Vol. 1055 No. 5
41. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question No. 363 of 28 May 2024, the way his Department ensures that the person signing the specific form mentioned in his response is a currently registered Safe Electric Ireland electrician; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25739/24]
The purpose of this question is to ask the Minister how his Department ensures that persons signing the form relating to the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, solar photovoltaic, PV, panels are registered Safe Electric Ireland electricians, bearing in mind that more than half of the TAMS 2 processed grants were processed on the basis of forms that were not from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine but from Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, instead. Those forms are not the same. There is a big anomaly here and I would like the Minister to address it.
I thank Deputy Stanton for raising this issue. As Members know, I opened the very popular solar capital investment scheme, which is a measure under TAMS 3, for applications in February of last year. This scheme provides grant aid of 60% with a ring-fenced ceiling particular to this solar TAMS, of €90,000. Solar PV systems grant-aided under TAMS 3 include solar PV panels and solar PV rechargeable batteries as well.
All installations most comply with specification S198 which outlines the minimum specification for the installation of solar PV systems. All relevant electrical and structural standards are prescribed in this specification.
I can confirm that the electrician completing the prescribed form must provide details confirming he or she is a current registered Safe Electric Ireland electrician.
I also wish to point out that any solar PV installer included on my Department's solar PV registered installer list is required to submit a completed solar PV installer registration form and an up-to-date certificate of public and employer's liability insurance.
It is also a requirement that the electrician has completed training courses in solar photovoltaic panel implementation and electrical installation of microgenerators. A Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI, award certification for training modules 6N0306 and 6N0307 or equivalent is acceptable. There are a number of training providers nationwide for these courses.
At national level, the energy sector stands to benefit from the carbon credits accrued for all solar PV systems installed, be it at industrial, commercial, agricultural or domestic level. The energy sector falls under the remit of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.
I thank the Minister for his response. Form S198 from the Department is very comprehensive and contains registered electrical contractor details, as the Minister outlined. This is the SEAI form. It is basically the same, but not exactly the same because it does not contain those details. There is no way of checking whether the person who filled out the form is an approved Safe Electric Ireland installer. If a person has been taken off the Safe Electric Ireland list, there does not seem to be any way of checking that. In addition, the Department of agriculture has one list of companies and installers. However, the SEAI has two lists, one list for companies and a separate list for installers. There are huge anomalies here. Will the Minister explain why his Department accepted applications that did not come in the shape of the official S198 forms? More than half of them were for TAMS 2. The number is 129 of 236 paid. This is very serious. I ask the Minister to set up an inquiry into it as a matter of urgency.
This is something Deputy Stanton and I discussed before. The position is that electricians completing the prescribed form must provide details confirming that they are registered Safe Electric Ireland electricians.
They do not.
The electricians completing those forms must provide those details. That is the position.
They do not.
Any PV installer included on my Department's solar PV registered installer list is required to submit a completed solar PV installer registration form as well as an up-to-date certificate of public insurance or employer's liability. As already stated, it is also a requirement that the electrician has completed the training courses in solar PV implementation as well as those relating to electrical installation of microgenerators. That is the position, but I know this is something on which the Deputy has engaged with my Department. If any further engagement is required I am certainly happy to facilitate. That is the position on the requirements.
I accept the Minister's bona fides. However, I am taking information from replies to previous parliamentary questions I tabled. Half of those applications were on the wrong forms. They are very similar but not they are not the same. There is serious information missing from one to the other. I am really worried about this.
Does the Minister agree that farmers are at a legal disadvantage because of the Department's lack of oversight in respect of this matter? There is no way of figuring out whether the person doing the work is competent and trained if they are not on the Safe Electric Ireland list. There is a big gap in this regard. How many companies were involved in this? Will the Minister give me this information at a later stage? How many companies actually were involved in filling out the SEAI form, the wrong one, versus the S198 form from his Department? They are effectively the same form but they are not the same form. This is very serious. The SEAI confirmed to me at a joint committee meeting that it has no formal relationship with the Department or the TAMS scheme. It is not involved here. The SEAI has best practice because it has two separate lists, one of installers and one of companies. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has one list that is actually an amalgamation of both.
The position is that any electrician completing the prescribed form must provide details confirming they are currently registered with Safe Electric Ireland. I would like to facilitate a further meeting between Deputy Stanton and my own officials. If there is any level of confusion here, I want to make sure it is addressed. I thank the Deputy for raising this matter and for digging into it. However, the position is that they must provide those details. I am happy to facilitate a further meeting to discuss the matter further with the Deputy.
42. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide an update on his Department’s plans to simplify and modernise the Control of Horses Act 1996 as per the summer legislative programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25706/24]
Will the Minister provide an update on the Department's plans to simplify and modernise the Control of Horses Act 1996, as per the summer legislative programme?
I thank Deputy O'Sullivan for raising this issue. I will take the opportunity to briefly address the "RTÉ Investigates" programme that aired last night. The scenes we saw on the programme were shocking and appalling. The mistreatment of horses that we saw was absolutely unacceptable. We have strict laws in this country in relation to the welfare of animals as well as the traceability of animals. It was very distressing to watch that. My Department is already working with the gardaí investigating those particular instances and the full rigours of the law will be applied in relation to that. It is also important to say that it is not reflective of the care and attention or the lives that our horses are afforded and the welfare that is taken so seriously by people in the industry. However, we were all shocked by what we saw last night. It simply will not be tolerated.
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue, particularly as we take equine welfare and traceability seriously. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to prioritise equine welfare and to build on existing inspectorate supports throughout the country, ensuring a consistent approach to dealing with horse welfare. My Department provides funding to local authorities as a contribution towards the costs incurred by them in the operation of the Control of Horses Act 1996. Enforcement of the Act is a matter for each relevant authority.
