Vol. 1089 No. 4
1. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will work with the representatives of inshore fishermen to introduce an inshore fisheries stabilisation and climate adaptation scheme. [51707/26]
I put this question on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Mac Lochlainn, who is otherwise detained this morning. Ireland's inshore fishing fleet is facing an emergency. Rising costs, shrinking quotas and climate-driven weather losses are pushing family fishing businesses to the brink. The National Inshore Fishermen's Association, NIFA, has produced a practical and affordable proposal for an inshore fisheries stabilisation and climate adaptation scheme. Does the Minister of State consider it is may be time to stop commissioning further reports and commit to working directly with NIFA to deliver targeted supports before more boats leave our harbours and are tied up?
I have met the National Inshore Fishermen's Association and other representatives of the inshore sector and I am aware of the challenges facing the inshore fisheries sector. I am taken by its resilience and capacity to manage through difficult times. I am fully aware of the concerns raised. However, Ireland's current €258 million Seafood Development Programme 2021-2027, which is co-funded by the Government and the European Commission under the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, EMFAF, is the primary source of funding for the Irish commercial seafood sector. including the inshore sector.
The Department has reviewed all funding mechanisms available, either through the seafood development programme or other state aid routes to ascertain if there is a possibility of introducing a financial stabilisation scheme for inshore fishermen. Ireland, as an EU member state, is required to comply with the state aid regulations and the European Commission oversees the application of state aid rules among member states. Failure to comply with state aid rules, such as a failure to provide notification to the European Commission or implementing the aid without approval, can result in the member state being required to recover any aid provided. These rules also provide for added interest to be applied. Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union defines state aid as any aid granted by a member state, or through state resources in any form whatsoever, which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods. Articles 107(2) and 107(3) provide for exceptions where state aid can be compatible with the Internal Market, such as aid to promote regional economic development, as well as research and innovation. Most state aid has the potential to disrupt trade within the EU.
As the managing authority for the EMFAF programme in Ireland, there is a range of projects and industry supports to the inshore sector, provided by agencies of the Department under the programme. These include the small-scale coastal fisheries scheme; the inshore fisheries conservation scheme - the v-notching programme; the seafood training scheme; and the seafood capacity building scheme. In addition to these, a scheme specifically for the inshore fleet was implemented in 2024 and 2025 under the seafood development programme.
I expected that the Minister of State would refer to state aid rules and how they might prevent this, but I do not believe that argument stands up. I acknowledge the work of NIFA and the inshore sector in producing these reports. NIFA has appeared before the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs and has been engaging with Deputy Mac Lochlainn and others for a long time. The truth is that the industry is in crisis and has been under pressure for many years. There is a level of deterioration. The Minister of State knows the European Commission can approve a derogation from state aid rules. It has done so for the vessel fuel supports and in many other cases. I believe if this were affecting another primary producing sector and impacting dairy, tillage or beef production, the Government would already have sought that derogation. However, because it involves fishermen, and the inshore sector in particular, the Minister of States is pre-empting what the Commission may say to us if we were to ask. He must not hide behind what the Commission may say. Instead, he needs to argue and make the case for a derogation from state aid rules in order that this urgent financial assistance can be provided. If that means declaring an emergency and owning up to the fact that the fisheries sector is in crisis, then let us do that.
In my initial answer to the Deputy's question, I wanted to set out the parameters under which future decisions might be taken or any work done. I will continue to engage with Committee on Fisheries and Maritime Affairs in that regard. We have a clear policy position to support the inshore sector. That is why, by October of this year, there will be a total ban on trawling within the six-mile limit on vessels above 18 m to ensure the improved viability of the inshore sector. It is not as if the Government, the Minister, Deputy Heydon, the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, and I are standing back from our responsibility. We recognise there is a crisis. We are doing everything in our power and have not at all ruled out the possibility of putting a case to the European Union or the Commission in due course. That has to be appropriately thought through and structured. We have appointed an independent chair, Michael Berkery, under the Food Vision programme to do a full analysis of market conditions as a result of quota loss, etc. When that report comes through we will make further determinations based on its findings.
