Mr. Paul Smyth:

I thank the Chairperson and committee members for the opportunity to address the committee today on farm assist, which is such an important issue for those who are in need of it and so many farmers across the country who are in receipt of it and such schemes as the rural social scheme.

As we know, Irish agriculture plays a significant role in the Irish economy. In particular, the rural economy has the potential to grow if those factors that enable growth in the fabric of rural Ireland are available. It is essential that as many farmers as possible can stay within rural Ireland. Basically, a strong agriculture sector is important, not only for rural Ireland but also for farm families.

The ICMSA represents all farmers, particularly dairy and livestock farmers, and preserving the family farm structure is one of our key focuses. Therefore, those farm families that are receiving the lowest income, we believe, need to have as much protection as possible.

A key determinant in sustaining a business into the future is its viability. Economic viability is defined within the Teagasc farm survey as those that get remunerated to the minimum wage plus a 5% return on non-land-based assets employed on the farm but the latest results from the Teagasc farm survey show that only 27% of cattle farms or mixed farms are economically viable. The corresponding figure for sheep farms is 26% and for dairy farms, it is 93%. That 93% is taken from 2022, a year which saw record milk prices. With prices and input costs at where they are have been, in 2023 and 2024, beyond that economic viability, all sectors would be put under strain. Family-farm income is obviously an issue and those who are at the lower end of that income are subject to quite a lot of hardship in terms of remaining economically viable.

The farm assist scheme is a statutory scheme that provides support for farmers who are on lower incomes, but expenditure on the scheme has fallen over recent years, as was detailed in a report from 2021 which states that it has fallen by almost half from more than €100 million. The farm assist scheme has been utilised for many years, but we believe it should be utilised much more by those who are liable to come into that net.

Our main premise is that their incomes need to be taken into account in a more dynamic and current fashion. The look-back of when one’s income is assessed needs to be more dynamic and needs to take place on an ongoing basis. With price and weather volatility, serious income swings can occur from year to year as well as within years. Given the current fodder crisis, we are seeing how farmers who might be viable during most years will have issues with paying for fodder and grass. That is why we believe the farm assist payment needs to be more dynamic when looking at and determining the means of farmers. It should be considered what their means are today and that should be at the forefront of this committee's undertaking.

Regarding formal proposals, ongoing real-time assessment is required. To give an example from this year, while a farmer may not require the farm assist payment when based on his or her income in previous years, if his or her income has collapsed, such as in 2024, or if the increased costs of production are forcing the farmer into a situation where he or she does not have available cash flow, there needs to be a dynamic system in place for him or her. While there is some support there, it needs to be more dynamic.

The means disregard for schemes, such as the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, needs to be increased. We believe there should be a full disregard for environmental schemes, including the eco-scheme part of the basic income support for sustainability, BISS. There is currently a forgone cost with direct payments, including the eco-scheme, which has not been taken into consideration. This should be fully disregarded. The disregard should also be reviewed annually to account for inflation and the increased costs of compliance, which are having such an effect on farm families, as we have seen regarding the protests that are presently taking place.

The child disregards need to be increased substantially. Once those disregards are taken into consideration, we need to see the percentage being assessed, changed and improved. Farmers who are in receipt of the farm assist payment also may have paid PRSI contributions in previous years. This needs to be updated for those who are in receipt of the farm assist payment in a given year. There are other changes we believe are essential, such as looking at farmers who are subject to illness benefit but who are unable to be assessed properly through their own means. We believe this is the appropriate time to look at how that process is undergone. Mr. Pat O'Brien, the chair of the business committee, and I are open to any questions the committee may raise.