The Control of Horses Act 1996 is currently under review within my Department. Plans for replacement legislation are well advanced. The aim of this replacement legislation is to simplify and clarify procedures in the Act in terms of seizure and disposal of horses. My Department undertook a stakeholder consultation late last year on the control of horses legislation with submissions sought by November last. Four submissions were received. These were from the Veterinary Council of Ireland, the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Burren Animal Rescue and the County and City Management Association.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I know from the sentiments he expressed that he will look at the issues raised in the "RTÉ Investigates" programme last night and deal with them appropriately.
To be fair, the Department has provided a significant increase in funding for local authorities and animal welfare charities in recent years but the images last night are quite stark, as the Minister has expressed. The fundamental issue is that traceability and the licensing of horses needs to be investigated fully and powers need to be strengthened. This is something I have raised with the Minister. I have a Bill, which I have not yet submitted, which I had circulated to the Minister’s special adviser. Something has to change in the licensing and tracing of horses. It is estimated that anything up to a third of all horses in the country are unregistered for various reasons.
I acknowledge the Minister’s comments and will follow up afterwards with a supplementary.
There have been significant actions in the past ten years to improve the traceability and identification of horses. In 2014, the central equine database was introduced. Prior to that, microchipping was introduced. More recently, since 2021 an annual horse census takes place and their places of residence must be registered with the Department too. There has been an online portal since last year where any member of the public can check a horse microchip and see the full record of the horse. We are also progressing e-passports for horses, which will digitise it and mean the information is available in real time as well as improving traceability.
It will also be important that we work across Europe to make sure the cross-European system is robust. We need to work further on this to make sure, given the journey travelled in recent years, that we get to a point where the system is very robust, not only in our own country but at European level.
I welcome the improvements but it is worth highlighting that, under current legislation, responsibility for ensuring the welfare of animals, horses in this case, falls on the owner of the animal. I am concerned about this, with yesterday’s programme in mind. I do not think what was contained in the programme was that surprising to some of us who have followed this over recent years. I am concerned that responsibility is placed on the animal owner and I am not sure about the role of others. I know the local authority has power and the Garda and the Department of agriculture have some powers, but it is about enforcement. The purpose of my Bill that I had produced was to introduce the role of an equine officer to local authorities. A person like that, who would be responsible for a register and for seizing on the spot animals that are not registered, with no messing around or falling between the cracks, as it were, between the various authorities, is probably something we should look at.
I thank Deputy O'Sullivan for his commitment to this issue and to improving it, taking it forward and for being proactive in producing legislation to help address and contribute to this area. We are reviewing the control of horses legislation with the objective of ensuring enforcement is as strong as it possibly can be. I am happy to engage with the Deputy on his ideas on that and the proposals in his Bill to see how it can be considered in that context. I thank Deputy O’Sullivan for raising it today and for his ongoing work.
43. Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the work his Department is undertaking in the current year on precision fermentation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19394/24]
55. Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the position regarding the results of his Department's thematic research call in 2023; if any successful projects are included that relate in any aspect to precision fermentation; if so, to detail the specific research projects; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19393/24]
Both of these questions refer to precision fermentation. Question No. 43 is more general, namely to ask what research work the Department is doing and the horizon scanning that is taking place in the Department on this issue. Question No. 55 is a more specific question that relates to the Department’s thematic research goal in 2023. The Minister will know I have tabled a parliamentary question on this before that thematic call. Have any of the successful applications to the thematic call included precision fermentation?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 43 and 55 together.
A key instrument of my Department’s funding of research is the thematic research call, to which the Deputy referred, which is typically run every second year. I launched the 2023 call in March last year, with the aim of funding pioneering research in areas such as climate mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity and water quality, sustainable farming, animal health and welfare, social sustainability, the bioeconomy, agri-digitalisation and safe, healthy and sustainable food. In December, I was pleased to announce the first tranche of successful projects. This saw 20 research grants worth just over €24 million to support research across 16 institutes. Precision fermentation did not form part of any of the these awards.
I expect to announce a further tranche of successful projects from this call in the coming weeks. One of those will examine the potential for alternative plant-based protein using fermentation technology, not precision fermentation, while another will seek to create an all-island Irish network of research organisations to ensure diverse facilities and expertise can be leveraged for research and innovation in areas such as precision fermentation, production of bio-based proteins and chemicals, and development of sustainable bio-based processes.
Separately, the U-protein project, funded by my Department from the 2019 thematic research call, is examining the role of crop and marine resources as alternative sources of protein, and there is a small component looking at using precision fermentation in the utilisation of waste streams for food and non-food uses such as bioplastics.
Precision fermentation builds on traditional fermentation techniques that have been used in food production for many years. Besides its use in the area of plant proteins, precision fermentation also offers possibilities as part of a circular food system. It has the potential to be used for making better use of food processing side streams by extracting valuable components for other food and non-food uses such as bioplastics.
I tabled these questions, and it would be expected that a Green Party Member's primary interest would be in emissions reduction in the production of our food, but in this case it is not. In this case it is in horizon scanning. The Minister will remember when our sugar market was deregulated. There was a situation where we were not allowed to import raw cane sugar and we had a sugar beet industry here on this island. We were told as we approached the point where the raw cane sugar was to start coming in that the Irish consumer would support the sugar beet industry and would be happy to pay the 5 or 10 cent extra on a bag of sugar, but what happened was that our beet industry collapsed. People seamlessly changed to the slightly cheaper brand of sugar and suddenly we were in bother. I have a real worry about our dairy industry because, if we crack alternative milks, be it through precision fermentation or whatever else, that will have an immediate impact on the milk cheque that pays for the new dairy that has been installed, the loan someone has taken out for slurry management on their farm and all of those things. I want to have a sense that the Minister’s Department is scanning the horizon for these threats because, by God, it will have a serious and profound impact on our dairy industry if somebody cracks this technology.
