Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 26 October 2022
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Vision for the Future of Irish Farming: Macra na Feirme
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
From Macra na Feirme I welcome Mr. John Keane, national president, Mr. Liam Hanrahan, chairperson of the national agricultural affairs committee and Mr. Mike Curran, CEO.
I ask Mr. Keane to give his opening statement.
Mr. John Keane:
I thank the committee for the invitation to speak about Macra's vision for the future of farming. I acknowledge the Chairperson's continued support of Macra along with the recognition that as a sector there needs to be significant change in order to address the crisis that exists concerning generational renewal across Irish farms.
In addition to looking at the future of farming in Ireland, it behoves us to look at where farming fits into Irish society, and more specifically, Irish rural society. When speaking in the Seanad in September the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, referred to local businesses as "the beating heart of rural Ireland". Macra is in agreement with the sentiment that rural Ireland as a living, breathing entity only exists through the economic activity that is generated there. This economic activity is generated through many enterprises. However, as agriculture generates €15 billion each year Macra believes it must truly be the heartbeat of rural Ireland. I do not think any members of this Oireachtas joint committee would disagree with that statement. Agriculture has always been at the centre of rural Ireland and we hope it will always continue to reside at the centre. To be blunt about it, if there is no agriculture then there is no real rural Ireland.
In order for any enterprise to be sustainable, there needs to be a continual influx of new blood into the industry. In our industry, where only 5% of farmers are aged under 35 years, it is safe to call the situation a crisis. If we continue as we are farmers will be an extinct species in a short time. Any industry with an age profile similar to Irish agriculture can by any measure be classed as one in danger of extinction. Deputy Danny Healy-Rae told this committee last week that while it was once a privilege to be left landed, it is now seen by many as a curse. We are glad to state on behalf of our members that this is not the case for Macra; being given access to land to hold in trust for the next generation is still an honour, albeit one fraught with difficulty.
We have the best-educated agricultural workforce in the EU. This has been provided by our excellent third-level institutions. This education is backed up by the time many of our aspiring young farmers spend abroad to experience how farming operates in other jurisdictions.
Before we continue on to what is required to support young farmers to enter and remain in the industry, it is perhaps timely to look at what rural Ireland would look like without farming. Please be in no doubt, this is a realistic proposition as the age profile of our farmers has been continually increasing over the years. If this continues unabated, we will experience what the church has experienced in recent years in its demise. The lack of supports for young entrant farmers is tantamount to actively restricting access for new entrants to the industry. If we continue on this path, we will in effect clear the land. The land will go back to being unproductive. Allowing land to go fallow will increase our risk of food insecurity and not ensure that food is produced in the most sustainable way possible.
As a sector, it is evident that we have many challenges to overcome over the coming decade and beyond. The role of highly educated, highly motivated and forward-thinking young farmers will undoubtedly be crucial in tackling these challenges and ensuring the future sustainability of our sector. With the number of farmers under the age of 35 currently at less than 5%, fundamental change and targeted supports are required to address the decreasing numbers of farmers under the age of 35. A mere 20 years ago the percentage of farmers under 35 stood at 13%. Bearing this in mind, can we really justify continuing with more of the same to address the issue of generational renewal? Based on 2016 figures, 30% of farmers who are head of the holding are over the age of 65. This figure significantly increases when we look at those in more disadvantaged areas, especially those on uplands and peat soils. In the sectors predominately practised on these farms, a higher average age was observed. The percentage of specialised farmers with a high age profile was 41%. Cattle farms accounted for 39% compared to an average of only 15% in the dairy sector according to Teagasc national farm survey data. These figures have also shown sharp increases, particularly in cattle farming, rising from 27% in 2013 to 36% in 2017. The agrifood sector is one of Ireland's most important indigenous manufacturing sectors, accounting for employment of 167,500 people. It includes 700 drinks firms and we export food and agricultural products to more than 160 countries worldwide.
Food Vision 2030 was launched by the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, in 2021 with the ambition that Ireland will become a leader in sustainable food systems, SFS, over the next decade. It was stated that this would deliver many benefits for the agrifood sector, Irish society and the environment. In demonstrating the Irish agrifood sector meets the highest standards, it was hoped the economic, environmental, and social pillars of the strategy would provide future competitive advantage for the sector.
Four missions were outlined under Food Vision 2030. Mission 1 was to create a climate smart and environmentally sustainable agricultural sector; mission 2 was to create viable and resilient primary producers with enhanced well-being; mission 3 was to produce food that is safe, nutritious and appealing, trusted and valued at home and abroad; and mission 4 was to create an innovative, competitive and resilient agrifood sector, driven by innovation at its heart.
For many years, Macra na Feirme has identified several barriers to entering farming. We have consistently highlighted that these barriers prevent access to farming for many young people. The main areas we focused on have continually been barriers around access to land; access to affordable unsecured finance; support and knowledge transfer; the creation of a good lifestyle; financial security and earning capacity; an ever-changing policy environment; lack of investment for capital development; and supporting multiple generations from the on-farm business. Addressing the barriers is no quick fix. Land access remains a huge challenge for young people. Greater support for the land mobility service is required and greater security is needed for older farmers to step back from farming and remain financially secure. With land prices increasing at rates not seen for decades, significant investment is needed to support young people to become competitive in the sector.
