Vol. 1085 No. 6
82. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide an update on negotiations in relation to the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, budget and the proposal to cut payments to farmers in receipt of the State pension and farmers with off-farm income. [35915/26]
I want to get an update on CAP negotiations in relation to the proposals from the Commission, which are very concerning for many farmers and people in the food industry. The Commission is talking about a major cut in the funding. We need to do everything to ensure that this does not happen for agriculture in Ireland and across the European Union. We also need to see a big push-back on the notion farmers receiving a pension, off-farm income or whatever else will suffer as a consequence of that. That would be totally inappropriate. I would like to get the Minister's views and an update on that.
I thank the Deputy for raising a really important point. When I reflect on the key things throughout my term in this position, different issues will come up to be dealt with from day to day but I have always been clear there are a number of big things I will ultimately be judged on. Last year, nitrates was the key headline figure that you could never take your eye off. Throughout that time, I was building relationships with colleagues across the AGRIFISH Council in preparation for our Presidency at a time when CAP reform will be coming. It was a key part of preparing for CAP as well. Generational renewal is in that mix too; it is central to everything we are doing and a key part of this CAP.
In July 2025, the European Commission published its legislative proposals for the post-2027 CAP as a chapter of the proposed national and regional partnership plan framework. Negotiations on the CAP regulation are ongoing at EU level through Council working parties, the Special Committee on Agriculture, and the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of Ministers. I have been engaged actively throughout these negotiations and we are preparing for Ireland's role during our Presidency in the second half of 2026. We continue to carefully examine the Commission’s proposals relating to the future structure of direct payments and income supports, including the proposals on pensions. The proposals suggest that member states should exclude farmers in receipt of a pension from direct payments by 2032. This proposal has caused significant worry and concern among older farmers, understandably. I assure farmers that I share their concerns, and I, along with some other member state counterparts, have raised those concerns at the Council of Ministers. My focus in negotiations will be to ensure that Ireland retains sufficient flexibility to design a CAP programme that reflects the realities of Irish farming and supports family farms.
I appreciate that and understand that a great deal of work has to be done. Central to all this will be that period when Ireland holds the Presidency. We need to ensure CAP is properly funded. For many of these situations regarding off-farm income, whether a pension or whatever else, there needs to be a recognition that the vast majority of farmers need an off-farm income to make the farm viable. That is the reality of it. To suggest they would somehow be punished would mean they are punishing agriculture. They are doing the direct opposite of what the CAP is supposed to be about - enhancing the possibility of agriculture being prosperous, doing well and having a future. If they go down that road, it will be very difficult. We often come across farmers in our constituencies who are getting elderly. They come in and may be heading for 80 years of age but they have not applied for the pension yet because they prefer to farm. If they are punished from the point of view of CAP payments, it will be a very difficult situation to resolve.
I take those points of view on board. It is important to bear in mind and to explain to the public the process this goes through. There are three legs to the stool in terms of CAP and overall EU policy. The Commission puts forward the proposals around the CAP. The Council of agri ministers, of which I am a member and which I will chair when we have the Presidency from July to the end of the year, involves each of the 27 Ministers for agriculture and fisheries. In that AGRIFISH Council, we will agree our position, which will not be exactly the same and will be counter to some of the Commission's proposals. The Parliament is finalising its position with MEPs. When those three come together in trilogues next year, we will thrash this out. The Commission has proposed this measure around retirement. I have a different view and am building alliances with the other Ministers for agriculture that have a different view as well. It is the same with part-time farming. The approach to the active farmer proposed by the Commission is not one I agree with.
I appreciate that. We need to develop a strategy around generational renewal which recognises that the older farmer is part of the farm. The previous situations where farmers felt they had an exclusion order and could not go near the place any more if they went into any of these schemes is totally inappropriate. We need to find a way to do this in partnership so we have generational renewal to make farming more profitable and therefore bring more young people into it, while keeping the experience and the sense of being part of it among older farmers and the people who want to stay with it.
In regard to the CAP, there are a number of things that arise. Simplification has to happen. There has to be an allocation of funds for active farmers. We have to see the restoration of the two pillars. One of the things many farmers are finding very difficulty to come to terms with is that the two pillars that served us so well for so long are being discarded. We need to look at that. However, the ring-fenced budget lies at the core of it. The budget we have in place for the CAP has to be maintained. In fact, it should really be extended.