I also note the publication of the Mulvey report this week. It is underwhelming and there is not an expectation in the sector that the Berkery report will move this on much further, but that remains to be seen. My call to the Minister of State is that he and this Government accept that the inshore sector is facing an emergency and, based on that, they should now go and make the case to Brussels. Work can be done on other issues, such as quota, access and a fair proportion of fishing opportunity. This is about keeping the industry afloat. The industry is on its knees and has been facing a slow deterioration as a result of policy and inequity driven by Brussels over many years. It is now at a point from which it may never return. We may lose our inshore sector unless it gets direct financial assistance. It is important to note that the sector never came looking for anything from the State aside from fair access to our waters. Now, when it does come looking it is told to wait for a second report, after which the Government might make a case to Europe. As I said, if this were any other primary producing sector, the Minister of State would be in Brussels now making the case for derogation. That needs to happen.
The Berkery report will be published shortly. That report was guided by the exceptional crisis arising from the significant loss in quota as a result of the scientific advice of last year. That is the direct response. The Mulvey report was broad based. It set out to ascertain where the sector is at, so it had a different requirement from the Berkery report.
I will set out what is happening at European level. An evaluation was done of the Common Fisheries Policy. Our preferred option is that we now move to a significant review of the CFP. It is in that context that European agreement can be reached on addressing certain crises. Based on our experience, the Minister and I feel that were Ireland to put a proposal on its own, without the support of other member states, it might not land in the way we want. This is not just about making a request without having our homework done. It requires quite a bit of negotiation to secure broader support across the Union in order to effect necessary changes in the Common Fisheries Policy that address the kinds of requests that are coming. I fully understand the basis for that request and the need to address the viability of the inshore sector.
2. Deputy Robert O'Donoghue asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to support the growth of Ireland’s horticulture sector in budget 2027 (details supplied). [52390/26]
Budget 2027 needs to support the growth of Ireland's horticulture sector through targeted investment in growers and targeted supports to attract new growers and encourage generational renewal. Investment in start-up grants, financial assistance with access to land, investment in education and training to upskill our workforce, investment in mentoring, and capital supports will help remove barriers to entry to the sector. Supporting new entrants is critical to maintaining domestic food production, driving innovation and delivering the ambitions of the National Strategy for Horticulture 2023–2027.
The Irish horticulture sector provides locally grown, quality food and plants and plays a crucial role in supporting the economy. The farm gate value of the sector in 2025 was €652 million, with an estimated 18,000 jobs at both primary and value-added levels. The National Strategy for Horticulture 2023-2027 sets out a clear vision to grow a more profitable value-added sector, driven by innovation and sustainability, and provides a roadmap for the sector to achieve this potential. It outlines eight key strategic actions to drive change and growth across all subsectors of horticulture, including attracting new entrants to the sector.
The Government provides significant support to deliver on the implementation of this strategy, through a range of supports and initiatives underpinning the sector's resilience, competitiveness and long-term sustainability. This includes a scheme of investment aid for the development of the commercial horticulture sector, which provides grant aid to horticulturists towards capital investments in specialised plant and equipment, as well as technology adoption specific to commercial horticulture production. The scheme covers all horticultural areas, including field vegetables, which includes seed potatoes, mushrooms, protected food crops, amenity crops, soft fruit, top fruit and beekeeping.
The scheme of investment aid for innovation and diversification in the horticulture sector and the scheme of aid for innovation and diversification in horticulture capital investments are designed to assist horticulturists in increasing innovation and diversification activities in the sector.
Changes in the eligibility requirements around young farmers in the horticulture capital investment schemes have meant that more young growers have been able to access higher rates of grant aid, thereby encouraging generational renewal.
Recognising that the future success of the sector depends on developing a strong skills and talent pipeline, a horticulture education review report was published in 2025 under key strategic action 4 of the national strategy.