Affordable finance is the second major barrier that exists for young people entering farming. The need to invest in infrastructure, livestock and management tools on-farm is extensive and expensive. Many young people who have a limited track record with financial institutions find it very difficult to access finance. Therefore, a specific low-cost finance option specifically tailored for young farmers must be established to facilitate the option for finance. For many years, Macra has outlined a succession scheme which we have detailed and which we feel aptly fits the needs of older farmers in terms of their financial security and couples support for young farmers who are taking over the farming process. The scheme addresses the worries that older farmers have around financial security should they step back from farming. Moreover, with additional support for young farmers it also allows these young people to secure a living while also having a lifestyle that is comparable with their peers. It would also allay fears that the farm business will not be able to support multiple generations, which is a major barrier to land transfer and entry. The sector must provide pathways for young people to enter into it. It cannot be the case that the only viable route to farming is via your parents or a blood relative who is a landowner. It is comparable with saying to young people they can only become a mechanic if their parents own a garage. Limiting access to a small number of young people will do little to ensure the long-term viability and growth of rural areas and the communities which depend on them.
Many opportunities exist in agriculture and Macra is a strong proponent of those opportunities. We need to take advantage of them with flexible tailored support and with sound policy that delivers for the future. Some of the opportunities that exist include meeting the ambitions of the environmental agreements and targets set out under many Bills, including addressing the age gap that is currently on farms. The ambition and willingness of young farmers to take over new, smart, friendly and precision agriculture practices is one we feel must be adopted. Young farmers are more likely to adopt new technologies, while older farmers are more likely to be slow to take them up. We have outlined within our submission much of the supporting evidence and research conducted in recent years and decades to highlight the issues and to show that young farmers, backed up by peer-reviewed science, are more likely and more willing to take up new technological advancements on farms.
Diversification is a buzz word that is mentioned consistently by many Government politicians as the way forward for Irish agriculture. Macra agrees with this. However, merely saying that it is needed will not result in any changes on the ground. What is needed is targeted investment in the areas that can offer income for farmers, while also having an environmental and societal benefit. The areas where Macra sees huge opportunity but a lack of investment and creation of pathways include on-farm energy production; anaerobic digestion; agri-tourism; production of energy crops; high nitrogen use efficiency system farm models; and organic farming models driven by market demand. In order to realise these opportunities, we need a complete rethink of policy. The constant push for reduction of production and restriction without the inclusion of efficiency is a policy fundamentally flawed. Where there is opportunity in the sector, there is no point in slowly closing the doors.
Generational renewal is the largest threat to agriculture. The figures speak for themselves. Unless we continuously develop generational renewal, the future for agriculture in Ireland is non-existent. There is one school of thought that generational renewal should be a function of the free market. This would be the easiest and simplest solution. However, if we look at the current land market and the exceedingly high prices being paid for the purchase of land, it cannot be the case that young farmers are expected to compete with established peers who operate within the market. Macra is calling for supports for young farmers looking to enter the industry. These include but are not limited to some of the points we outlined above with regard to access to land and finance, knowledge transfer, support through learning and technological investment.
Finally, as Irish farmers we feel we have a unique role to play in meeting the climate change challenge. However, it must be done in a fair and balanced way. Dealing with climate change provides an opportunity for young farmers who will adopt the practices and the best solutions science has to offer. Irish dairy and beef output is extremely efficient from a carbon footprint perspective. Irish milk has one of the lowest footprints in the EU, while Irish beef has the fifth lowest. Despite this, many would lead us to believe the carbon efficiency of expanding milk production in Ireland has been displaced by approximately 4 million tonnes of carbon, which would have been emitted by an equivalent dairy production outside Ireland. As young farmers we have an ambition and target to engage in the practices that are needed from an environmental point of view and to adopt the practices that will lead to higher economic returns but will also be beneficial to the environment, which we have detailed.
The future of agriculture in this State is in a perilous condition, with the age profile of farmers continually increasing and the proportion of young farmers entering the industry on the wane. Urgent remedial action is needed to continue. It must be a whole-of-policy approach, must be cross-governmental and must be a science-based approach to developing a future for young farmers.
In all future policy aspects, Macra requests and foresees that any policy development be impact assessed for its overarching effect on generational renewal. We see that many of our policy instruments are assessed for their economic and environmental impact but their impact on the next generation is missing. Macra would like to see and supports the calls for an inclusion of a greater number of young people, as well as the inclusion of greater female representation across the sectors. Macra welcomes the continued support of this committee and its members and looks forward to answering questions.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That was a very detailed presentation. Access to land and mobility of land is probably the key to a young fellow starting farming or deciding to stay on the family holding.
As was said, access to land is obviously key for a new entrant to farming.
An increasing amount of land is going into long-term leasing. Does Macra na Feirme have any proposals on how that could be geared towards giving preference to younger farmers? From what I see happening on the ground, I do not see very many young farmers being able to compete for these land leases at present. I see it as a fundamental issue. There are approximately 1,300 to 1,400 long-term leases each year at present, which is significant when we consider the number of farms in the country. The percentage of land going into long-term leases is significant and growing. Do the representatives have any access to land? They talked about the farm, the price land made and the fact that land has increased in price fairly rapidly over the past 12 to 18 months. I would like to get the witnesses' views on long-term leasing. Have they any proposals on how the younger generation will be able to compete?