The Deputy's points around generational renewal are very valid. We need to make sure that we have fairness and a balanced distribution of supports across the board. We want to learn from the mistakes of the past. The old retirement scheme was a mistake. It banished older experienced farmers from farms completely and replaced them with newer farmers. There needs to be a partnership approach. I know from my family circumstances at home down through the years that , the corporate knowledge the older farmer had was really important as was the value they had to bring to the farming enterprise.
In regard to part-time farming, approximately 43% of farmers in Ireland are classified as part time. Part-time farmers are central to the structure and sustainability of Irish agriculture. No final decisions have been made on the future definition of "farmer" in the next CAP. We need to make sure that our approach involves fairness and balance and that any future model is workable in practice and will not disproportionately impact productive farms or undermine food production capacity and farm viability. At the heart of this, what I will be able to do is fight for maximum flexibility and for the maximum budget as well. If we do not have the latter, it will really curtail what we can do.
83. Deputy Robert O'Donoghue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will consider introducing a targeted support package to assist farmers with escalating gas and energy costs (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35916/26]
Supports have been provided to farmers in the main budget already. I have addressed this issue before but want to highlight again that the commercial growers have largely been left out of this. Unlike farmers who benefit for supports for green diesel, growers are facing significant increases in gas and energy prices, particularly those in horticulture sector. Given the rising cost pressures on growers and the vital role they play in our food supply chain, will the Minister consider introducing a targeted support package to assist them with escalating gas and energy prices?
I thank the Deputy for asking this question. I reassure him that specialist horticulture has not been forgotten. The Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, and I have mentioned it when we talked about fuel support and securing the €100 million package. We talked about farmers, farm contractors, fishers, forestry and specialist horticulture. That will form a part of this support package. It is different because the producers do not use marked gas oil as the Deputy outlined in his question. After what has been a tumultuous couple of months, I reflect on the fact that this is the only question on the fuel support schemes during the hour and a half we have this morning, which I will take as an indication that the interventions we have made have been significant and impactful.
The Irish horticulture industry is an important economic sector in Ireland, with a farm-gate value of over €600 million. It contains a diverse range of sectors, including mushrooms, potatoes, field vegetables, protected fruit, protected vegetables, outdoor fruit and amenity crops. I fully recognise the impact of the Middle East crisis on the sector and, in particular, certain subsectors within it. Indeed, the announcement on 12 of April of a fuel support scheme made specific reference to the horticulture sector, as I have outlined. This fuel support scheme will provide supports equivalent to 20 cent per litre to farmers and contractors to offset increased costs in marked gas oil. Payments will be made through a single application process with funding allocated based on green diesel usage in 2025. The main fuel used by growers of field vegetables, field salad crops, field-grown fruit and top fruit is marked gas oil, or green diesel, and these growers are eligible to apply.
Unlike other horticulture subsectors, the protected crop sector is dependent on natural gas and liquified petroleum gas, LPG, the cost of which has also increased significantly since March. Recognising this, my Department has engaged with relevant stakeholders to develop supports for this specialist sector within horticulture, within the framework of the Middle East crisis state aid framework and within the total budget of €100 million that I secured for agriculture and fisheries supports in April.
As the Minister knows, commercial growers across the country are under enormous and sustained pressure. I am specifically talking about a very small subset of those growers who use gas to heat their greenhouses in order to grow certain vegetables. The soaring energy bills, higher fertiliser prices and transport costs they are facing due to the Middle East crisis are pushing them to the brink.
We are not talking here about abstract figures on a spreadsheet. These are family-run businesses that employ local people, produce Irish food and sustain our food security. Even as energy costs continue to spiral, we need supports that reflect the reality on the ground. Growers simply cannot continue if they are forced to operate on a month-to-month survival basis, constantly exposed to cash-flow pressures and squeezed further by supermarket pricing dynamics. It is a small sector, but it is certainly an important sector in north County Dublin. It is specifically those using gas to power their glasshouses. I see an ethical dilemma for some people, but there are not many growers left. We would like to keep them.