I thank the Deputy for raising this. There is significant potential here, and we do have to invest in new research. That is why we have the thematic research calls and why precision fermentation is one of the areas which is open for application. We will continue to invest, not only in the precision fermentation area but right across new and emerging science in the agrifood sector. It is open to people to apply as we try to bring these forward. Many exciting projects are taking place or are in the offing.
On the dairy sector and the milk we produce, we are very fortunate to have what we have, which is an exceptionally nutritious food in milk and the other food products, like cheese, which come from its processing. We can look to having a very strong future there, but we must also make sure we are at the cutting edge of science and that we are looking at all opportunities. That is why we are investing so much in research in agrifood and that is why it is so important we are investigating potential such as this and why we are open to applications in this area too.
We do produce the highest quality of dairy, but I am concerned. I have seen farmers across the south east make huge investments in their milking parlours. They are investing a quarter of a million and essentially have a mortgage repayment on it. Slurry storage is another very expensive area. I know a farmer who put €500,000 into his slurry storage, and the repayments on those loans are predicated on the milk cheque.
My concern is that we should be mapping this forward because if something happens to displace the sale of milk, then farm families are in real difficulty. Alternative meat is a while away because it is difficult to crack. I refer to such things as marbling and sear. That is less the case with dairy and dairy derivatives. We are seeing the Kerry Group investing massively in this area. In 2020, it acquired c-LEcta. A lot of money is going into this area already and I want to make sure the Government is keeping track of that research and horizon scanning because I see a significant threat coming down the line for the people who are so reliant on the milk cheque every month.
I thank Deputy Ó Cathasaigh for raising the matter. The reason our food industry is so successful and is such a large part of our economy is because we have stayed at the cutting edge of research and added value. That is why we have the research funding in place through my Department. We are open to all applications on how we can progress and delve further into the scientific potential and new technologies. We will remain so. I accept the point Deputy Ó Cathasaigh makes about how crucial that is.
44. Deputy Claire Kerrane asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide an update on the proposal to bring forward a solution for the group known as the forgotten farmers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25713/24]
I would like to get an update on the proposed solution that has long been promised but has yet to be brought forward for the forgotten farmers.
I thank Deputy Kerrane for raising this matter. It is something to which both she and I have a strong commitment and it is something I ensured was subject to a commitment in the programme for Government as I had raised it significantly on the Opposition benches. It is important we recognised that and reflected it through a forgotten farmers scheme which would set that to rights, as such. That is a commitment I have given and one on which significant preparatory work has been carried out within my Department. It is something I hope to step out in the coming months in terms of actioning it.
The challenge in recent years has been to make sure we get the new CAP right. That has put pressure on resourcing and preparation, including on the development of IT systems, among others. I want to make sure there will not be any legacy issue in the future following the delivery of this CAP programme that a future Minister will be seeking to correct in ten or 15 years. As last year was the first year of the new CAP, all efforts and energies were put into delivering and developing those schemes. Likewise, in the previous year as well, all resources were significantly stretched to make sure the preparations for the effective roll-out of the CAP were put in place and the systems developed.
In recent months I have had a team in my Department scoping out the IT capacity to be able to deliver a scheme. We have significant preparatory work done also on the definition of forgotten farmers. I will be engaging with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform on plotting a way forward and delivering a payment that reflects the fact that many of these farmers were not able to avail of some of the young farmers' schemes at the time - because they were discontinued - which other farmers would have been able to avail of previously and subsequently.
I acknowledge the Minister's long-standing commitment to this matter but the frustration is that, every time it is raised, we are told it is coming in the next few months. We constantly hear about the scoping out of the IT systems and all of that. I understand the new CAP was obviously the priority and that it has taken a lot of time and work. I commend the Department on all of that. However, given that this issue has been going on for more than a decade, I do not believe that is an excuse and that we still do not have information on what the proposed scheme will look like.
In terms of the significant scoping out that is happening, who is the Minister engaging with on what the scheme for the forgotten farmers will look like? The key question in all of this will be who will be included in whatever scheme is brought about. Will the Minister please advise on who he is engaging with to ensure we get this scheme right for the forgotten farmers?
There was significant engagement with farm representative organisations on the issue and the challenge. At my request, the Department also carried out new analysis based on records available in 2021 to establish the most up-to-date position regarding the cohort of farmers who were affected. The analysis shows that approximately 3,500 farmers would meet the basic definition of forgotten farmer.
The challenge in terms of rolling this out was the fact we were under significant pressure to develop an entirely new IT system to operate the new CAP programme, which I wanted to make sure we got right, and that we deliver schemes that are fair to farmers of all types and in all parts of the country in order that they have significant funding to underpin family farm incomes as well. It has always been a priority for me to make sure we deliver on it. It is a legacy issue. The first point is that I want to make sure there are no new legacy issues created through this CAP, which I think is the case, but now I want to address this legacy issue in the coming months.
The only question that remains is whether the Minister has an outline of a scheme, including who is going to get the payment, and if he has run it by the farm organisations and perhaps some forgotten farmers themselves to make sure he gets the scheme right. That is very important given the length of time the forgotten farmers have waited for the scheme. We must make sure the scheme the Minister announces, and the funding for said scheme, works for those who need it.
At this point, we have four sittings weeks before the summer recess. Does the Minister think he will seek this funding in the budget? Is it his aim to have the scheme in the next budget?