Mr. John Keane:
I will ask Mr. Hanrahan to come in on that shortly. From a long-term lease point of view, tax incentives have been beneficial to the release of land and making land available to the market, which is something we welcomed as a land transfer tool that would give people access to land. However, as the Chair rightly said, we have had instances in recent years, and it continues, where the price of leasing land for long-term lease has become a barrier not only to young farmers but for particular sectors and enterprises within agriculture. If that is compounded with young people in those enterprises who are not able to compete, it becomes an even bigger issue.
If we look to those on the Continent and some of the measures they use to address land leasing and access to land - I include some examples from France and Austria - when a parcel of land becomes available or is offered to the market for lease, in a number of member states, it is offered to a cohort of young farmers first. They have the first opportunity to avail of a lease at a rate that is comparable to the average market rate as opposed to the high-level rates that are achieved.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Who determines what the market rate is?
Mr. John Keane:
When we take an average throughout Ireland of what the average land rental rate or land lease rate is, it is an awful lot less than that in some areas where there is high competition for land. The average is a lower rate than what farmers are paying in those areas. It is worked on the basis that the national average will be lower than where there are pressure zones, whether we want to call those rent pressure zones, or lease pressure zones in an agricultural context. That is comparable with what they are for. They are offered access to land at a lower rate in a first refusal-type system.
There is also support through tax rebates for those young farmers who are leasing land to allow them to claim back something on the cost of the leasing of the land. This creates preferential access for young farmers, if we want to call it that. On the other side of things, it also has tax rebate or tax implications for young farmers to avail of through the course of their farming of the land. It is a double benefit for them. The ring-fencing of access to land is one of the key things because young farmers become one of the first people to have access to it. Does Mr. Hanrahan want to add anything to that?
Mr. Liam Hanrahan:
Mr. Keane and I have debated the Chair's question over and back during many a car journey. It is probably the biggest and hardest question to answer. We have a few solutions. As has been outlined in respect of long-term leasing, which is very beneficial, and trying to target it towards the younger farmer, one of the solutions we came up with recently at our agricultural affairs committee is the development of a succession plan that will benefit both the farmer exiting farming and the young farmer coming in. We put forward a proposal that the exiting farmer would be rewarded financially somehow for leasing the farm to a farmer under the age of 35. In exchange, the farmer under the age of 35 would then have to implement a suite of environmental measures to allow us to get on the right pathway to hitting our environmental targets. The committee is well aware of what those targets are. They include grassland management, soil fertility, high genetic merit cows, and better management of slurry and manures, all of which add up very significantly. For example, having cows that have a €100 economic breeding index, EBI, versus cows that have a €200 EBI means a 10% difference in a farmer's carbon footprint.
It is more likely a young farmer would adopt these measures but if-----
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The banding might not agree with that but go on.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry to interrupt Mr. Hanrahan.
Mr. Liam Hanrahan:
That is fine. It is about having a discussion and encouraging that. It is a carrot as opposed to a stick approach. There would be a massive uptake if the leaser, or the older farmer leasing out his or her land, had security. That farmer would have security that the lease would work out. The young farmer would take it on with a guarantee that he or she would implement these measures. It is hitting two birds with the one stone. All that would be asked for in exchange would be greater incentives for the young farmer in terms of installation aid and access to unsecured finance at a reasonable rate and a reasonable amount, given what would be required in a lot of these cases. Many of the farms coming up for lease are not exactly top-class farms. We have to do things rights, especially when it comes to hitting environmental targets. Slurry storage is one of the major issues. In the case of many of these farms, they might not exactly be compliant but the young farmer could come in and sort that out. There would have to be a proposal, involving a proper structured financial reward, put together for the leaser and leasee.
I personally think it would be a very good model that would have significant uptake. Our land mobility service would be there to help and assist with this process and allow the young farmer to put together proper business proposals to give the bank, landowner and all parties involved the confidence that this would work out. It is understandable that a landowner would choose to lease to someone with a long-term track record of land leasing. With a proper structured proposal in place, however, it would get major uptake.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is a significant issue because I think the price of leased land will spiral. It is high as it is. When farmers sit down to do their figures on this banding, the price of leased land will go further through the roof and push it further out of the hands of young farmers coming into the industry, or taking over a farm and trying to expand.
Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I only have a couple of quick questions. I welcome the Macra na Feirme representatives. I note the detailed presentation they gave us and their professional approach any time they have appeared before this committee.
I am interested in the comments on the need for the impact assessment on generational renewal and the plans to limit land availability. On numerous occasions, we have had discussions on various plans to limit the use of land, most recently, the proposals to limit the availability of land. As was said, the future of rural Ireland hinges on what happens today and what message is given to the sector of today. The plans for nature restoration spring to mind and there are more. What effect do even the mere proposals have on younger farmers when it comes to planning for the future?
Mr. John Keane:
I thank the Deputy for the question. Our comment on impact assessments comes off the fact that we would like all these measures to show what impact this will have on all those things, including land mobility, land availability, production and the opportunities it will create for young people to get into the sector. Right now, from where we sit and from our perspective as Macra na Feirme and young farmer representatives, that is not something that is taken into consideration. We should take it from a young farmer's point of view right now. Even looking at the past ten days, we were lucky enough to be sitting in this committee room this night last week speaking about the EU nature restoration regulation. I was in Brussels yesterday where the industrial bills regulation is something being talked about at EU level. The pesticides regulation is also being discussed. We also had a recommendation from the food vision group the day before yesterday, which referenced reduction and taking land away from being available to anybody working in breeding livestock in order to use it as productive land.