I agree with the Deputy that it is a very important sector. It is more important than just for the Deputy's constituency in north County Dublin. It is really important to the overall ecosystem of how our food is produced. It is a sector that is feeling real pressure, and I recognise that. It is a sector that has become quite marginalised and narrowed down and pressure from very large retailers has made it a very difficult space for people in the horticulture sector to be in. I and my Department are absolutely determined to support it, protect it and make sure it is thriving and viable into the future.
In the context of the changes I made around the Agri-Food Regulator and so forth, what was in my mind throughout all that time was that horticulturists are the most vulnerable in the sector. The extra powers and increased funding I was able to give the Agri-Food Regulator last year were to support those sectors that are the most vulnerable and the likes of that. I will also be meeting with representatives of the sector later this month to go through what is possible in terms of that element of the fuel support scheme, to support them in light of the small few who are dependent on natural gas and LPG.
I appreciate that response. To recap, Irish growers are expected to compete with those in other countries in which gas costs are significantly lower. That creates an uneven playing field, as the Minister knows. Our growers have been asked to meet the highest environmental, quality and labour yet they are not always receiving the supports they might need. If this trajectory continues we will see a loss of more grower's jobs and family-run businesses. Officially, we have 73 growers left in the country. If you speak to some of the growers, it is questionable as to whether the figure of 73 is accurate. Once those growers are gone, they are gone. I appreciate what the Minister has told me already and I believe what we need is a targeted intervention and clear financial package, and policies that genuinely support and sustain Irish horticulture.
Because of the importance of the horticulture sector, and specialist horticulture in particular, my Department already provides significant support measures to the Irish horticulture industry through a range of initiatives. We provided €15.7 million in supports to the sector in 2025, excluding supports under basic income support for sustainability, BISS, targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMs, and organics. In addition, the protected crop sector can benefit from carbon tax relief for natural gas and LPG usage.
These measures recognise the continued Government support for the development of this important sector. I am committed to seeing this sector grow and flourish in the years ahead for the reasons outlined. I look forward to meeting the representatives later this month on those specific supports. It is not always just about money; it is about the structural support as well and that is why the extra powers we gave to the Agri-Food Regulator were very much with the likes of this vulnerable sector in mind. That we protect that position of the primary producer in that relationship between the producer, the processor and the retailer.
84. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will work with his ministerial colleagues and the relevant Departments to introduce a financial stabilisation scheme for inshore fishermen similar to the basic income scheme available to artists. [35020/26]
This is an opportunity for the Ministers to do something really important for fishing communities all around our coast. They have visited quite a few piers and harbours already around the coast where, until recent times, fishermen would have said they just want to fish and do not need financial supports. They are now telling us very clearly that they need those supports. This is a chance to do something radical and game-changing for those communities around the country, and for a not huge amount of money.
I thank the Deputy for his question. I know of his significant interest in this issue.
I have met with representatives of the National Inshore Fishermen's Association and other representatives of the inshore sector and am very much aware of the challenges facing the inshore sector. I am also very much aware of the challenges facing the inshore fishery sector as a result of more recent quota drops, changes to their lives and livelihoods and the impact that climate change is having.
Ireland's €258 million seafood development programme for the period 2021 to 2027, which is co-funded by the Government and the European Commission under the European Maritime, Aquaculture and Fisheries Fund, EMFAF, is the primary source of funding for the Irish commercial seafood sector, including the inshore sector. Our Department has reviewed all funding mechanisms available, either through the seafood development programme or through other state aid routes, to ascertain if there is a possibility of introducing a financial stabilisation scheme for inshore fishermen. It is clear from this review that the EMFAF regulation under the seafood development programme, which is aligned with the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy, does not make provision for income supports to primary producers in the seafood sector. There is also little scope to implement funding supports of the type being sought by inshore fishers under other existing EU state aid regulations in the fisheries and agriculture sector as matters currently stand.
As regards to the basic income for the arts sector, the EU state aid basis for this scheme is what is referred to as the general de minimis regulation. This regulation may not be used as the basis for aid to primary producers in the fisheries and agriculture sector, with the specific fisheries de minimis regulation applying to these producers. Income supports to fishers are available from the Department of Social Protection through the specific category of jobseeker's allowance for them known as fish assist. Any inshore fishers who require such financial assistance are advised to contact their local Intreo centre.