Horticulture is under enormous pressure. We are facing some of the most serious challenges we have seen in years, including increased input costs, energy costs and labour costs. We are still importing fruit and vegetables that we could grow ourselves. I live in north County Dublin, the market garden capital of Ireland. We produce approximately 47% of Ireland's field vegetables. We need to keep supporting the sector. We cannot allow it to shrink further. There are huge opportunities in horticulture; we just need to unlock them.
I know first-hand the hard work involved in growing. I picked and packed every fruit and vegetable under the sun in Rush and Lusk. Many of the 18,000 jobs the Minister of State mentioned are in my constituency in north County Dublin. If we are serious about food security, rural employment and supporting Irish growers, then we must give the horticulture sector the support it needs and deserves in order for it to survive and thrive.
The Deputy mentioned the significant challenge in relation to labour for growers, specifically relating to seasonal workers. A seasonal employment permit pilot scheme took place in 2025 for those sectors in horticulture with a seasonal need for more employees. The Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment carried out an evaluation of the pilot, which was published on 9 June. The recommendations in the report are to initiate a phase 2 pilot to fully test the scheme. It is recommended this pilot again be in the horticulture sector, taking into account the learnings from the initial pilot, and that it be initiated in quarter 3 2026 with a view to preparing for the 2027 season.
I welcome phase 2 of the pilot. We have a problem in that the average age of growers is probably over 60. We need targeted supports to encourage new entrants and generational renewal in the sector. Horticultural is a viable career but we need to expand the horticultural apprentice scheme and invest in our youth.
Finally, the Minister of State and I will agree that we all need to buy more Irish produce. We need to strengthen the policy on identifying Irish produce. We need better regulation of labelling. If we do this, the consumer can make more informed choice by buying Irish, supporting local growers and sustaining the industry.
The strategy to grow the horticulture sector is set out in our National Strategy for Horticulture 2023-2027. That sets out a clear vision to grow a more profitable, value-added sector, driven by innovation and sustainability, and to provide a roadmap for the sector to achieve this potential. The strategy outlines eight key strategic actions to drive change and growth across all subsectors. The strategy has had its mid-term review and was published in the final quarter of last year. Good progress has been made on the key actions.
The Deputy raised encouraging new growers into the sector. One of the strategic actions contained in the strategy focuses on education and addressing the challenges of attracting new entrants to the sector to maximise opportunities. Recent changes to eligibility requirements for young farmers in the horticulture capital support schemes have meant a great number of growers have been able to access higher rates of grant aid available to younger farmers and growers.
3. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide an update on CAP negotiations and specifically in relation to coupled payments and the future of entitlements. [52240/26]
I want to find out what is happening in regard to CAP. We want to see if there is any progress in relation to the proposed budget and retaining the Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 structure which has served Ireland well up to now. During Ireland's Presidency, how much progress can we realistically make towards securing a full and proper budget which will sustain Irish farmers and European agriculture?
In the time allotted to us, I would say we will not be able to cover everything in CAP. To take the last point first, the budget is everything. While it is not part of my negotiations as chair of the AGRIFISH Council, it is a key focus of the Irish Presidency. Working with the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and all colleagues across government, we will be looking to significantly progress negotiations on the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, and will work with member states in that regard. I want to progress as many files as I can and progress the Council's position on as many positions as possible, ideally agreeing a partial general approach across the 27 member states so that the Council's position will be locked in. We cannot get to a full agreed general approach unless the budget is agreed because we need the figures as part of that. Getting the full general approach is out of our control but we hope to get as close as possible to an agreed Council position across all issues so that the position is set for the trilogues, which are the negotiations between the Commission's proposals, the Parliament's proposals and our own proposals.
Negotiations on the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy are progressing well. Progress was made under the Danish and Cyprus Presidencies, with discussions now increasingly focused on the remaining political and technical issues regarding the CAP regulation. During its Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Ireland's role will be to facilitate negotiations, build consensus among member states and act as an honest broker in advancing the discussions.
In relation to income support, the Commission's proposals continue to provide for the use of coupled payments under the future CAP, where this is justified. Ireland could, for example, continue operating coupled income support in the same way as under the current CAP strategic plan, where protein aid is paid as a coupled payment. That is an example of that but there are a number of elements and what happens with them - like in relation to entitlements, which I can expand on in a minute - will determine whether coupled payments would work or will be needed.