Land is the most limiting resource that any farming enterprise has in terms of its ability to grow. Our reservations here are that all of these policies, regulations and Bills are coming forward without a detailed assessment on what impact they will have on the people who will have to implement them on the ground. We have an environmental assessment that, in the context of the EU nature restoration Bill or of the Green Deal, refers to meeting the targets in biodiversity and refers to the targets on water quality which are all important and ample measures we should be supporting, but it says nothing about what the future of the sector will be in ten or 20 years. There is a constant narrative that CAP funding will sort out all of these issues. If CAP funding will sort out all of these issues that are being mentioned, a euro is all that will be signed to any single scheme to delivery anything because every time we hear about anything being dealt with at a European level or here, it is CAP funding that will sort that out for us. That is a limited and declining budget if one looks at inflation and the cost of production.
What needs to be done is the impact assessment, if one follows the line of the environmental assessment, and that creates a template for investment in how it is achieved. We have seen it under the ambition under CAP where one of the key objectives was generation renewal. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine invested the very same supports here as it has done since 2014 and we are expecting a different outcome. Einstein, to my recollection, had a fair theory on what that will achieve.
We have ambition here under the food vision group about creating viable producers with enhanced well-being. I would like to know when we will start dealing with the viable producers. Are we to deal with it at the end when every other policy is drawn up, when every other instrument is designed and when the opportunity is no longer there?
Unless I have missed something, I will hand over to Mr. Hanrahan.
Mr. Liam Hanrahan:
I thank Deputy Martin Browne for his question. It was good of the Deputy to mention the nature restoration plan. I suppose the first point is that one cannot manage what one does not measure. We cannot really measure the amount of carbon that we are sequestering. How do we know what the impact of these potential carbon sinks will be, not to mind the impact they will have on the land around them, the land one takes away, and the impact assessment on the rural economy and the rural population? The impact is endless, in terms of the damaging effect it will have. First of all, we need proper accuracy in terms of the measurement of carbon sequestration.
Farmers have no problem whatsoever in implementing carbon sequestration measures as long as they are done in an appropriate manner and not a broad-stroke-of-a-pen fashion. As we see, farmers would like to take up the likes of a renewable plan on their farm but, currently, it is not feasible and viable. It is not accounted for in our inventory either, but we know that. We have other issues around that. In terms of being able to go ahead and put solar panels on the roof of one's shed, it is not exactly that straightforward. It is only another example, really.
As for the impact on young people, if we do not have land to access it will not happen.
Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In terms of making farming and a lifetime in agriculture an attractive and a viable prospect for young fellows like these, should impact assessments such as Mr. Keane mentioned be mandatory? What is the current level of engagement and what will be the impact on future generations of the proposed measures?
Mr. John Keane:
I thank the Deputy for the question as to whether they should be mandatory. Our firm belief is that they should be mandatory. If we were sitting in the committee that was dealing with the future of the health sector and somebody came in to present and say that 5% of our nurses on the floors attending accident and emergency departments were under the age of 35 and 30% of them were over the age of 65, I am fairly confident that we would be calling that a crisis and saying that everything needs to be done to encourage as many people and as many nurses as possible to take up the jobs to bring the sector into line with the other relatable sectors. If one looks at the average working population across the sectors, including teachers, doctors and nurses, between 25% and 30% of the average working population is under 35. We are at 5% and the numbers have decreased in the past decade. Why would it not make sense to make that mandatory, if one will be relying on these people to produce food to feed the world in the future? We will need a farmer in the morning and the evening, and at lunchtime, no matter what happens. It should be mandatory.
In terms of engagement, we have had loads of engagement on what should be done for the sector going forward from an environmental point of view. I have sat on forums nearly every day of the week in this role in the past two years, and my predecessor did similarly. In terms of action and delivering on what we are suggesting needs to be implemented to drive this change, we just do not see it.
I mentioned the CAP supports earlier. It is the same level of investment that we had from the previous CAP. We are the only member state that has not used installation aid or business start-up, whatever one wants to call it, as a measure to support young people to access farming and we achieved the minimum allocation for young farmer supports under Pillar I. When one translates that to an Irish context, we have the tax reliefs, obviously, for the leasing of land and stock relief which are very welcome, but we now find ourselves in a situation where the state aid rules are becoming a limiting factor. The state aid rules state that one can claim up to a maximum of €70,000 over a lifetime under those tax reliefs, which are agricultural tax reliefs such as consolidation relief, stock relief measures and young farmer relief measures. We are finding now with the way the value of land is going, the prices of stock, etc., that our farmers are likely to reach that threshold and surpass it as time goes on. That limit is something which needs to be looked at as well.
From a Government point of view here in Ireland, there are schemes in other EU member states where they are investing specific supports targeted at young farmers around business start-up grant-aid support, such as we would have in business start-up outside of farming. They are investing in technological development around environmental and strategic actions as well. We do not see that investment here. We see that the access to finance is the single biggest barrier. There was mention of creating an attractive lifestyle. Many of the farms that young people take over have had a certain level of investment over the past 30 years and if one puts oneself in that young person's shoes, one does not want to be out at 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. when one's peers have had their feet up since 5 p.m. People need some capital investment to make life easier and to be able to invest in technology so that they are not drudging at 11 p.m. or midnight. and their lifestyle is a bit easier. Then it becomes more attractive for them to stay in farming.