Yes, that is my objective. There has been significant engagement in the past two to three years with farm organisations on the definition of who would qualify and what they missed out on. The objective then is to work with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to secure a package that would reflect the fact that those farmers missed out during that period. A lot of the preparatory work has been completed. My next step is to engage in terms of securing the funding as well to step that out. We are now at a stage where I feel we are in a position, logistically, to be able to overlay it, having delivered the new CAP and the various schemes and given that we have the infrastructure in place.
45. Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress since 2018 in the uptake in measures from the Teagasc list of cost-effective ways of reducing CO2-equivalent emissions from agriculture and if new measures are planned to accelerate take-up. [25753/24]
It is reported that agriculture is substantially off target for its carbon budget and that it would have to achieve cuts of 8% per annum to stay within budget in the remaining years. I would like to understand from the Minister how successful we have been in terms of the take-up of all the measures in the Teagasc list and if we can do more to enhance that.
I thank Deputy Bruton for the question and for the significant work and the path he carved out as a previous Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment in climate and energy and making real progress in reducing emissions in the wider economy.
The Teagasc marginal abatement cost curve, MACC, published in 2018, has undoubtedly been the foundation for what agricultural climate measures are now included in the agricultural chapter of the Climate Action Plan 2024. We are making progress. The agriculture sector reduced emissions in 2022 and further reductions are projected for last year, 2023.
The sustained reduction of chemical nitrogen sales over the past two years in particular is an excellent example of progress since 2018, with a reduction of 14% in 2022 being followed by an additional 18% reduction in 2023. Research will be key to producing the scientific and technological advancements necessary to achieve our targets. My Department has provided funding of €8 million to 12 methane-related research projects in the past five years. For example, METH-ABATE, is a research project looking at the development and validation of novel feed technologies to reduce methane emissions from pasture-based Irish agricultural systems.
Building on the 2018 MACC, the 2023 marginal abatement cost curve reflects new developments in technology, research and global market conditions.
The 33 measures set out in the 2023 MACC now need to be considered together with stakeholders for them to be turned into actions in the climate action plan for 2025. Achieving our climate ambition in the agrifood sector in Ireland requires new and innovative approaches by everyone in the industry and beyond. Funded by the European Commission through the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, EIT Climate-KIC is Europe’s leading innovation community working to support the delivery of a climate-resilient economy and society. My Department has partnered with it to work with public and private stakeholders in the Irish agrifood sector and help the sector deliver an accelerated pathway of climate action. This targeted and multifaceted approach is setting the agricultural sector in Ireland on a positive trajectory to achieving our climate targets.
I agree with the Minister that we need new approaches and we need research, but we do have known measures that could be implemented. My interest is in how successful we have been. We have slurry spreading, clover planting, protected urea, multi-species sward, incorporation of straw and afforestation cover in winter. Many of these things are not new and do not need research; it is a question of encouraging the take-up. My concern is that the price of fertiliser was a big driver of the progress and the risk is that we will slide back if that price corrects itself.
I have specific questions. Is it the ambition of Teagasc that by 2030 it will have reached just 50,000 farmers with the Signpost programme? Is that ambitious enough? If we are falling down on this, it indicates that most farmers do not know the number of the emissions related to their particular activity. What instruments could the Minister introduce to accelerate these known changes that could be made at farm level?
Teagasc has an important role to play and it is playing it. One of the key tools that will be very helpful to farmers is the launch of the AgNav online application which enables farmers to be clear on the numbers for their own farms, to see how that is evolving and to suggest steps to them which can reduce their emissions and measure that as they go. People have to know where they are at to be able to improve. This will help to give farmers that clarity.
We have seen significant progress. The Deputy referred to the 30% reduction in the use of chemical fertiliser, which is phenomenal progress and we are holding that progress to a significant degree. The Deputy is right that, as we saw with moving away from cash to increased tap-and-go in how we paid for things during Covid, the increase in fertiliser costs due to the Ukraine war and the impact on supply chains have accelerated a change and an adaptation which was already under way at farm level. It has been held to a significant degree because it is underpinned by changing farm practice. I expect us to continue the progress we have been making in reducing the use of chemical fertiliser.
I worry that there is no sense that, because we are now off target, we need to take some pretty sharp corrective action. It seems to me that farmers respond to financial incentives. They cut their nitrogen because the price went up. If there were more rewards for the plan that would reduce their emissions numbers, I think we would see farmers responding much more quickly. I go back to the old theme. We do not have the incentives in place that will give the signal to know what your emissions are and then pay for the reduction you plan to deliver. We have to start to embrace that sort of approach rather than hoping for research or hoping there will be spontaneous take-up of opportunities.
I agree that farmers respond. I agree that farmers' ability to have clarity in terms of where they are at with their own farms is important in empowering them to take steps which will further reduce emissions at farm level. I also agree it is important we incentivise this. Some of the steps we have taken, for example, the soil sampling scheme, have had a very significant uptake among farmers. The multi-species sward grant aid has seen very significant uptake, and more than 44,000 farmers applied for the liming scheme I introduced last year. We have also seen a significant change in the utilisation of organic slurry by virtue of the fact we have been investing significantly through 60% grants for farmers purchasing low emissions slurry spreading equipment. That has been a significant driver behind the move from chemical fertiliser through better usage and utilisation of organic manure. Those are all things that show that wherever we incentivise activity, farmers push forward with it. That is something we have to continue with, particularly through helping the process by empowering them to know their situation at farm level and then helping them to step forward with measures.
46. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Question No. 89 of 25 April 2024, the status of plans for the introduction of measures to protect the sprat fishery, which is concentrated within the six nautical mile zone; to provide a status update on the review of trawling activity inside the six nautical mile zone; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25539/24]
I am returning to the issue of sprat. I ask the Minister for an update on the status of plans for the introduction of measures to protect the sprat fishery, which is concentrated within the six nautical mile zone, and to provide a status update on the review of trawling activity inside the six nautical mile zone.