I appreciate that but negotiations can only get you so far when you do not have the budget. We need to secure the budget and that is why I want to focus on that more than anything. Over six months of the Presidency, we need to secure that and get agreement on an increased budget. A decrease of approximately 20% will be devastating for Irish agriculture and for many sectors.
I am thinking of the suckler sector in my area, which really depends on these funds. If these funds are cut, it will have a detrimental effect on this industry and on many other sectors across agriculture. What we need to get down to here is whether the Minister is saying to me that we will have an increase in the budget and that Ireland will be able to secure it in the term of the Presidency. The Minister is smiling as if I am asking whether he has a crystal ball but what we need to know is how determined we are to ensure this can happen and what are the indications coming from other member states in respect of it. Is the Minister up against it or is there openness to trying to progress an increased budget for CAP?
It is fair to say that across the AGRIFISH Council, all of the Ministers for agriculture and fisheries want to see the maximum budget for the next Common Agricultural Policy and the next Common Fisheries Policy. That is obviously what we would expect. At the last Council meeting, I made the point to Ministers for agriculture that we need to go back and make sure, in every member state, that if the minister for agriculture is saying this, then the minister for finance and Prime Minister should also be saying it at the European Council, ECOFIN and all of the other Councils. The Tánaiste is in Brussels today and tomorrow on this.
In this regard, the Irish Government is four-square behind the approach of maximising the funding for the CAP. Other governments have different approaches. There are the countries traditionally known as the frugals, which are concerned about the size of the budget and want it to be less. Many countries, in eastern Europe in particular, are demanding that a larger allocation of the spend goes to the area of defence than has been the case historically. There are also many countries saying they are not able to pay more in. There are a lot of competing demands, which is why I have positioned food security and funding for the CAP, not as distinct and in opposition to the request for more money for defence, but as complementing it because food security is an integral part of the question of security.
I appreciate that and food security is certainly central to this. Every time somebody from the European Commission speaks, they talk about security but as we know with the various conflicts, and we have seen what is happening again in Iran, primary to security in Europe will be food security. We need to focus on ensuring we keep our agricultural sector vibrant and producing. If we do not do so, we will have a food security problem. To go back to the other issues with the Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 structure, and the possibility of more coupling and what sectors this may impact, where does the Minister feel this will move? In what direction are we moving?
To go back to the broader point about the funding, the ring-fenced budget is 76% of the past seven years. It is not enough. It is not nearly enough for what we need, what our ambitions are and what we want to do over the next seven years to support the agriculture, food and fisheries sectors. In terms of the mechanics of how we do this, we have the €45 million that President von der Leyen brought forward as a proposal in January. We have conditionality through the national regional partnership plan, NRPP, structure around a certain amount having to go to social cohesion. There is more money to be chased in terms of the overall pot but there is conditionality around it. This is where I am talking about flexibility and member states having the flexibility to be able to access it. This is about us being able to access additional money to increase that percentage. I am working with colleagues across member states to be able to do that.
In terms of the point on coupled payments, this is directly linked to what happens with entitlements. Right now, there is no provision for entitlements. Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 are gone and the NRPP structure is here to stay. I do not think farmers could really tell us what pillar their payment came from; they just know what is important about it. We have to work within the mechanisms. I am happy that in recent times, under the Cyprus Presidency, we did get a number of decisions made, such as on active farming, under the CAP regulation and not the NRPP regulation, which means it will be the agriculture ministers deciding, which is very important.
4. Deputy Charles Ward asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine whether he will consider introducing supports for farm buildings or agricultural buildings impacted by defective concrete; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52560/26]
Will the Minister consider supporting farm agricultural buildings impacted by defective concrete? We are seeing a rise in the number of these buildings. Defective concrete has no discriminating factors. It is in tanks, slurry tanks and farm buildings. That is often overlooked as part of the defective concrete crisis. The impact on these buildings, particularly the environmental impacts on slurry tanks and cattle sheds, is disastrous for farmers. The crisis does not discriminate. We need a multi-departmental approach to this. It should not just be the Department of housing.