Mr. Liam Hanrahan:
If one takes the reduction measures which have been suggested to us in terms of reducing cow numbers by 100,000 cows and a stocking rate of two cows per hectare, a tip of the iceberg of impact assessment would be that there would be 50,000 hectares out of circulation. The competition for land would go through the roof. As the Chairman mentioned earlier, the price of land will go higher again, compounding the issue and putting policy in the opposite direction of what we are trying to do.
On top of that, the impact will not be even across sectors. The less viable sectors will really be hit. Do we want to leave them behind? We do not, anyway.
Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Macra representatives. I acknowledge the huge contribution that Macra makes in rural communities, both professionally and on a voluntary basis. We all recognise that.
I will leave it for others and come back in later.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I welcome the Macra representatives to what at this stage is nearly their weekly pilgrimage.
The Chairman and I were at a farm walk the other day on the Carlow-Wexford border at one of these farms where everything is tracked. Something that is coming out clearly is that the figures we have, be it for a cow, a weanling, a bullock, a heifer or a bit of peatland or whatever, are not accurate.
Is that the understanding because we have seen that the research is starting now or has started over the past year? Basically, we picked up the other day that it will take three to five years between getting the figures, backing them up and having a peer review or getting them into this journal they have to be put into. For all farmers, whether young or old, the figures we are starting with are completely wrong. Would that be Macra na Feirme's analysis?
Mr. John Keane:
I thank the Deputy for the question. Mr. Hanrahan and I have had the privilege of sitting in the food vision dairy group for the past nine months, which has gone through the systems the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which is the reporting body for this, has. Our understanding of it, and forgive me if I do not have all the exact details, is that there are three different tiers on which carbon is accounted for in reporting. Tier 1 is the international panels. They are standard models, which are based on their findings. Tier 2 is based on some country-specific figures, some of which statistics we are operating on currently. Tier 3 systems are the most detailed. This tier is specific to the country and the system that is operational. In Ireland, if compared with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, does, which takes in the total mixed rations systems in large sheds on the Continent and across the world, that is probably not comparable to the grass-based production system we have in Ireland. The ongoing methane research in Teagasc would suggest we are currently overestimating that in the region of about 10% or 12%. The sequestration from mineral soils is also being understated, according to the latest research, which has to be peer reviewed and so forth. On peatlands the amount of emissions is being overstated by a large amount. All of those cumulatively, when added to a farm, are going to make a huge difference from the book figure being emitted from each farm. That is our understanding of it. We do understand we have a number of years to go through before that comes into effect in the inventory itself. We have also been told this will be backdated on the inventory. The inventory is worked off 1990 figures. If these figures change, based on new evidence and research, those figures will be backdated on a percentage basis as far as 1990. If we are saying that today we are overestimating it by 2 megatonnes, we are working off the system we have. Tomorrow we will be working off a new accounting system that reflects this latest research. The difference will not be today versus yesterday. The difference will be today versus 1990, and having that incrementally backdated over the years. That is what we have been told regarding the way the system is going to be implemented.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
One thing that needs to be said is that a lot of young farmers are looking to do the green certificate at the moment, which is encouraging. I do not think there are even enough spaces and there is a backlog. That is a good thing and is welcome. In my time, when we did the green certificate, I remember you had to be able to show one labour unit. That is a while ago, my hair will show you that, no more than the Vice Chair himself. We had to get one labour unit, which on small farms down the country was nearly impossible. Are the witnesses satisfied with what a young farmer gets to start off with at the moment? There is the 60% in the targeted agriculture modernisation schemes, TAMS, and the single farm payment they get along with the top-up. I heard Mr. Keane speaking when the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, was being negotiated about something coming in that would be like giving a loan to young farmers. That was being discussed in Europe. Can he bring me up to speed on that? How satisfied is Macra na Feirme in this regard? My own opinion, and I will give it straight, is that what the young farmer gets starting off in the grant system is not too bad compared with our day, when we were out there. However, they need a kick-start in the form of a lump sum or even a really low-interest loan to help them get going. This is because while you might get land, it might be run down and might need a bit of investment to get going. While it is great to get the 60%, you might not have the wherewithal to get the 40%. What happened in Europe with that proposal? I also would like a comment on something we are following up. We have been told that the old young farmer is coming in next year for those people, the forgotten farmer as we will call them. Where is that proposal at the moment?
Mr. John Keane:
One of those questions is something I have been on for many years and I could talk on it for an hour. The first point was around support for young farmers starting off and around the EU piece I was speaking about around the time of the CAP negotiations. That was access to what, at EU level, are called financial instruments. That is essentially a low-cost loan scheme created from Europe that can be availed of through CAP. That is offered for young farmers.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that there?
Mr. John Keane:
No. We did not avail of it. From our side of things, Mr Hanrahan mentioned our succession scheme. We have that proposed in it. From a single farm payment aspect, we acknowledge that the national reserve and the young farmers scheme has been renewed under the next CAP. It has been standard practice for that to be retained and the rates are the same. However, obviously the averaging of basic payments is going to have an impact on the payment paid to young farmers, because the payments in the national average will have an impact on that too. From a grants point of view, I take the point on board that it might be a higher level than what we had to do ten years ago, when the Deputy was doing the green certificate.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The witness can go back a few more years.
Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
He is being very nice to the Deputy now.