In December 2018, a transition period to a ban on vessels over 18 m trawling in inshore waters inside the six nautical mile zone was announced. A significant part of the objective of this measure was to manage the fishing effort on sprat stocks, which are primarily targeted in inshore waters. However, this measure was the subject of extended legal proceedings, the outcome of which, received last year, is that the ban has been overturned, as we discussed previously.
As I set out in my response to Question No. 89 of 25 April 2024, I have held a new public consultation on a review of trawling activity inside the six nautical mile zone and the baselines. The consultation took place over a period of eight weeks and closed on Friday, 12 April. This consultation took place without prejudice, needless to say. The purpose of the consultation was to invite stakeholders and interested parties to advise me of their views on any changes to policy within the scope of this review. A large volume of submissions - in excess of 5,000 - was received. These submissions will be used to inform my review of trawling activity inside the six nautical mile zone and baselines. My Department has commenced the analysis of the submissions. All relevant issues must be carefully considered before a decision can be made. I want whatever decision I make to stand up to all scrutiny and to make sure the decision stands the test of time and has impact.
I certainly understand the background to this and I am on record as saying the policy was very good and the intent was great. Unfortunately, we have been through what we have been through, and the Minister mentioned 2018. Of course, it is important to say that sprat is not subject to a quota. As a forage fish, it is a vital source of food for other fish and mammals and it is vital for the marine ecosystem. Yet, here we are. The policy has been gone since 2018 and it is now 2024. I welcome that the Minister held another consultation process and I welcome that there has been so much interest, with 5,000 submissions. Indeed, I attended a public meeting in Rossaveal and I know there are mixed views, not in regard to the policy but in regard to the specifics of how it will operate for smaller boats that might be just a little bit outside the limit. I understand the practical problems on the ground but what is urgent is to get a date. When will the new policy be in place? Will there be a lead-in period for the bigger boats to get out? What is the Minister's intention on this occasion?
I will not prejudice what I do by indicating what the outcome will be at this point. We have received 5,000 submissions and it is important they are fully considered as part of the process and that I fully consider those. It closed in mid-April, about six weeks ago. Five thousand submissions is a lot to work through and they all deserve to be fully considered and taken into account. My team are working through all of that at the moment and we will work through them as promptly as we can. I want to conclude this as promptly as I can. I have been frustrated by the fact it was overturned, which is a decision of the court. The decision taken back in 2018 means we do not have any policy in place at the moment in regard to the six mile zone or we have not been able to get to the stage where we can conclude it again. It will continue apace and my team are prioritising it. In terms of a timeline, I cannot give one at the moment but it is hoped in the next period of time that we will get more of a line of sight as to the level of work that has been done and when the outcome could be. I certainly want to see it done in the most timely fashion possible.
I thank the Minister. It is very important to give a timeline. The policy was good. The courts did not strike down the policy; in fact, they made it clear that they had no input at all into the policy. As far as they could see, it was a good, sustainable policy and the Government was entitled to do that. What happened was that eventually the Court of Appeal, and earlier the High Court on different grounds in terms of the consultation, found that the Department failed to notify Europe and failed to notify England. They are the two specific reasons why it fell but the actual substance of it did not fall. Here we are in 2024, and unsustainable quantities of sprat are being taken out of the water. Does the Minister have any idea how much sprat was taken out in 2023? In 2019, we had 14,353 tonnes. That increased in 2020 to over 15,000 tonnes. In 2021, it was 14,000 tonnes. In 2022 and 2023, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advised that when you apply the precautionary approach, catches should be no more than 2,240 tonnes in each year. We are way above that. We are either five times above it or, sometimes, ten times above it. We are certainly three or four times above it. What is happening in the meantime to protect the ecosystem? I am over time but I appeal to the Minister to provide a date.
A provisional figure of 3,403 tonnes for sprat landings in 2023 has previously been provided by the SFPA. That is what I have to hand here. The figures over the years from 2018 to 2022 ranged from a minimum of approximately 3,500 tonnes of sprat landed in 2018, to a maximum of approximately 14,500 tonnes of sprat landed in 2021. Obviously, it is an important species and an important foundation species for the ecology and welfare of many other fish, their health and the sustainability of their stocks. I want to conclude this process in as prompt a fashion as possible. My team is working on it and we will step it out as quickly as we can to get to the end point.
52. Deputy Claire Kerrane asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to provide clarity on whether farmers who are unaware of phosphorus content in their fertiliser will face penalties; what communications have been issued to farmers to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25717/24]
I ask the Minister about the changes that have been made with regard to the spreading of fertiliser and phosphorous, the new fertiliser limits for soils and the obligation now on farmers for soil testing depending on their stocking rate when it comes to phosphorous. I am particularly thinking of fertilisers like 18-6-12, which is commonly used by farmers, and any suggestion of penalties for farmers who did this by accident and without knowledge of the new changes.
Each bag of fertiliser is required by law to state the fertiliser’s type - whether it is nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium - and the product and minimum content of nutrients, along with their forms and solubility. Indeed, the nutrient content of chemical fertiliser is the main determinant of its price and value to the farmer, with phosphorus being the most expensive nutrient of the three.
To protect water quality, the European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2005, or, as they are commonly known, the GAP regulations, set limits regarding the application of certain nutrients, including phosphorus, to agricultural soils. I want to be clear on this point, as I understand there has been some misinformation regarding changes to phosphorous allowances that is causing concern to farmers. Phosphorus limits set out in the GAP regulations have not changed. However, the requirement to have soil samples to inform phosphorous application was extended to more farmers in January 2023. Following finalisation of the current nitrates action programme and introduction of the current GAP regulations, this change was communicated to farmers and advisers through various means in 2022 and again in 2023.