I thank Deputy Ward for raising this point. The targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS, 3 is a key element of the current CAP strategic plan and provides grants to farmers to invest in their farm businesses through building and-or improving a specified range of farm buildings and equipment on their holdings.
Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, which establishes rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by member states under the Common Agricultural Policy, stipulates that support measures must be linked to climate, environment and animal welfare and the economic sustainability of the agriculture sector is to be ensured. However, each member state is given the flexibility to decide on what measures and investments best support these objectives. Following wide consultation with stakeholders as part of the consultation process in advance of the submission of Ireland's current CAP strategic plan, a comprehensive list of investment items has been provided for under TAMS 3. However, support related to farm or agriculture buildings impacted by defective concrete was not included in the list of measures available in the TAMS 3 scheme.
It is important to highlight that TAMS 3 has been extremely successful, with huge interest from farmers. My Department has issued almost 50,000 approvals, allowing farmers to proceed with their investments. Payments of over €172 million have already issued to farmers to support the investments they have made in their farm businesses. However, as TAMS 3 is a demand-led scheme with a defined allocated budget, the huge uptake to date has meant the application of ranking and selection approval of only a certain percentage of applications for certain measures in recent TAMS application tranches. This has had to be applied to manage the available budget for TAMS 3.
As the current CAP strategic plan is at such an advanced stage - it ends in 2027 - it will not be possible to add new investment measures to the current programme. However, I will ensure that the list of investment items will continue to be reviewed on a regular basis and to inform consideration of any new investment support scheme which may be developed for the CAP post 2027. Like everything else, in terms of the discussion we have just had on the budget, the available budget will determine whether we will be able to have a TAMS or what a TAMS will look like the next time.
When we talk about defective concrete the national conversation quite rightly centres on family homes, but across rural Ireland the same materials were used in farm sheds, milking parlours, storage units, boundary walls and, critically, slurry tanks. They are not minor structures but central to functioning farms, animal welfare and environmental protection. The environmental impact is serious. There are failing slurry tanks, structural issues and environmental risks throughout the country. What makes the situation more difficult is that there are schemes for homes but there is absolutely nothing for farmers. Farmers are effectively left on their own and they are having a tremendously difficult time. The gap in policy is becoming more visible the more rural farmers are coming into this. They feel abandoned. What are we going to do to address this increasing gap?
Whether it is farmers with particular issues that are leading to environmental issues or issues with structures that need to be replaced, we are very lucky to have capital support in agriculture. I really believe in our TAMS structure. For me, the targeted agriculture modernisation scheme gets to the heart of generation renewal and hits the issues of climate, environment and animal welfare. The scheme is demand-led and entirely voluntary for farmers but the measures provide grants for capital investment in physical assets to assist the Irish agriculture sector to respond to a range of policy challenges and measures. Grant aid is available for qualified applicants. There are 11 different headings for TAMS. This is what exists at the minute. As I said, the scheme is greatly oversubscribed and there is massive demand for it. It has been secured for the period from 2023 to 2027, with €370 million available under 11 different headings - I will not list them as time is up - under which capital investment can be made on farms. This is available to all farmers, including farmers in Donegal.
During the Celtic tiger construction boom, Ireland experienced unprecedented building activity. Rural development schemes, farm modernisation grants and many co-funded EU agricultural and rural development programmes supported investment in farm infrastructure. The funding itself was legitimate and well-intentioned but the materials used in these construction projects on farms were defective concrete materials. We are talking about thousands of buildings potentially affected. What is clear is that the State is now facing long-term liability for construction decisions made during this period of weak regulation and no oversight. Rapidly developing issues are constantly coming forward.
Will the Minister ask the Minister for housing to include agricultural buildings in the remediation scheme? Are any EU grants available to remediate these buildings?