Mr. John Keane:
We are where we are, and the regulation and requirements on farms now are probably a little bit ahead of where they were, so the required investment is a good bit higher. Some farms, when farmers take them over, may not be meeting the compliance standard for some storage and so forth. Obviously, if you are to receive grants you have to bring them up to be compliant, and then you can extend or build.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is there not a facility there, in fairness to the Department, for what you call soil waters that can cover you?
Mr. John Keane:
There is that facility. That will cover off as well, to an extent, at a limit and a threshold. Regarding the 60% ceiling the Deputy has spoken about, you need to put yourself back into the shoes of a young farmer starting off with limited capital, and limited finances behind him or her. You are putting in a two or three-bay slatted tank for suckler cows or whatever, and it is going to cost you between €40,000 and €60,000. You have to find €30,000 or €35,000.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I think the organics scheme is one model. There are a lot of incentives in it, in fairness. If you do not buy the machinery in year one, you have to go into a second organics because you have to have it for five years. Is that correct? You need a woeful load of money to buy everything at the beginning.
Mr. John Keane:
Yes. From a young farmer's point of view starting off, if you are going farming, the quickest return you are going to have on any investment is either on stock that you have on it, or investment in grassland. All of the research points to that. If you are doing it from a business point of view you are going to have to invest in that first to get a return, and at the same time you also have to become compliant in terms of storage and facilities. You have to put up a crush obviously for herd numbering and so forth. Initially there is a huge burst of money required to start off, get your stock, to bring your land up to speed, or God forbid, if you have to drain it, or if you have to reseed or whatever you have to do. That is where we feel the installation aid was an option under CAP. We did not avail of that either. Business start-up support can be given from a national Exchequer point of view. That can be offered for young farmers. We feel that is an obvious thing.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Are we too late with this financial instrument the witness is talking about? Can we still include it?
Mr. John Keane:
From our CAP strategic plan we are too late. The option we do have there is through the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI. We understand a new fund is to be announced at the end of the second quarter of 2023. What could be made available there is a ring-fenced fund for business owners under a certain age and for young farmers, that is, for those under the age of 35. Currently, the SBCI is an open competition, and that is obviously understandable. If you put yourself in the position of a bank, given the choice between somebody who is 25 years of age with a limited track record and somebody who is 50 years of age with a great track record, I know who I am going to give the money to.
That is why a specific, ring-fenced 25% is needed. That allocation of funds that comes from SBCI is unsecured. It is at a low cost of interest for young farmers and it is specific to them.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My understanding on this SBCI is that it is the same rigmarole as getting it from the bank. A farmer has to be able to tick the same boxes which is unhelpful.
Mr. John Keane:
Yes, but if the boxes are being ticked for a ring-fenced fund it is easier. If someone ticks the boxes for the whole fund and they are competing with older, more mature businesses, it is more difficult. The reality is that we cannot tick the boxes. The issue of old young farmers has not been resolved. It was not resolved under CAP. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to resolve the issue under CAP. We have worked and lobbied extremely hard with the Minister and the Department last year on this. We were informed that it was going to be addressed under the CAP and that there was capacity to do it. There are three or four different supports that were missed out for those young farmers. They also missed out on access to the young farmers scheme, the national reserve, installation aid and grant support. Those are three different supports that have been missed out on by those young farmers.
We have had no further details, despite engagements with the Minister and the Department on this issue. We have no detail in terms of what is being provided or a timeline for when that is going to be provided.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has Mr. Keane heard the same phrase as we have, that the issue is being sorted?
Mr. John Keane:
Yes, I am 18 months in this role and I was two years in Liam's role; I have heard that since then and that is where we are now. We recognise the Minister's commitment on record to this which is a step away from where previous Ministers have been. The Minister is on the record in opposition a number of years ago asking the question in the Dáil as well. We recognise it is a commitment in the programme for Government also. It just needs to followed through on and delivered for those forgotten farmers.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank our guests for attending. The topic, a vision for the future of Irish farming, did not really lend itself to an hour long meeting as there are so many issues and permutations and factors that need to be considered as to whether Irish farming has a future at all, particularly in terms of the family farm model. Even the debate we have had thus far this evening shows that this is an area that will involve quite an amount of deliberation.
I will be bringing forward legislation for the establishment of a commission on the future of the family farm within the coming weeks. It will require that high level, specific approach to identify key areas. Going through each of the areas, there are many potential outworkings.
A lot of the broad issues have been dealt with in the questions so far. I will put some specific points and hopefully we can have a quick back and forth. I have a specific question on the notion of finance being provided through the SBCI. We have seen the general agricultural schemes; in all cases it has to be said they have been the only ones under the SBCI that have been fully drawn down very quickly and almost always fully paid back on time as well. How would the witnesses see an element of that working? Would it be a ring-fence of that funding or new funding for the young farmer scheme? What would be the difference between it and the general agricultural loans that have been offered to date?
Mr. John Keane:
I might just briefly comment and then ask Mr. Curran to come in. The overarching aspect of that is that because all of the funds in previous rounds have been fully drawn down it is, as the Deputy rightly says, a competitive space to access that funding. The young farmers have found themselves competing with older, more mature businesses which is quite difficult. The ring-fencing of a specific amount of funds within that budget or the establishment of a specific budget for young farmers or young business owners is something we would support as well. Some of our young business owners in rural communities have also said that access to finance is an issue. We have no issue with whichever one it is. The key issue is that it is ring-fenced for them, that it is at low interest and that they have access to it. That it is an option for them as opposed to being priced out.
