?
The overall response to TB is to address all elements of its spread. There are three key contributors: wildlife, its control, and the interaction of wildlife with bovines; cattle-to-cattle transmission; and residual transmission in the herd.
As we know, herd incidence has increased from 4.3% in 2022 to 6.04% in 2024, resulting in a 36% increase in the number of herds restricted between 2022 and 2024. As of 22 June this year, over a 12-month period we had a herd incidence of 6.43% with over 43,455 reactors. This disease is having an impact on our farmers and their families both financially and emotionally throughout rural Ireland. This cannot be allowed to continue. It is also having an impact on badgers and on the wildlife the Deputy talks about. It stands to reason that if there is more of it in the countryside, either among our bovines or among the wildlife, there will be more of it in each group. When incidence rises in our bovines, it is rising in the wildlife too. We want to stop the badger getting TB the same way we want to stop the cattle getting it. When we discover animals that have it, they are removed to stop its spread and for their own sake. That is an important intervention.
In my engagement with all key stakeholders including the NPWS, ICOS and all the farm bodies, I have outlined a new approach that I want to take which would involve increased investment from my Department and would address all five key pillars of bovine TB, that is, to support herds that are free of it; reduce the impact of wildlife on the spread of TB; detect and eliminate infection as early as possible in herds with a TB breakdown and avoid a future breakdown; help farmers to improve all areas of on-farm biosecurity; and reduce the impact of known high-risk animals in spreading bovine TB. That would include deer as well as badgers.
I do not think anyone is underestimating or minimising the absolute devastation when a farmer realises they have TB in their herd. As the Minister says, it is not just a financial but also an emotional shock and trauma for the family. The most important thing to do is put in place a system that is going to work for them. The Minister talks about being led by science. I cannot see any definitive scientific evidence to show that badgers are responsible for the spread of TB. Actually, it is the opposite. In 2022 England conducted a study on this and found there was no significant evidence to show any impact on badger TB with the herd. Indeed, Scotland has been TB-free since 2009 and they do not cull at all. If we look internationally and see where it works and where it is being done properly, badger culling does not play a part in it. It is about husbandry, stock intensity, the biosecurity measures and supporting farmers to do that. If we are being led by science, as we absolutely need to be, we must be really clear about badgers and their role, or non-role, in this. We are culling a significant number of badgers and it is not having the desired impact anyway.
If a badger is examined and tested and is found to have TB, then for its own sake it needs to be culled as well as to stop the spread of the disease to other badgers, bovines and others within the community. Vaccination has a role to play but the vaccination process we have used to date has not worked to the same extent. I will be very clear. There are three causes of the spread of this disease and wildlife is one of them. As the Deputy knows in her county and mine, deer are a significant contributor. We have had deer management units established that will play an important role. The Deputy is also right to say there are animal husbandry and other measures in here as well. That is why we have the five pillars of approach, which have 30 proposed actions under them. I said at the start that not all actions need to be implemented but we need a critical mass of them to layer over each other. They would include biosecurity measures like fencing off a badger sett. That makes a big difference. I want to communicate this better with farmers. They think it is kind of a strange thing as it will not stop the badger coming out of the sett. It is not about stopping the badger. The badger does not want to interact with the bovines. Bovines by their nature are nosey. They tend to go and nose in around the sett or the latrine in front of it. Badgers tend to urinate there. That is not what we want. We need to keep the cattle back from them and keep the division between them. Measures like this and raising water troughs are things I want to support farmers to do, as well as the other measures here, to stop that interaction.
I would be really keen if the Minister could send me the studies and evidence that show transmission of TB from badgers to cattle and the incidence. If a badger has TB that is not a good thing for the badger, but the Department culled nearly 7,500 badgers last year and 20% of them had TB. The culling involves snares which not only is an incredibly inhumane way for an animal to die but it is not targeted. It also kills dogs, lambs, and foxes, where they have been disemboweled or have had to chew their own leg off to get away from the snare. This is a really aggressive, inhumane way of culling. I would really like to see the evidence to show this is what is actually going to assist farmers. This programme has gone on for about 70 years now. We spend billions on this every year. We need to get it right for the farmers. The approach that has been taken to date is not getting it right. Unfortunately, it seems that badger culling is going to be a key component of the Minister's reforms going forward. I cannot see the evidence for that so I would really appreciate if he could send it to me.
