Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies McConalogue, Martin Kenny and Penrose and Senator Mulherin for their questions. If I might, I will try to deal with them on the basis of recurring themes. One of those themes is the need for lessons to be learned from what has happened. I assure members that the latter is very much at the forefront of my mind. I will preface my remarks by saying that I firmly believe that this is not the time to thwart our ambition, as outlined in Food Wise 2025. We have competitive advantages in terms of food production but there are issues that need to be addressed. Sustainability is a critical pillar of Food Wise 2025 and it is identified as something that needs to be addressed. I take the broadest possible interpretation of sustainability: it is environmental sustainability; it is social sustainability in terms of farmers in the rural economy; it is farmers' economic sustainability; and it is the sustainability of the agrifood sector, which is dependent on a thriving primary production scene. There are lessons to be learned. I do not exclude the Department from that because we are all stakeholders.

The point was made about 2013 and that adverse weather events are recurring. Deputy Penrose alluded to the weather. We are living with the visible impact of climate change and the last, most difficult manifestation of it was in 2013. However, we see it on a daily basis. Collectively, we will have to factor that into our farming practices and the advice Teagasc gives. That is something I am anxious to visit within the implementation committee on Food Wise 2025 but I do not believe for a moment that it is time to dismantle our ambition. We have the capacity to meet the targets - they are not the Department's targets, they are the ambition of the industry. We can do that but we will have to take stock of the difficulties we have encountered and see what steps need to be taken to ensure that we insulate ourselves as best we can against these unpredictable events. Deputy Penrose put it well when he alluded to the fact that we do not control the weather. I wish we did. It is true to say that we have been dealing with an extremely difficult and prolonged period of weather.

The implication in some of the questions posed or points made is that this was foreseeable and that we could have avoided the situation we are in if we had only acted differently or earlier. I do not think that stands up to scrutiny. I am prepared to have a debriefing in due course but the inference is, for example, that we should have been importing fodder earlier. If we had sanctioned an import scheme on 1 February or 1 March, none of those whom we are now assisting and working with in the context of importing fodder would have been active in the context of importation because the expectation all along was that the weather would resolve the issue. There was constant engagement and interaction between officials in my Department and me with co-ops and farming organisations. In due course, that led us to have the meetings in late March and early April. It is true that Storm Emma was a real setback and then we had the horrific rain over the Easter weekend and again on Thursday evening and Friday of last week. Those events became significant game-changers. The co-ops moved into the importation space having cultivated their own contacts in 2013, always in the knowledge that the Department's support scheme would replicate what we had done at that time. With respect to the members who made the point, we could be sitting here in different circumstances if we had acted as was inferred and imported fodder late last year or early this year and spring had come when we hoped it would. I do not think we had the capacity to force co-operatives to get involved in the import space in any event. If we had imported fodder early and spring had arrived in the normal way, we would be looking at stockpiles of fodder and people would say that was a very imprudent use of public funds.

What we were trying to do in October, in terms of the early payments, was reflect the difficulty the weather was causing. In the context of the instructions to Teagasc and fodder budgeting, we said that there were problems in particular areas and that advice was critical to resolving matters in terms of stretching feedstuffs through the use of compound feeds. In January, we had a campaign on the regional difficulty. I accept Senator Mulherin's point that the situation is not the same in any two regions. It is hardly the same on any two neighbouring farms. It can be very different. At the end of January, we said that there were pockets within a region in the north west where there were difficulties. There was not a regional fodder problem in the north west. As part of the resolution of that problem, we introduced the subsidy relating to the transportation of fodder from other areas. The point has been made that the subsidy was a fiasco because of the low numbers that applied for it. Some resolved their issues through the fodder transport scheme. Co-ops are waiting until they finish with the scheme to submit information on the numbers involved. The numbers may not be huge because people resolved their issues by sourcing fodder locally. That is their prerogative, but we were anxious in our interventions at various times to respond meaningfully.