Mr. Michael Curran:
What we really want is to level the playing field. What an uneven playing field looks like was best illustrated last week at an auction in Kilkenny. A farm of 235 acres went for €3.1 million. It was good land, no doubt about it, but the more open competition we have like that, the more seasoned campaigners will come in and bid on it. From the reports I read, it was a lot of locals bidding against each other. They were not members of Macra na Feirme. Maybe they were once but not anymore. What we are looking for is to take a proportion of whatever fund comes out next and ring-fence it. It does not matter if it a separate portion or part of the existing portion. It simply needs to be ring-fenced for young farmers and young businesses. The established businesses have the economic weight to outbid every young entrant and literally soak up all the land and soak up all the resources. We are also looking at bringing more women into farming. We would also suggest that there should be a proportion of funding ring-fenced for young women as well, to level the playing field as much as we can. The methodology is not that important. What is important is that younger people get an advantage they actually need to level the pitch.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That comes to the crux of the issues we are going to face. I am sure there would be quite a reaction from other farming organisations to any proposals to restrict the saleability of a person's private property. I am struck by the opening statement of the witness where the limited availability of land is mentioned. The statement also addressed that some schemes for moving land from productive use to other uses would limit that even further. Is it not fair to say that it is not that agricultural land is becoming non-agricultural land for the most part? It is that existing farms are getting bigger. That poses a very big question that we need to tackle. Going back to the earlier point of the future of the family farm model, lots of countries are currently producing the same, if not more, food than they were 50 years ago but the number of farmers that are involved are a tiny fraction of what they were 50 years ago. That is something we need to avoid. Has Macra a view in terms of what the maximum size of a farm should be? That is a big question.
Mr. Liam Hanrahan:
I will go back to the Deputy's opening remark on the future of farming. A reduction policy removes farmers. The Deputy has just made the point that if reduction policies are implemented all that is being done is that farmers are being removed from the system. There is no guarantee that emissions, or livestock are being removed. All that is happening is that farming families are being removed. That is what we do not want to see.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The point I was also making was that we have not had reduction policies. In fact, food production has increased but so too has the number of farmers. That is the point that I would like the witnesses to address.
Mr. John Keane:
We recognise that food production has increased and we hope that it will continue to increase. It has increased through improved efficiencies and practices on farms. The output of a beef or a dairy farm now, per hectare, which is the standard unit as it was 40 years ago, is a lot higher based on the efficiencies, developments in research, better management and so forth that is ongoing on farms. That is a positive. Looking at the environmental side of things, the carbon footprint of those products is decreasing per unit all the time. A person goes into a shop and picks up a pound of butter or a kilo of beef, that is what they are eating. They are not eating the entire animal, the total emissions. They are eating that kilo of beef or drinking that litre of milk.
In terms of the maximum size of a farm, we have farmers who are farming on 10 ha, 20 ha, 40 ha and 100 ha but they are still family farms.
The family farm model is something we have to protect. Three or four generations can sustain a livelihood on that farm and we are saying we have to limit it to a scale that will not allow for different generations to exist on a farm. I hope that in ten years' time three generations will be actively farming on my farm. My father and I are currently there and I hope it could sustain three generations in the future. For that to work, the farm has to grow to sustain those people on the farm. I am not saying it has to get to an industrial scale like in Saudi Arabia or in America as that is not the model we have. The scale that supports the family farm is three generations and in some circumstances it is four. That is the reality across the country. The question is around how we ensure the scale of farming rewards those farmers on the different size farms and across the different enterprises. We were in front of this committee before the break in the summertime speaking about unfair trading practices in the market and trying to ensure an economic return for farmers. Those salient points still stand. The price farmers are receiving for their products must be commensurate with the cost of production and must return a reward for them. We have been very strong in our advocacy for that. If a point and a value can be created within the chain so that a farmer receives just reward for what he or she is doing, it will create an income for him or her.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This is a valuable debate because there are contradictions in probably what we all say. Mr. Keane quite rightly made the case that farming should not be restricted to the sons and daughters of existing farmers if it is to have a future. Every sector needs new people coming in. He spoke quite rightly about the fact that there are three and four generations being supported by individual farms. I also represent farmers where the farm is not supporting a single generation and that needs to be noted.
Then there is the issue referenced by Mr. Keane very early on in his opening statement. The phrase he used was that farmers were not subject to fluctuations that occur in the international commodities market. I wish that was the case. This is one of the big issues we are going to have to deal with. Even though we produce more food than we need, because of our current model and the fact we are restricted in the type of product we are producing, or the lack of diversity within our overall system, we are importing lots of feed which could be produced in Ireland. It would require some farmers who are producing one thing at the minute to move and shift. I note that when Mr. Keane spoke about diversification, and he referenced quite a number of potentials areas of diversification which I support in every case, there were very few which related to other types of food production. I refer to the list of areas he mentioned such as on-farm energy reduction, anaerobic digestion, agritourism, energy crops, and organic farming. Everyone remembers the mixed farming model of the Irish farm where there were some crops, a few cattle, possibly a few sheep, chickens in the back and all the rest. It is a fairy tale and we are not going back to that. Is Macra na Feirme of the view that there needs to be more of a mixed element on individual farms, if for no other reason than to protect farmers from the fluctuations that can occur in one particular market or another? I will leave that as my final question.