Exceeding fertilisation limits for agricultural soils represents a waste of a farmer’s money through incurring inappropriate and unnecessary costs. In addition, it represents a breach of the GAP regulations and puts the future of our agrifood sector at risk as well due to the risks it presents to Irish water quality.
In the case of direct payment applicants, a breach of the GAP regulations may lead to a sanction being applied to the farmer's CAP payments as appropriate. The scale of the sanction will be determined by the extent and severity of the breach. If a farmer is seeking to avail of a nitrates derogation, such a breach of their phosphorous limit would result in their application for the derogation being rejected and the farmer being deemed ineligible to avail of a nitrates derogation in the following year.
To reduce the risk of the loss of nutrients to water and to maximise economic sustainability, farmers purchasing fertiliser should only buy products that meet their soil's and crops' nutritional requirements. These purchasing decisions should be informed by soil analysis and, where appropriate, engagement of a farm advisory system-accredited agricultural adviser as well.
I probably should not have said new changes because obviously, this was in place and kicked off from January 2023 with regard to soil sampling before spreading phosphorous, and the limitations that are there. However, the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA, is one organisation that has raised concerns regarding possible penalties on farmers where they have spread the likes of 18-6-12 without knowledge of the limitations that are there, depending on their stocking levels. To be honest, I do not think the communication around this has been very good, and I know the INHFA has said this as well. I ask the Minister for some leniency on this. Where farmers have spread it, they cannot unspread it, and I ask that there be some leniency rather than jumping straight to penalties. I do not think this has been communicated very well and when a large farm organisation like the INHFA is saying the same, consideration needs to be given to some level of leniency and maybe better communication around this.
It is important to say that there has not been a change with regard to the regulations, apart from for some farmers above the nitrates application's 130 kg N/ha requirement for soil sampling. That was communicated in 2022 and 2023. I know that the Agricultural Consultants Association has raised this and the understanding among farmers about this in the last short period of time, and I take the Deputy's point on the INHFA as well. It is something I have discussed in detail with my team in the Department. I have asked my team to meet with the advisory services and the Agricultural Consultants Association shortly, and also Teagasc, to have a discussion with them on how we can make sure farmers are aware of what the situation is, and also to make sure that if additional communication is required, it can be got to them. The ACA in particular has been flagging this in recent times.
However, as I said, the regulations have not been changed. They have been in place. It is important that we all work together to make sure farmers are aware of the situation and their obligations. It is in farmers' interest because they will save money and be more profitable by adhering to the regulations.
I thank the Minister for his response. I again make the point that perhaps additional communication regarding this could be looked at. I spoke to a couple of random farmers to see if they were aware of the fact that they could not spread a level of phosphorous, depending on their stocking rate, without soil testing. I do not think the awareness is there. When you have a farm organisation telling you that communication has been poor and that its members clearly are not fully aware of it, and that is its read of the situation, I ask that there be leniency with regard to penalties. Farmers are already struggling hugely with respect to income. Costs are very high, and to look to penalise them on this would not be the right thing to do. I ask that a new communication strategy be considered, and that penalties be looked at in a lenient way.
There is a 1% inspection check on this. That is why it is important that everybody is managing themselves well and doing the right thing in not applying any more fertiliser to the soil than is needed. Of course, that saves money. In the event of a farmer being in the 1% that gets inspected, there is the prospect of a potential penalty. The penalties are small for small infringements by anybody in the 1% who get checked. However, it is really important that everyone works together to make sure there is a full understanding among farmers. As I said, the regulations have not changed. They have been in place for a good period of time but some of the advisers and recently the INHFA have raised this issue, so I have asked my team to engage with them in order that everybody works together to make sure the communication piece is as strong as it can be, or to see if there is more needed.
There was communication in 2022 and 2023. However, if the sense is that more is needed, everyone needs to work together. If farmers are unclear, it is important they talk to their agricultural adviser to get good advice. Not only is it in farmers’ interest to do so for profitability, it is also in all of our interests to ensure no more than necessary is spread. It is a waste of money, but it also has water quality implications.
58. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine further to Parliamentary Question No. 92 of 25 April 2024, to provide an update on the work of the wool council; if the €30,000 in departmental funding has been drawn down to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25540/24]
I am seeking an update on the work of the wool council. Of the €30,000 allocated to the wool council, how much, if any, has been drawn down? Where are we at with regard to the recommendations from the consultants who carried out a report on the potential for wool?
I thank the Deputy for her continued interest in this important issue. As she is aware, the independent Irish Grown Wool Council was established in April 2023 following recommendations from the wool feasibility study. To support this establishment, my Department committed €30,000 in seed funding, as the Deputy outlined. It had its first annual general meeting in February 2024. This Irish Grown Wool Council reorganised its committee structures and appointed an interim chair from 1 March to 1 June of this year. A new interim chair was appointed on 2 June 2024. I have bumped into many of its members in the past year at various events, such as agricultural and craft shows and so forth. Its organisational structure can be found on its website, irishgrownwoolcouncil.com.
Of the €30,000 about which the Deputy asked, €15,383 has been drawn down to date. A further claim has recently been submitted to my Department and is currently being processed by my officials. I do not have the value of that particular drawdown.
I thank the Minister of State for the update. The programme for Government contains a promise and an objective that the Government would explore the range of possibilities with wool. In the 21st century and in the face of climate change, it is just extraordinary that wool is classified as a waste product. I am trying to get to a point where there is a thriving industry encompassing the range of possibilities wool presents. The Minister of State is far more familiar with this issue than I am, but I have made myself familiar with those possibilities, which range from insulation to medical products and cosmetics. We are wasting this product by classifying it as waste.