The answer to the second question is that I am not aware of them, if they do exist. I am happy to talk to the Minister for housing, who regularly brings updates on the defective blocks scheme to Cabinet. The Government is using billions of euro of taxpayers’ money to support the very people the Deputy is talking about in terms of their family homes and the awful blight that has happened to people because of defective blocks. While the issue first arose in Donegal, Mayo and the wider west, we are now seeing memos come to Cabinet about Carlow, Meath and places like that, and the challenge this has caused for people's homes.
As I said, I am happy to discuss this with Deputy Browne, as the Minister with responsibility in that area, and on the construction side of things. From my perspective, I stand here as the Minister for agriculture and our Department is investing very heavily in supporting farmers to improve, enhance and invest in capital infrastructure for a variety of very good reasons, from farm safety to supporting farmers. Obviously, that will also aid and impact the climate and environment and future-proof our farms.
5. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he has engaged with the board of Bord Bia in relation to the report on the review of governance procedures at Bord Bia; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52241/26]
What engagement has the Minister had with Bord Bia in relation to the report on the review of governance procedures in that organisation? Farmers and farmer organisations are still saying very clearly that this report is not adequate, that farmers do not have confidence in the chair of Bord Bia and that as long as he remains there, they will find it very difficult to have confidence in Bord Bia as an organisation that implements the quality assurance scheme. How can we finally resolve this ongoing situation?
I thank Deputy Kenny for raising this issue, which was discussed many times in this House earlier in the year.
I welcome the report following the completion of the independent governance review into the board of Bord Bia. My Department met with Governance Ireland, which carried out the independent review, and the board of Bord Bia on the day the report was published to discuss its findings and recommendations. The review made 22 recommendations, as the Deputy will be aware, many of which were aimed at strengthening Bord Bia’s governance framework, identified through normal working practices and beyond. The recommendations for improvement in the report are directed at governance processes generally and board members’ understanding of these processes, and not at the chair or any board member personally.
Following the publication of the report, I wrote to the chairperson of the board on 22 June 2026, requesting that the board develop a timely and effective action plan to address the recommendations in the report, and I will be seeking regular updates on its progress. I want to see these recommendations implemented and progressed. I am confident that the implementation of the recommendations from this independent review will help to further strengthen the board of Bord Bia in fulfilling its important mandate.
From the chair's perspective, the report found that, in the view of the board members, he chairs the organisation very positively. It was noted that he provides clear leadership of the board and maintains an appropriate focus on governance and strategy. Bord Bia is doing extremely important work on farmers' behalf.
The other element that came out of this issue over the last six months has been the establishment of the Bord Bia farmers forum, which had its first meeting last Monday week. One hundred quality-assured farmers were in a room discussing, debating and listening, in a two-way fashion, to Bord Bia officials regarding Origin Green and quality assurance, which delivers so much for them. All the feedback I got from that meeting, from the farmers who were at it and others, was that it was a very positive event. It is an addition to farmers' two-way engagement with Bord Bia around quality assurance, which is very much in farmers' interest.
I appreciate all that and the farmers forum is a positive advancement on things, but we are back to the problem at the very core of this issue, which is that the chair of Bord Bia has been using imported beef from Brazil as part of his mix to sell product. This is at the same time that Irish farmers, Irish consumers and European consumers have serious difficulties with that product. The European Commission has gone so far as to ban the importation of Brazilian beef, notwithstanding the Mercosur trade agreement, and it did that because the product simply cannot meet the standards. That huge problem remains. The report does not deal with that, and that is the difficulty that farmers have here. The report has the 22 recommendations in regard to governance, but this is not actually about the governance. That was very clear from the beginning. The problem is that the chair of the organisation that is marketing Irish food globally is also using a product that flies in the face of the quality standards we have in Ireland and, indeed, he was not even a member of Origin Green.
The issues in this area have been well aired, and I am on the record of the House as having clearly outlined the facts as they are. I am not going to rehash them, but the Deputy talks about things at the heart of the matter. I will tell him what is at the heart of the matter. It is the price that farmers get for their beef, lamb, dairy produce and beyond. It is about how we can best, as a country that exports 90% of the food and drink we produce, give the best income back to our farmers.