A series of my proposals would be around changing how we deal with the current vaccination approach. The current approach has been vaccinating without testing the animal. We can now test a badger and have a result within about ten minutes. There are challenges to that on the bovine side. Where an animal tests positive, for its own sake and the sake of everyone else in the sett and the bovines, it does need to be removed, but otherwise it can be vaccinated.
I also want to do a programme of vaccination of badgers that do not have the disease ahead of big projects. Badgers by their nature, if they are disrupted, tend to move significant distances not to have to be moved again. They are quite territorial. When they move, they will move about 1 km. When we know a forest is going to be felled, a new road is going to be built or a big infrastructure project is going to happen that will upset them, we need to be vaccinating them proactively beforehand. Then when they move, they will not be bringing the disease with them and spreading it out. The Deputy will see a number of measures in this approach. I would also be interested in the Deputy sharing that data with me that she said shows badgers are not spreading TB to bovines. By all means, I will consider that in the mix as well.
83. Deputy James O'Connor asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he is engaging with the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment regarding the use of good agricultural land for solar farms; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36654/25]
I am taking this question in the name of Deputy James O'Connor.
I thank Deputy O'Sullivan for raising this point on behalf of Deputy O'Connor. Deputy O'Connor has spoken directly to me on this point previously regarding his concerns in Cork. The programme for Government has committed to introduce planning guidelines for solar farms and to provide certainty in the development of solar energy. Issues regarding planning fall under the remit of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The rights of farmers and other landowners are, of course, subject to the usual constitutional protections.
As Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I am committed to driving sustainable agriculture practices that underpin Ireland’s food sector and contribute more broadly to food security through an export market worth over €19 billion. My Department does also offer support for the production of indigenous renewable energy. This is primarily through the solar capital investment scheme, SCIS, under TAMS and the installation of mainly rooftop solar PV technology along with battery storage on Irish farms across the country. As of April 2025, over 3,000 farmers had received approval under the SCIS with 532 farmers having installed panels to date.
It is important to provide farmers with opportunities to ensure they can maximise the income from their holdings, maintain viable holdings and protect our family farm tradition. Hence, my Department provides a wide range of supports for a variety of farming activities and sectors. My Department also has a specific role in ensuring that agricultural lands, as defined under the Common Agricultural Policy, are maintained to a high environmental standard as set out under the cross-compliance framework. Land submitted for payment under the basic income support for sustainability must remain under agricultural management for the duration of the scheme year. My Department also ensures that the required environmental and sustainability practices are implemented on agricultural land in Ireland.
I thank the Minister. I am aware of the scheme he outlined and the number of farmers who have availed of it. It is a very good scheme. The designation of land, land use policy and so on is really a matter for the Minister for local government, but one of the reasons Deputy O'Connor raised this matter with the Minister for agriculture is its potential impact on farming, particularly the dairy sector in the part of the world the Deputy and I represent. We are seeing large solar farm proposals now in the absence of any guidelines or any instruction from the Government. The Minister has said it is in the programme for Government that we will be bringing forward guidelines. They cannot come soon enough. There is concern that some communities are being swamped by these.
Nobody here is saying we do not need solar farms. They are indisputably part of what we need to do in generating energy for the future. However, the nature of the developments is erratic and concerns are being expressed by communities, particularly in my own parish of Knockraha into James O’Connor's area of Leamlara and Lisgoold. There are multiple applications. These farms are transforming the landscape from largely agricultural to what we would argue is a commercial enterprise.
I accept those valid points and the importance of the planning guidelines committed to in the programme for Government. It is why we have that commitment in there. That is a matter for the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to introduce.
As regards dairy farmers and concerns about the availability of land, there is huge pressure on availability as it is, be that for dairy, tillage, leasing, etc. Land use is under pressure from a variety of directions. The Deputy raised concerns about the dairy sector and I understand his perspective, but it has very high energy costs, so my Department supporting the implementation of solar panels on the roofs of sheds to offset those costs is a good thing for farmers. Solar has a place here. I realise the Deputy is not saying it does not. I am proud that we support farmers to have rooftop solar panels and reduce their energy costs. Whether the individual is a dairy, beef, sheep or tillage farmer, he or she can continue to do the core activity of producing top-quality food in that shed while having a sustainable and steady source of income every year from the shed's roof, which can help in years of income volatility when prices are low.