As for the wool council, I am on record as saying the whole thing is very woolly. This is a golden opportunity, no more than that of seaweed, for sustainable industry, particularly along the west coast. How do we get from classifying wool as waste, and farmers being paid absolutely nothing, to achieving a thriving industry? I am not sure whether the wool council, with its two interim chairs, is the right mechanism. I welcome it as a start but what are the Department, the Minister of State and the Minister doing to lead this?
I share the Deputy’s passion for wool and the value it could provide to society and the economy and, ultimately, to sheep farmers. I am a sheep farmer and we sheared our sheep this week. As we established the independent review, which recommended that the best way to explore the opportunities for Irish-grown wool is through the establishment of the council, we must, at this stage, support the council in everything it does.
I would like the council to come back to me to present proposals that might work. Ultimately, the council is more of an expert on this than I am or my Department officials are. Its members are the shearers, wool merchants, crafters and innovators. The Deputy is correct in listing all the potentials of wool. They are vast and go far beyond what ordinary people think of when they think of wool. They probably just think of a woolly jumper that is slightly itchy, but there is much more potential in this regard. The challenge is that although that potential has been tapped in other countries and jurisdictions, it has not yet attracted that investment in Ireland. What we are ultimately trying to achieve here is a demand for the products which can come from wool and to build on that through investment, either from a broader scope or within this country.
The demand is there. This was included in the programme for Government in 2020. It is now 2024. It took up to 1 July 2022 to get the report. It took another length of time to establish a council. There was an interim chair and now there is another interim chair. We are still wondering whether there is a demand but, in the 21st century, having declared a climate and biodiversity emergency, the obvious answer is to build sustainable industries around wool, along with seaweed, to empower local people to live sustainably and also to give an alternative to our utter reliance on foreign direct investment. We have Enterprise Ireland, Údarás na Gaeltachta and IDA Ireland and there is any amount of money for small companies and start-up companies but absolutely nothing in respect of wool.
We have to move beyond the wool council. The Minister of State needs to show leadership and direct the wool council. It may be independent in the sense it has been set up independently, but that was a Government choice. The Government can give it directions as to when it will produce a report. How well is it being financed and resourced to do something four years after the programme for Government committed to it being done?
Will the wool council be a bit less woolly?
According to Deputy Connolly, it is woolly enough. I share the frustrations. It seems slow but at least there is a council now.
I would love it if the Minister of State shared the possibilities and the potential around wool.
I absolutely share those as well. In fact, there are small industries already trading in Irish wool, whether that is in the context of fertiliser or production. I accept that it is not large enough. There are companies making pillows and bedding out of wool. I was quite proud that the Irish Grown Wool Council contacted many Ministers attending St. Patrick’s Day parades and give them Irish-grown wool scarfs and gifts – it was 60% Irish-grown wool as we do not have 100% Irish-grown wool products - to bring abroad to showcase what we can do.
The feasibility study showed that this is the mechanism by which we will get there. As I said, I look forward to receiving proposals that should be funded. I do not think anyone is against funding it but the figures have to add up and it has to look like it is going to be profitable. Ultimately, we are getting there. I would love to see it established much more quickly and to have a viable sector for wool and those who produce the wool
59. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide an update on the action being taken in his Department following on from the recent report completed by Teagasc and submitted to his Department about the impact on farmers following damage to their farmland as a result of recent flooding on the Cooley Peninsula in November 2023; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25730/24]
Not for the first time, I will ask the Minister for an update on the action being taken in his Department following on from the recent report completed by Teagasc and submitted to the Department about the impact on farmers following damage to their farmland as a result of recent flooding on the Cooley Peninsula around Hallowe'en 2023. Obviously, there was a significant amount of damage and a huge impact on farmers. In fairness, I welcomed the fact that the report and interaction have happened, but it is the timeline I am questioning.
I thank Deputy Ó Murchú for raising this issue. As he knows, I am very much aware of the impact on agriculture of adverse weather during the winter of last year. I have taken action in a number of ways to support farmers, including direct supports for unharvested crops and other measures introduced through the national fodder and food security committee.
I particularly recognise the localised impact of storms on the Cooley Peninsula in October and November 2023. From 18 October to 2 November, Ireland was subjected to two back-to-back storms. The latter storm saw high winds and unprecedented rainfall on already saturated ground, which resulted in a landslide and localised flooding on the Cooley Peninsula.
I asked Teagasc to survey the peninsula. This work identified the area damaged from the landslide and flooding, the result of which saw large deposits of rock, gravel and debris on agricultural lands, in addition to loss and damage to fencing, stored fodder and fertiliser supplies.
In recognition of the difficulties arising from this severe weather event, I have charged my Department with providing financial aid to assist with restoring these agricultural lands to their pre-storm condition. My Department will now engage directly with those affected to assist in applying for financial support. It is envisaged this engagement will take place in the coming weeks. I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. He has raised it with me on a number of occasions. Senator McGreehan has been working very closely with me on this matter from the outset in making sure a scheme could be progressed and I am glad we have got it to the stage it is at.
A number of elected representatives in the area met the farmers. One of the fears I brought to the Minister's attention was that there is a huge amount of damage done regarding fodder and fertiliser, and damage done to land. Farmers needed to carry out mitigation measures during the flooding and afterwards to allow them to relieve livestock. Some of the farmers' fear was that they had already put a serious amount of money into this. They wanted to make sure this would be covered under the scheme, combined with any other works that still remain to be done to bring back the land to its original state. Antóin Watters, Fiona Mhic Conchoille and I will be working on making sure we mitigate as best we can in relation to what can happen into the future.