We will discuss a range of topics here over the next hour and a half including generational renewal, supporting the sustainable income of our farmers and more. The work of Bord Bia and Origin Green is integral to that. That is what matters to farmers. We see the income volatility across our areas. We see Teagasc's farm survey reports of exceptional prices and income for most sectors last year. We saw the pressure on beef finishers at the start of this year. We now see this price strengthening and coming back great. This is directly linked to international markets. I am happy to talk about the pressure we are coming under in the British market, which is our key export market for beef and more. These are the things that matter.
Agreed.
The work of Origin Green and Bord Bia is integral to that.
Of course.
The work of the governance review has helped to strengthen that position and that work can continue.
I am not in dispute with the Minister in that respect. Nobody is. Nobody is saying that is not the situation. The problem is that credibility and authenticity are also central to people’s confidence and the chair of Bord Bia has lost that confidence because of the situation whereby his companies are not part of Origin Green, a programme that the board he chairs was saying all companies that produce food in Ireland should be part of. It is part of the system we are trying to put in place, yet his company was not part of it.
Furthermore, his company was using beef imported from Brazil, which the European Commission is now saying will not even be allowed into Europe from 1 September. The argument that the chair had was that he could not market his product if he did not use Brazilian beef. Now he will not be able to use Brazilian beef because it is going to be banned. What is going to do now, not market any of the product? Nobody believed that story, and that is the problem. It is about the authenticity of the person at the head of Bord Bia. It is not about the work that Bord Bia does, and the more the Minister keeps referring to the work Bord Bia does, how it is managing, how it is working and the good work it is doing for Irish farmers and Irish agriculture, the more he is avoiding the central point.
I am not.
You are.
I am at the heart of the central point that matters to farmers, which is the income from their produce and the structures we have in place as a State to support them and get the best return for our market value.
Deal with the point I made.
How does the Deputy think we doubled the value of Irish farmers' exports and produce, from about €10 billion in 2010 to €20.8 billion last year? We did that through the work of Origin Green, the work of our farmers and others, and the work of Bord Bia in promoting and supporting Irish agrifood businesses that are selling Irish farmers' produce and giving that best possible price return to our farmers.
We also have to look at the threats in the future. My job is not just to sit here and have Deputy Kenny tell me what the priorities are, with which I disagree. He tells me that confidence is gone, whereas the report says the vast majority of the board are very satisfied with the chair's position.
The report did not look at what it was meant to look at.
I also have to look at the threats here, which include the UK post Brexit, the deals it has done with Australia and New Zealand and the price pressure that is going to put on our market sales in a country where over 50% of our beef goes. The reason we have such a strong and dominant position in the British market-----
So, the confidence of farmers does not matter.
-----is the equivalence in food standards with the Red Tractor quality assurance scheme. I will not stand for us drifting away from that and allowing the undermining of our quality assurance scheme, which has served us so well. I will not let that happen on my watch.
6. Deputy Barry Heneghan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will outline the current policy governing the production and sale of raw milk in Ireland; whether his Department is considering any changes to the regulatory framework relating to its sale to consumers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52569/26]
On my way into the Dáil today, I walked into my local shop and I could buy an apple-flavoured vape. I could inhale it. I could also buy 20 cigarettes. I cannot, however, go in and buy raw milk easily. I know I am out of my depth as a Dublin TD asking this question, but why is it not possible to get raw milk in a Dublin shop? Why do my constituents sometimes have to travel to the North to get raw milk when adults should be able to make decisions on what we want to consume? I understand that the Minister is going to give me a logical answer about the dangers, but if there is a healthy herd, has the Minister looked at allowing farmers to sell raw milk?
I thank the Deputy for raising this important point. I enjoy his engagement on all things agriculture. I am not sure how many farmers there are in his constittuency but there are a lot of consumers, and I have no doubt they appreciate and enjoy the produce of our farmers.