With the delayed spring, Storm Emma, cold ground temperatures and zero growth, some people have not got through a first round of grazing and nothing is following on behind. In late March and into this month, we felt they were issues in respect of which we needed to ratchet up our preparations. That began in terms of our engagement with Teagasc and the co-ops, which had been key players in terms of our engagement since the back end of last year. We were dealing with a situation that was evolving and dynamic. Nobody could tell what would happen in three weeks' time or a month's time. Early this month, however, as a result of our engagement with Teagasc and the co-ops, we were faced with an assessment that there were approximately two weeks' worth of fodder left in the country. We could not take the risk that it would be enough for two weeks and that there would be grass growth in the interim. Accordingly, co-ops activated their importation measures and we now have a situation whereby of the order of 14 different companies are actively importing fodder with the assistance of the State. The ambition is that, between the contribution of the State and the co-ops, the fodder will be delivered at cost to the user, namely, the farmer. That is not unreasonable.

I also accept the point made by Senator Mulherin that, in the context of regional various, those who are on more difficult ground are facing a particularly problematic time. That is why, for example, we have made the decision that the additional €25 million we have allocated this year for areas of natural constraint will be focused, in particular, on those at a higher level of disadvantage.

That will be reflected in the payments they will receive in due course. I take the point made by Deputy Kenny about inspections. I have impressed this point on my own officials down to those who carry out the inspections. I know inspections strike fear into farmers because a lot is riding on them in terms of their payments, but I have found most officials to be quite understanding and I think most members would accept that also. There may be difficult individual cases. We have put the message out that where there are issues relating to inspections and compliance arising from the extremely difficult weather and the pressure farmers are under in terms of having all their records ready, inspectors should take an approach that is informed by the circumstances in which farmers find themselves. Even as late as yesterday, a constituent told me about a Bord Bia inspection. Such inspections take time and three hours spent going through paperwork can be significant. However, the individual involved was quite understanding of the issues. We have been anxious to ensure that is the case.

We have also asked the Commission about inspections. Members should bear in mind that the clarion call to suspend inspections will have implications in terms of our capacity to release payments because we must meet a minimum requirement. We have been in contact with the Commission about that issue and we await a communication from it. We have also been in contact with the Commission about the three crop rule because I am very conscious that much of the publicity about this issue has been around livestock farming but hardly a field has been ploughed in the country. This is getting extremely late in terms of compliance with the greening requirements and crop diversification obligations under the three crop rule. I am pleased to say that I spoke with the Commissioner again today and we are going to get a concession in that space, which is really important for those farmers.

There is no simple solution to this. It is all part of the aforementioned. Some people have mentioned the need for low-interest loans. This Department pioneered low-interest loans - €150 million at 2.95% - when some present were quite sceptical about that in terms of us encouraging to farmers to borrow money. They argued that this money could be better used and was in fact farmers' money and should be given to them directly rather than us leveraging a support. I welcome the fact that people now acknowledge that there is a need for further financial instruments to assist farming. I believe it is incumbent on the co-operatives and banks to deal with this because it is a short-term issue. Even as late as an hour before I came in here, I was talking to the smaller co-operatives and I was reassured that they are saying that there is no issue here in terms of farmers, notwithstanding credit history in the co-operatives, purchasing for fodder issues. I welcome that, and I will meet one of the pillar banks later this afternoon and make that point.

As a result of funding we received in the budget last year, we are developing another financial instrument for the primary sector - farming and the fishing industry. This is difficult, cumbersome and slow. There is a question as to whether it should be a package in terms of assisting capital investment or working capital. Much of what I am hearing is that there is probably a need for working capital support rather than capital investment support. Through TAMS, we are making a lot of capital investment grant aid available.

The point I am making is that we are active in that space. I have always said it will be the second half of 2018 before we bring that product to marketplace. It involves jumping through quite a few hoops in terms of the European Investment Bank, DG Competition, the pillar banks here, the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, my Department and the SBCI. There are many moving parts to co-ordinate and it would be misleading to say that it will happen in response to this issue or in a way that will assist in respect of this issue. However, I will make the point very clearly to the pillar banks when I meet them that I expect solidarity. Farmers have always been responsive in terms of their obligations regarding the loans they take out. That is the history and the banks would confirm this is the case. From all the engagement I have had with the co-operatives, I can say that they are responding accordingly in that space.