I have asked my Department to look at having the capacity to respond in a prompt manner when intervention is needed. It has been a long time since this happened before. The Inishowen floods in my own area in 2017 was the last time there was a need for an intervention such as this. I recognise that this is not on the same scale but on a localised basis it has been quite acute for the affected farmers. It was brought to my attention by Senator Erin McGreehan, as well as by the Deputy. I am now glad to progress this work and to get to the stage where we are engaging with farmers on being able to open applications. I will be also reviewing this issue long-term to ensure we have a system in place to be able to respond and be ready to go in situations where farmers need intervention.
I welcome that this is happening and obviously a huge amount of work has gone into it. I accept that the Minister is probably not going to give an exact timeline. It would be over the next couple of weeks, but I would appreciate as much information as he can provide regarding that. I welcome the fact that there will be direct interaction with the farmers. Will it cover retrospective works that farmers were forced to carry out before this period? There would be an absolute necessity. I also welcome the fact - it is a conversation we had previously - that an off-the-shelf scheme or system needs to be developed and I welcome the moves in that direction.
It has been closely modelled on the previous time we did this during the Inishowen situation. I will not go into the finer detail of the scheme here today. Let me just say there will be engagement over the next few weeks in terms of having farmers apply for the scheme and actioning it. I thank the Deputy for raising the matter.
60. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine what interaction there has been with his Department and other Government Departments about the schemes currently under way and in the pipeline for renewable electricity production; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25731/24]
What interaction has there been between the Minister's Department and other Departments about the schemes under way and in the pipeline for renewable electricity production? Anyone who has attended any IFA meetings will know this is a key issue. At times they gripe about some of the schemes that are available for the use of wind turbines or solar panels. The one positive is the fact that many people are looking at these as possible solutions into the future and it is something we need to support.
The solar capital investment scheme under TAMS 3 is the main support provided by my Department for farmers wishing to invest in renewable energy.
I launched this scheme in February 2023 and it is proving to be a hugely attractive scheme for farmers. It is closely aligned to our climate and sustainability needs through continued and enhanced support for renewable energy. To help encourage on-farm renewable technology uptake and usage, grant aid is provided through TAMS to assist farmers in maximising their contribution to the production of renewable energy through the installation of solar PV technology, along with battery storage. The solar scheme is ring-fenced with its own investment ceiling of €90,000, and will be grant aided at the enhanced rate of 60%.
Applicants under TAMS 3 can receive the clean export guarantee payment for any electricity spillover that may occur on a given day, as this is funded directly by the electricity companies. However, they are not eligible for any other payment, such as the clean export premium, as this would amount to double funding of the investment.
Adoption of sustainable energy practices at farm level, including energy efficiency, deployment of renewables and the provision of agricultural feedstocks for renewable energy generation, is a key climate pillar for the agriculture sector. The on-farm renewable energy generation activities of our farmers will contribute in a positive way to the decarbonisation of the energy system, providing a diversification opportunity for farmers who remain committed to playing their part in achieving our national climate change emission reduction goals. The energy sector falls under the remit of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications with which my Department is in regular contact, and we will continue to avail of their expertise for enhancements to TAMS 3.
We all accept the huge body of work that needs to be done and acknowledge what has been done on decarbonisation and diversification. It is a matter of making sure we work alongside the agricultural stakeholders from the point of view of putting in place schemes that suit them. What engagement has the Minister and the Minister, Deputy Ryan, had with the various stakeholders and farming organisations regarding the provision of the most fit-for-purpose schemes possible, for solar, anaerobic digestion or wind turbines? I spoke to a farmer earlier today, who told me he had installed a wind turbine previously, but it is now not fit for purpose. Even fixing it would not suit him or the company that installed it. He is looking at the planning permission or whatever else is required to build something better and more fit for purpose now.
There is great potential in this area and there is great appetite among farmers as well. The scheme that is in place is really suitable for them to be able to meet their own needs and those of their farm. It can include the dwelling house as well. Battery storage is also grant aided at the rate of 60%. This means that farmers can store energy and be able to use it when needed. There is also the capacity for farmers to contribute more broadly through a feed-in tariff whereby there is investment outside of TAMS 3. The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is putting in place tariffs to be able to pay farmers for that work. There is a real opportunity there. Farmers are always very innovative in looking for new opportunities and looking to maximise their capacity to contribute to society. They appreciate the economic potential of their farm and its resources. I think we will see significant uptake in the coming years and significant contribution from farmers to energy production through solar.
I agree with the Minister that farmers are always innovative. It is a matter of providing them with the supports and incentives in relation to this. Electricity and energy production benefits wider society and the farmers. We all talk about ensuring the sustainability of the family farm and we need to make sure the family farm is as sustainable as possible. I want to ask about widening these schemes and even beyond. If we are talking about a strategy in relation to anaerobic digestion, how will we go about doing it on the scale that works? We need to ensure we are not just producing materials to feed it and that it works overall for the farmer and the wider environment.
Over the past couple of weeks we published the anaerobic digestion or biomethane strategy. This lays out how we can produce 10% of all of our annual gas requirements by 2030 from farms, with grass in particular being very much at the centre of this. I was glad to attend a conference yesterday in Croke Park, organised by the Renewable Gas Forum Ireland, RGFI, with some 350 people from the industry involved. There was a really good energy there and there is an appetite to step forward and realise the potential for anaerobic digestion and biomethane production. In particular, we want to ensure farmers are the centre of this process and contributing significantly to energy production. I look forward to seeing that. The publication of the biomethane strategy and a whole-of-government approach to put in place a policy platform to see it develop was a landmark step forward.