In Ireland, the sale of raw milk for direct consumption is governed by legislation commonly known as the hygiene package. Regulation EC Nos. 852 and 853 of 2004 are particularly relevant. These regulations set out detailed rules for the production and sale of raw milk including hygiene requirements for production on farm and the hygiene standards required when bottling milk. There is also a specific rule for labelling, which requires the milk to be labelled as raw milk. All producers selling raw milk must register with my Department and are subject to risk-based official controls that include inspection, audit and sampling. A derogation in EU and Irish legislation exempts producers selling small quantities of raw milk directly to consumers, that is, sales of less than 30 litres and within a radius of 20 km, from these regulatory requirements. However, these producers are still bound by the general food law provision and they must only put safe food on the market. The advice of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, is that the public should not drink raw milk without boiling it first. This is based on advice from the authority’s scientific committee as there is a risk of illness associated with drinking raw milk. There is a reason we pasteurise the milk the vast majority of people use.
In 2018, the industry representative body Raw Milk Ireland published guidelines on the sale of raw milk. The guide was developed in conjunction with my Department and the FSAI with the objective of helping producers understand the legal requirements and provide additional information to food business operators with a view to reducing the risks associated with raw milk.
My granny drank raw milk and she lived to 98. We need to look into alternative ways to have locally sourced food. In that regard, I will point to what is happening at EU level and how it ties into this. Brussels is trying to harmonise the upper limits of food supplements such that parents or adults should be allowed to decide what they have. Individual needs are, as they say, individual. If vitamin D is harmonised, that is unfair to stores in Ireland because someone in the south of Spain will not need as much additional vitamin D as we do. I ask that the Department speak to health and shop staff and nutritional therapists who are preventing people from getting sick. This is the same thing as raw milk. We should regulate the choice of a trusted national product rather than regulate for safety, and let the people decide.
We are getting plenty of vitamin D at the minute, which is well received. Our safety standards are beyond reproach in Ireland. When I go on international trade missions - I have just been discussing the value of our trade exports - the first thing discussed in places like Asia and beyond is how trusted our food safety standards are. That is really important. It is not something we will ever be complacent about. It is a unique selling point for us that people know our systems are beyond reproach. Where we have products with a higher level of risk for certain cohorts like infants, pregnant women or people who are immunosuppressed, it is incumbent on us to highlight that so that, to the very point the Deputy made, people can make informed choices. We produce safe food that is nutrient dense. I have drunk raw milk myself and I quite enjoy it but it is an informed decision, no more than eating steak tartare. It is an informed decision that comes with a risk that people are aware of. The reason we cook our food and pasteurise our milk is to take away the risk of microbial problems.
I appreciate that. I look forward to having some tartare and raw milk with the Minister some day.
A lot of people these days are getting very sick and very obese. We allow multinationals to come here and sell us cans of carbonated drinks with 40 g of sugar but we do not allow someone to get a glass of raw milk. There is something fundamentally wrong in that sense. I am very grateful for Irish food standards. They are world renowned. I had not known about the increase in value from €10 billion to €20 billion, which the Minister mentioned earlier. There are not many farms in my constituency. The only fields we have are GAA pitches.
On the supplements issue, the EU is trying to reduce the maximum levels of vitamin B6 from 25 mg a day to 12 mg and hold vitamin D at 100 µg per day. This is the same regulatory instinct. The Department should listen to healthcare officials who are worried about not being able to provide these vitamins to people in Ireland who need them at a high level.
Thankfully, Irish farmers' food produce is really nutrient dense and protein rich. There is a question scheduled for later today about the threat and impact of GLP-1s on our food-producing nation. These new drugs make people consume 30% less food and drink. I see this as a massive opportunity. If you are on a GLP-1, you are more aware of the additives. People are becoming more aware all the time of vitamins B and D, as the Deputy outlined, and their importance to us. As people take in less on a GLP-1, they become more aware of how important it is not to lose muscle density and to have a protein-high diet. Our pasture-based system for dairy, beef, lamb and beyond produces nutrient-rich food. Our fisheries produce fish full of omega-3 and all the best nutrients. From that perspective, we have a great story to tell here. We have great opportunities from a business perspective to sell that nutrient-rich, protein-dense food, which is really important.