I just cannot accept that the only source of funding we have has to come with the consent of the European Commission. We we can talk about how, under the CAP, long-standing financial supports have been provided to primary producers who work on the land. We need an imaginative measure here. This could be a game-changer, and anything that is ever a game-changer requires somebody to take on the system. We spoke yesterday about Thomas McLaughlin, who pushed through the Ardnacrusha project. He was an engineer who pushed for that to happen. Look at what that changed in Ireland. He was resisted when he first did it. What I am talking about is crucial to keeping the fishermen on the water. We have to reflect the reality of their lives in terms of everything that has changed. In light of that, I am asking the Minister of State to push back against the guidance that tells him this cannot be done. I cannot accept that it cannot be done, particularly in the context of financial supports to fishermen.
There are additional supports available through Bord Iascaigh Mhara. These are aimed at supporting both the commercial offshore and inshore sectors by means of the various schemes that have helped fishers to survive through difficult times. Shortly after my appointment, I tasked independent consultant Kieran Mulvey to engage with the entire fishing sector to look to see what potential supports could be put in place. I am awaiting his report, which I expect to have shortly. I expect there will be some recommendations.
In light of the significant quota cuts that came about as a result of last December's Council meeting, we brought in independent consultant Michael Berkery to look at how supports could be addressed in that regard. There are significant state aid rules involved. It is not so much the source of the funding that is the issue. Rather, it is about the capacity to spend State funds - our own funds - in a way that is not anti-competitive or that runs contrary to the activities of other states. It has to be done in a fair and balanced manner, and those are what are referred to as the state aid rules. I am certainly prepared to look at all potential measures.
Our inshore fishermen are a precious part of the heritage of coastal communities and are central to the piers and harbours that we have. There is a great love for them, not just in coastal communities but also right across Ireland. It is about keeping that going by means of what would not be a huge amount of money to subsidise and support them to stay on the water. The factors involved include energy costs, weather and climate change.
As I said to the Minister of State previously, five years ago, fisherman said they just wanted to fish. They have never asked for financial supports before. This is the first time they have come to the State. I have looked at their latest updated plan and I think it is really impressive. It is really thoughtful. They are looking to work in partnership with others around how we manage the precious resource of our waters beyond fishing. I plead with the Minister of State to seek an exemption from the European Commission. Are there grounds and special circumstances to protect this special heritage? With a will, this can be done. I appeal to the Minister of State to keep that will and desire to do it and to push back on anybody within the Department or permanent government that says it cannot be done because they have failed fishermen for long enough. I know the Minister of State is trying to change, so I ask him stay on his current course.
I am very conscious of the positive impact that small-scale inshore fishers have on their coastal communities. It is about maintaining, protecting and preserving that from a cultural and historical perspective. I know they are not looking for money. They just want to survive and they would much prefer to do that through fishing and the processing of fish. I am prepared to work with them, and I am conscious of the document. In the context of the work that Michael Berkery is doing and the report from Kieran Mulvey that will be published soon, there is an opportunity for us to work with them over the coming months and years to try to put in place a programme of supports that comply with state aid rules and EU directives and, insofar as we can, retain fishers until such time as fish stocks recover. There are also other opportunities emerging in relation to ecotourism and marine ecotourism and to act in support of the offshore renewable activity that is certainly coming into play and that will be there in the next three to five years.
87. Deputy Joe Cooney asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the current herd incidence rate of bovine tuberculosis, TB, in County Clare; the steps being taken to support Clare farmers who have suffered financial losses due to TB reactor removals; whether the on-farm market valuation ceiling of €3,000 for non-pedigree cattle will be reviewed in light of the significant gap between that ceiling and the true market value of animals being removed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35917/26]
As the Minister is well aware, TB is an issue that is hitting farm families very hard across the county, including my county of Clare. Could he provide information on where we are with the eradication strategy? Does he think eradication is a realistic goal? What are his plans to evaluate the current compensation cap?