The Minister is restrained in what he can say. He is the Minister for agriculture, not energy and communications. I take his point about solar that the Department is providing for rooftops. That scheme is very much welcome. However, we are seeing the landscape transforming in front of our eyes. I took my kids for a walk in Leamlara in east Cork a couple of months back and as far as the eye could see, there was panel after panel in what was probably the most productive land in the country. That is the concern we are expressing. We are not saying we are against solar farms; we are clearly not. They are as necessary as wind energy. A large, industrial biodigester was built in my area of Little Island a numbers years ago. Nobody objected to it. The community was actually in favour of the proposal and supported it because it was necessary infrastructure. However, we are expressing the community's genuine concerns about hundreds of thousands of acres. The Minister’s concern should be about the knock-on effects on the agricultural and food sectors. There is a scoping exercise and there will be a public consultation on the guidelines, but we are all here long enough, so let us be honest about it - that will take two or three years. Meanwhile, there will be dozens more of these applications with essentially no guidelines in place. That is the most concerning thing for us.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to add my voice to this important debate.
The issue of solar farms on prime agricultural land is a critical one in parts of County Waterford. We all see the advantage of solar power, including solar farms and solar on rooftops. Farmers in rural communities are in favour of this and see the advantages and benefits of it. However, we cannot have development of large solar farms on prime agricultural land take place in what is essentially a legislative and guidance vacuum. We need to see guidelines and they need to be based on consultation with stakeholders in rural communities. We need to understand the impact this will have on agriculture as a sector, but also on the family farm into the future.
This is a massive issue. I have discussed it with the Minister. For decades, we were waiting on planning guidelines for wind turbines, and here we are on the new craze of solar panels. We cannot blame farmers when they are being enticed to set aside land for long-term leases. The best of land in the Golden Vale, in Rathgormuck in County Waterford, and in east Cork is being taken up. This scéal is scary. There are farmers with 500 or 800 cows ceasing production. There will be a food shortage if we do not have some balance very soon.
For fear anyone mistakes me for the Minister for climate or planning, I am the Minister for agriculture. I accept the points that have been raised in that context but I wish to put on the record I was very supportive of planning guidelines for solar in the programme for Government talks. It is the right thing to do; we need a bit of structure on that. I understand the concerns raised by Deputies representing their communities. I also recognise the right of farmers to get that blend right between playing their part for the environment, producing food and making sure they have a sustainable farm income. In general, there is a role for renewables to play in supplementing that income. I refer back to the point on rooftop solar. Irrespective of the price of the sheep, cattle or grain in that shed in any given year, the year that price is low, the solar panels on the roof will still give a return and a steady income. Income volatility is a huge challenge for our farmers. Renewables have a role to play in supplementing farm incomes and encouraging the next generation of farmers to take farming on, as there will be a more sustainable income there.
84. Deputy Barry Heneghan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide a breakdown of funding uptake and participation levels by scheme under Ireland's Common Agricultural Policy strategic plan to date; how these supports are being geographically distributed and monitored for environmental impact; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36636/25]
I am taking this question on behalf of an Teachta Barry Heneghan.
The CAP Strategic Plan 2023–2027 aims to improve the economic, social and environmental sustainability of Ireland's agrifood sector. It does this by supporting viable farm incomes and enhancing competitiveness by strengthening the socioeconomic fabric of rural areas and contributing to the achievement of environmental and climate objectives at national and EU levels. The CAP strategic plan, or CSP, includes 28 different schemes or interventions, as they are known. CSP interventions range from income support measures to environmental interventions and include targeted measures to support young farmers and female farmers.
More than 120,000 farmers in Ireland receive CAP supports through a combination of direct payments and targeted rural development supports. A list of all CAP beneficiaries is published each year on my Department’s website, including information on geographical distribution. My Department also publishes an annual performance report, or APR as it is known, each year. The APR for 2023 is available on my Department's website and the APR for 2024 will be published shortly, following approval by the European Commission.
It should be noted that the CAP financial year 2024 ran from 16 October 2023, which was World Food Day, to 15 October 2024. In the financial year 2024, over €1.9 billion was spent on the CAP strategic plan. This included €1.2 billion in CAP Pillar 1 direct payments, which are fully funded by the EU, and €700 million in co-finance payments under CAP Pillar 2, rural development and environment payments. Payments per beneficiary vary according to farm size, scheme participation and entitlement value for direct payments.
