Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this opportunity to discuss some of the issues impacting on farming. I thank the Minister for his statement. In particular, I welcome his remarks around the well-being of farmers. There is not much we can do about the weather in the short term, but there are many actions we can take to serve the financial stability and viability of farms and to alleviate the financial stress that causes so much anxiety and impacts on the well-being of farmers.

The ACRES 1 payments that were due to be paid to applicants last November or December were to be based on the scoring of the applicants’ lands for biodiversity. Advisers spent all of last summer scoring and duly transmitted those results to ACRES while the scores for the commonages were to be completed by the Department. Where scores on commonages were low, advisory meetings were to be held with shareholders to implement measures to improve those scores. All ACRES 1 participants were meant to receive a full breakdown of their field scores by the end of 2023. To date, though, no meetings have been held and farmers are none the wiser as to how their commonages have scored. As payments to farmers were delayed, the Minister moved to make a flat rate of payment to all ACRES 1 farmers. However, this has left a number of farmers in limbo. As stated in a letter from the Department, if a farmer has been overpaid in this flat rate payment, the Department will take measures to recoup the overpaid amount. Farmers on hill lands with commonages have no idea how their lands have scored and what payments are due to them this year. When will ACRES 1 participants receive their scorings and subsequently know their actual payments? What actions can they take, either collectively through landscape actions or individually through non-productive investments, to improve their scores? I would like it if the Minister cleared up these issues around ACRES. That would at least help farmers to know where they stood financially.

The next issue I wish to address is that of TAMS. After much delay, a number of TAMS applicants have received approval to move ahead with their planned on-farm investments. However, a number of issues remain with this scheme. When will the Department's local offices be able to make TAMS payments on valid claims? Building costs have soared over the past few years, which has become clear in the building of farm sheds. In 2024, the Department's costing for the construction of a new shed is running at least 20% behind the actual cost. The farmer is only getting a percentage of the Department's costing, not the actual cost. This is leaving many farmers with a significant shortfall, with a 40% grant aid possibly ending up worth closer to 20%. When is the Department going to review its cost references to reflect actual building costs and other related costs?

I wish to address the delays in payments. As 2023 was the beginning of the latest round of CAP, a number of new schemes were introduced last year, which has led to a number of delays to payments. Two of these schemes, namely the eco-scheme and the young farmers scheme, have still got a number of farmers with payments outstanding. When will these all be sorted out? In terms of the young farmers scheme, a missing tick in the renewal form has led to an existing young farmer's non-payment.

With huge pressure on advisers last year, it is unfair these farmers are being penalised even though their status as a qualifying young farmer existed prior to last year. A bit of leeway and flexibility needs to be introduced where innocent errors were made.

The national fertiliser register has been introduced this year for the first time and farmers are meant to be applying fertiliser based on soil sample results. However, a large number of farmers do not have an up-to-date soil sample result and will not have it until the end of this year in many cases. The advice on correct fertilisers to use so as to avoid a breach of regulations will take much consultation between the Department, farmers and, in particular, advisers. Many farmers will have purchased fertiliser already this year and advisers are overrun with the BISS and other scheme applications at the moment to oversee the correct use of fertiliser on farms. As this is the first year of the fertiliser register, will the Minister allow some leniency for 2024 while all parties get their heads around the changes that have been made? As a bottom line, will the Minister guarantee there will be no penalties while this work is being done to give a chance to the farmers to get on course with this? Indeed, I would suggest a one-day course similar to that in ACRES might be a wise course of action to advise farmers on these new regulations. It is to everybody's benefit if we can have this communication and transfer of information so that everybody is on the same page on it. In expecting farmers to take on something completely new such as the national fertiliser register, what is important is we get it right and it does the job it is intended to do. I would ask the Minister to allow a little flexibility there for everybody to get on the right page.

I want to raise as well with the Minister the issue of greenways, in particular, the Murrisk to Louisburgh and Lecanvey greenway. Last week, I and, indeed, some of the Minister's own Fianna Fáil representatives and Fine Gael representatives attended a meeting in Lecanvey Community Centre where there were dozens of farmers. What has happened in this situation is TII and Mayo County Council have imposed an option of a route on farmers for the greenway from Murrisk to Lecanvey. This is the wrong way to go about trying to get co-operation from and a partnership approach with farmers who own this land to facilitate greenways. The farmers in the area support a route alongside the roadway, which seems the common-sense thing to do, where it would be raised and made safe using safety barriers and it could be done without crossing over everybody's land, but they feel at present they are being threatened with CPOs to push this greenway through. It is a greenway they do not want on the land. They are saying it will cause all kinds of problems for their farming practices. It is not that anyone, God knows, in Mayo is against greenways because we have some very successful greenways that have been done in partnership with farmers. I would ask the Minister to speak to TII and ask if it has learned nothing from projects, such as the Corrib gas project, about the quality of consultation that needs to be done here.

The farmers and landowners there are very concerned. We see already where there are so many restrictions on planning permissions on people and the ability of people being allowed to build on their own land. What if they see a greenway going through there? There was an instance, which I think was raised by the INHFA, where a farmer in Kerry had to apply for a right of way on his own land. That cannot be right. We must have respect for farmers and landowners and work with them in a sense of partnership but, above all, we must have a sense of respect for the job they are doing in terms of food security and everything else we need them to do for the economy in rural Ireland. To go about it in a carte blancheway of threatening CPOs is totally wrong. Will the Minister speak to his counterpart Minister about the TII and tell it to stop this immediately and engage with the farmers on the land from Murrisk to Louisburgh to show them that somebody will stand up for them. I am asking Deputy McConalogue, as Minister for agriculture, to stand up for these farmers, to ask that they be treated with respect and to say consultation is not coming down and that it is being said there will be a greenway there. It just does not work. It will not work with greenways and it will not work with climate change either. We need farmers on board for all of these things. All of the farmers I know, certainly in County Mayo, are more than willing. They want to see the viability of their areas. They want food security. They want to play a major part in climate change and they have been doing so for years. They want to continue on that pathway but they have to be treated with respect, they have to be listened to and they have to be consulted in a meaningful way.

See this speech in context