I thank Deputy Cooney for raising what is a significant issue, not just for farmers in County Clare but also for their counterparts across the country. The straight answer to a straight question is that I do believe eradication of TB is possible and is something that can be delivered. However, there was no way it was going to be delivered by means of the trajectory we were on up until last year, when we were seeing an exponential growth in numbers of reactors and herds impacted. The definition of madness is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I was not willing to do that, which is why I spent all of last year engaging with farm stakeholders, representative bodies, vets, professionals throughout the industry and my officials to draw up a new plan based on science and to have that clear intervention that would give a very clear roadmap for those farmers in a perpetual cycle of bovine TB outbreaks and reactors who see no light at the end of the tunnel. A total of 94% or 95% of farmers who were free of bovine TB were petrified before the annual test every year and were hoping to avoid the disease. The new TB plan gives us the opportunity to move the dial, turn the tide, stop this significant increase and get it on that trajectory where we can get back to talking about eradication with real credibility. That is what I have sought to do here.
Regarding the TB herd incidents in County Clare, on a 12-month rolling basis as of 3 May this year, it has reduced by 4.2% in County Clare compared with 4.34% at the same time last year. This compares well with the national TB herd incidence, which has also shown a reduction on a 12-month rolling basis. As of 3 May, it stood at 5.4% nationally. Obviously, Clare is 1.2% lower than that. The 5.4% nationally compares with 6.29% at the same time the last year. Bovine TB is an ongoing challenge for Irish farmers. I am acutely aware of the emotional and financial stress it causes farmers, farm families and rural Ireland, which is why we are imposing the various measures.
I compliment the Minister on his great work on this issue, but, unfortunately, I hear from farmers in Clare every week who are losing thousands of euro in comparison with what they would get on the open market. Independent valuers assigned by the Department are valuing animals well above the Department ceiling of €3,000. With the high costs at the moment, this means that farmers, through no fault of their own, are losing real money out of their pockets.
The gap between compensation and value is causing serious financial stress and anxiety. Thousands of farm families across the country are affected by this. When will they get a compensation scheme that reflects the market value of the animals they are losing?
Budget 2026 provided an increased budget for the TB programme, with a record €157 million allocated for this reason in 2026. This will allow the TB programme to focus on driving down the disease through the implementation of measures laid out in my new bovine TB action plan. It will support and enable farm families who are currently dealing with the stress of a TB outbreak to navigate a way out of a TB restriction and protect those herds currently free from bovine TB to remain free. The objective of the new measures in the bovine TB action plan is to reduce the number of farms affected and decrease the costs for all stakeholders.
My Department provides a range of financial supports that focus on compensating farmers for both direct and indirect losses incurred as a result of a TB breakdown on the farm. The primary support scheme is the on-farm market valuation scheme, where animals removed as reactors are subject to compensation, subject to scheme ceilings equivalent to their market value in the event they were not disclosed as TB reactors. In 2025, of the 40,583 animals valued under the on-farm market valuation scheme, just under 90% of animals were valued below the scheme ceilings.
Compensation values are totally outdated and do not reflect the true value of animals in 2026. It appears that increased costs and values are being accommodated across many sectors except for farmers with TB. The defective concrete blocks scheme is one example, where we have rightly gone back to affected homeowners and increased compensation values for rebuilding their homes.
I appreciate the work the Minister is doing on TB eradication. The increase in the budget is very welcome and clearly shows a commitment to that goal. However, the compensation ceiling for farmers must be reviewed urgently and indexed to reflect current market prices. Anything less is asking farmers to subsidise a disease control programme through their own losses.
I understand the points the Deputy has made and the frustration he has expressed on behalf of his constituents. I would love not to have that ceiling in place; I would love the freedom to be able to operate outside of that.
Market prices of animals continue to be monitored. However, the focus at present is on reducing the levels of disease, which will reduce the impact of bovine TB on Irish farm families and reduce the cost of the programme, which rose to over €121 million in 2025. The only reason I got sanction for the extra money in my budget negotiations was because that money was to drive down the incidence rate and the disease. I did not get extra money for extra compensation. That is beyond the ceilings that are there. However, we continue to monitor this. It is something I would like to be able to move on in time, but I do not have the ability to do that right now.
In addition to the compensation package for eligible reactor animals that are removed during a TB breakdown, my Department operates three supplementary schemes that assist farmers with the indirect losses incurred as a result of a breakdown on the farm. These include an income supplement scheme, a depopulation grant scheme and the hardship grant scheme. We also have a financial working group, through which we have seen over the past two years rate enhancements to the income supplement scheme, the hardship grant and the depopulation grant, as well as enhanced ceilings for select animals being removed as part of the on-farm market valuation.