Under the new delivery model for the CAP, there is a monitoring system for performance against each of the CAP objectives. Some 16 of the CSP result indicators relate to environmental objectives. The CSP monitoring committee meets at least once a year to review progress and includes representatives from the European Commission as well as a broad range of Irish stakeholders.
With regard to funding uptake, I confirm that Ireland is ahead of other EU member states in drawing our share of EU funding in the CSP to date.
This policy has been a linchpin and a source of very important funding streams and supports for farmers for decades now. However, there comes a time when things need to be tweaked. That is why Deputy Heneghan asked for the geographical breakdown. We in Tipperary and other parts of the country have seen the conglomerates who get phenomenal payments under this scheme. There should be more balance shown towards the west and areas with poorer land conditions. There should be more supports for agritourism and different initiatives, such as environmental schemes, for younger and family farmers.
Looking at the publications every year, it is a table of the rich. There are phenomenal figures for factory farms and big conglomerates. These people are distorting the market in many other ways, especially the big production outlets, which can dictate the price of cattle, be they scarce or not. We need a reconfiguration and recalibration of this scheme.
I am happy to provide the Deputy with the table in written form as a result of this question. It lists the total expenditure per county for all CSP schemes, the number of beneficiaries and the average per beneficiary.
It is quite even. The Deputy's county, Tipperary, saw total expenditure under all CSP schemes of €112,091,305 to 6,652 beneficiaries. The average per beneficiary worked out at €16,851. That compares with Carlow, which is at €17,700; my county, Kildare, at €16,210; Kilkenny, next door to the Deputy, at €17,525; and Laois at €15,750. There is a uniformity in terms of the average per beneficiary, so it is quite balanced and quite fair. We have seen that movement to fairness progress over previous CAPs as well.
The Minister makes a comparison with my neighbouring county and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's county, Kilkenny. We will be working other matters out on the field of play at the weekend. I hope it will be a good game, and may the best team win.
On a serious note, I accept those figures, but inside them, and to get to those averages, there are massive, phenomenal payments for big conglomerates and stronger farms. I am talking about balance, not only in my county, but also through the west and to ordinary farmers. It is vital that we keep these farmers on young family farms because the conglomerates are gobbling up those farms. Every family farm has a family and they support schools, hurling teams and the teams of the future. They are vital. The supports should be skewed in favour of the smaller farmers and the mixed farmers, and those in food production especially. This has to be recalibrated because the figures are eye-watering.
I wish the Deputy and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle the best of luck in the hurling at the weekend. As a proud Kildare man, we look forward to competing for the Liam MacCarthy with both teams next year, after our win in the Joe McDonagh Cup.
The Deputy can stand up here and talk sentiment, mention the word "conglomerates" a number of times and so on, but the sentiment he displays is not borne out by the facts. The tabular breakdown, which I will provide to him afterwards, shows that, per county, the average per beneficiary works out at €15,585. In Tipperary, the average per beneficiary is €16,851, so there is not the big disparity he talks about. His next-door neighbour of Waterford is at €18,209 to 2,273 beneficiaries. That is the average per beneficiary. Leitrim is at €15,005. The Deputy spoke about the Golden Vale and different counties and farming models west of the Shannon. If one were to take the sentiment of what he said, there would be a big disparity between what is paid to farmers, but that is not borne out by the facts.
86. Deputy Conor D. McGuinness asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the additional supports he will put in place to support family farms in light of the recent finding that only 42% of medium-sized and large farms are economically viable. [36153/25]
I thank Deputy McGuinness for raising this point. The statistic referred to by him is from the recently published Teagasc national farm survey, NFS, 2024 preliminary results. By way of context, in 2024, the NFS results were based on a sample of 818 farms with a standard output of €8,000 or more per annum, representing almost 88,000 farms nationally. Some 65% of farms in Ireland are represented in the survey and 96% of the livestock population is held on those farms.
In 2024, average family farm income increased by 87% to almost €36,000. Year-on-year improvements were recorded for all sectors, with particularly strong results for sheep, dairy, tillage and cattle rearing. As the Deputy notes, 42% of farms were categorised as economically viable. This represents a 15% increase on 2023 and is one of the highest annual viability outcomes on record. When considering this categorisation, it is important to recognise that the NFS includes full-time and part-time farms and that the viability of farms varies across farming systems. Just over one third of NFS farms are classified as full-time farms and two thirds as part-time farms. Many of these part-time farms rely on off-farm income. In 2024, in addition to the 42% of farms categorised as economically viable, the NFS categorised a further 34% as sustainable.
The Government continues to provide strong support to the sector, including through €9.8 billion of Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, supports and targeted sectoral payments. In 2024, income growth and, subsequently, viability were driven in part by additional support payments, which had a particularly positive impact on sheep and cattle systems. Across all farm systems, the average value of direct payments represented 60% of family farm income, with CAP support payments typically accounting for a larger share of income on cattle and sheep farms, and Pillar 2 payments a particularly important income source for smaller dry stock farmers.
The Teagasc survey might show increases in income, but let us not get carried away. We all know that these increases are coming from rock bottom. A rise on next to nothing is still not enough to live on. We have to be clear and truthful with ourselves. The stark reality is that only 42% of farms are economically viable, even after the so-called rebound. Take dairy out of the mix and things are worse again. Suckler farmers are on €13,500 a year and beef farmers are on €18,000. That is far below the minimum wage. It is no wonder that so many farmers have left. They have given up.
While we are talking about rising incomes, farmers are still waiting on ACRES payments, they are still being squeezed by sky-high input costs, especially fertiliser, and they are being told there is no money left in the TAMS budget. This is the lived reality on family farms. I ask plainly, when will we see real targeted income supports that match the reality on the ground for beef, suckler and sheep farmers?
I have to disagree with the Deputy, respectfully. I understand the point he makes about the impact on small-to-medium-sized farms. As regards ACRES payments, however, 99% of 2023 farmers have been paid fully, with 97% advance payments in respect of 2024 and 94% of the remainder having received their balancing payments for 2024 as well. It was not good enough when I came in. I put a lot of focus on and energy into it. There were 14,500 farmers unpaid, there are 1,500 left, and we are moving might and main to get their cases resolved. Significant progress has been made in this area.
I did not say - nobody said - that there was no money left for TAMS. It is not factually correct for the Deputy to say that. I have talked about being responsible in my management of that budget because it is a budget of €440 million that has to be managed from 2021 to the end of 2027. I would not be responsible if I did not flag that I may need to introduce ranking and selection in the future.
The message is out there that TAMS is running low. Let us be clear: the Government has failed to address the crisis in farm incomes and, by extension, rural Ireland family farming. We can talk about surveys and percentages, but families are struggling to make ends meet. There is a cost-of-living crisis gripping communities, urban and rural, all across this State. When we look at farm incomes and the low floor that is there, they need something they can rely on, something that is sustainable, fair and secure. I refer to those rising input costs and the delayed payments. There has been progress, and fair play to the Minister, but it should never have got to that stage and it put so many family farmers under huge financial pressure. Although the percentage of farmers still waiting may be small, they are still waiting and still stretched because of it.
What we need is a radical shift, with a Government that puts suckler beef and sheep farmers at the heart of rural policy, not at the bottom of the pile. Viability cannot be a luxury or a pipe dream. It is a basic requirement for the future of these rural communities.
TAMS has been hugely positive, so when the Deputy suggests that the Government is failing, I disagree with that. TAMS has seen a massive ramp-up and uptake and drawdown of money, and I continue to support that. It is important that the message go out there that if a farmer is considering buying equipment beforehand, he or she is not guaranteed that it will be covered if ranking and selection have to come in. We want responsible activity on the part of farmers and no farmer making an investment that does not meet the criteria afterwards. Ranking and selection are responsible things to do and I will absolutely defend that.
Let me be really clear. The Deputy suggests that the Government is somehow failing farmers. When I came into the Dáil in 2011, the value of agrifood exports from this country was €8 billion. Last year, it stood at €19.2 billion.
Successive Government schemes and programmes, like Food Harvest 2020, Food Wise 2025 and now Food Vision 2030, which are ten-year strategies, have delivered a marked increase in income for our farmers from the value of their produce. I travel the world on trade missions, selling our top-valued produce from the length and breadth of the country. There is a direct link between those extra markets - those increased higher-value markets - that I, along with my Department and An Bord Bia, work with on marketing our food companies around the world. There is a direct link between that and the fact farmers are currently getting record prices for their produce across a whole host of areas. They are not mutually exclusive and we must continue to work to support our smaller and medium-sized farms, but Government is delivering for our farmers not just in terms of supports but in getting the best price for their produce we can.
Questions Nos. 87 and 88 are grouped. There is not sufficient time left in the slot to deal with them so I propose to move to the next item, which is Leaders' Questions. Is that agreed? Agreed.