Mr. John Keane:
It is not a simple one to answer but we will do our best. The policy at an Irish level drove agriculture to where we are now. We had huge diversification 25 years ago and had industries in sugar beet and larger sectors in tillage and so forth. Policy drove specialisation and improvement and efficiencies, which returned and yielded for many farmers, but it reduced the variety operating on the farm. Our diversification models, which were referenced by the Deputy, speak to what diversification looks like from a policy and Government point of view. Diversification in terms of what we produce on a farm is a completely different story and is outlined in our opening statement as referring to opportunities outside of the standard farming practices be it tillage, dairy, beef, poultry or pigs. To bring that point back to where we started, where is the investment in those and where are we creating the opportunities for the sector to move forward? There was a question or a response in the Dáil Chamber during the week about accessing a biomethane fund at a European level for which we did not apply. I think we were one of two member states which did not apply for this. If committee members put themselves in our shoes they would hear diversification being spoken about by Government representatives but the investment not following what we are saying. If we are saying this is something we need to do, the funds need to follow and the investment needs to create the opportunity. There is a €3 million fund this year for a pilot scheme for research into anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion has been operating in Europe for 30 years. How much more research do we need to see on whether the technology is going to work or not in Ireland? We need investment for it to be implemented.
Regarding on-farm diversification, the security of supply for our basics, whether that is feed for livestock, forage, or necessary requirements in terms of what we import, is important. If we can supply and grow these in Ireland, all the better. That is something we should be driving forward and which Macra na Feirme would support. If it creates more opportunity, all the better. It has to be our model going forward.
As stated by some, there is no requirement for us to produce food but at the same time we should be looking at food production from a global food systems approach and not just in an individual country. Each country and area of the world should be producing food that is suitable for its climate and which it is able to grow in its climate. We are blessed in this country by what we can grow in our climate. Expecting us to grow avocados or to be able to grow sunflowers is not something that can be done. We can grow diversification on-farm and it is something we support. The alternative source incomes which we mentioned here in connection to diversification will require investment. Mr. Hanrahan will come in on this briefly.
Mr. Liam Hanrahan:
The first thing we could do, and what Macra na Feirme continues to do, is promote integration between farms. Getting the systems to work together would be the first step and then farmers could diversify into different sectors within their own farms quite easily. We have many policies and incentives on how to do that and on integrating land between dairy, beef, and tillage farmers, which we have put forward in submissions. It could be very easily done and be very workable. As Mr. Keane pointed out, we require investment for implementation and that is it. When we have investment and implementation, the next generation will allow diversification. Going back one step, ticking the boxes was mentioned. Young farmers actually want to tick more boxes in order to get more. The most important thing for us to outline here is that we are very much willing to work with what needs to be done and will tick more boxes for a little bit in return.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee again. They are probably here more often than some Deputies and Senators and it is good to have them back. I always greatly appreciate their contributions. They give an interesting perspective on farming that is somewhat at odds with some of the other farmer representation bodies and it is very good to hear it, particularly in relation to young farmers. It is laudable what they are looking for in trying to control the cost of leasing and land transfers. There are probably some Members of this House on the extreme left who will be very taken with their proposals but ultimately we live in a free market society and that is something that is going to be very hard to control. The witnesses have to appreciate that on any sides of these transactions, there are two people; one who wants to get his optimum price and another we need to facilitate and help get into farming. The statistics mention 30% of farmers in 2016 being over 65. They are all obviously over 70 now and make up one third of all farmers in the country.
As we get closer to 70 ourselves, we like to think these farmers are very active but at the same time, you would have to wonder how productive those farmers are. Looking at what Mr. Keane has presented, there are obviously some nuances. There is no issue in dairy, whereas it is really pronounced in sheep and cattle. Obviously, the SBCI offers an opportunity. As I have been listening to the witnesses, I think what we need is a regionalised approach or a scheme concentrating on those areas such as peatlands and some of the lands most adversely affected. The likes of Kilkenny does not need any incentives to get more people to farm, but the likes of Longford and Leitrim definitely do. That is where we need it. If we look at what Macra na Feirme wants to do in terms of integration and diversification, there is no lack of ambition. Of the 5% of the farmers who are under 35, none of them are full-time farmers. I would imagine most of them have an off-farm income, which brings in significantly more money than the farm and I am sure their wives would be indignant if they said they were going to go farming full-time. At the same time, it is critically important we protect the family farm and I admire what they are trying to do. Taking a geographic approach to this, is there anything Mr. Keane has seen in Europe that would work?
Mr. John Keane:
From a geographical point of view, we have not seen anything that specifically deals with a wide geographical or regional-based approach to generational renewal or getting more young people involved. In some localised areas we have seen tax incentives and investment savings offered for people to move into certain areas that have become depopulated, if that is what you want to call it, in order that these people support the local school and GAA club - or the local soccer club or whatever its equivalent on the Continent might be. We have seen those type of schemes work in general to encourage people to repopulate areas. I do not see why there could not be a tailored support for those areas where the age profile is higher and it would also mean there would be more inward investment in those rural communities because more young people would move in and children would be in school and so forth. I do not see there being an issue there. It is something we would have to think more about in terms of how something could be designed for the implementation of it. The overarching point on a national perspective is we need to start with a suite of measures that work at a national level and then look at regional measures to be made in coherence with that or running alongside it, which will be sometimes be sector-specific. In some areas, there is one predominant sector. It could be beef or sheep that are predominant enterprises in certain areas. What can we do to address the challenges for young people? We feel we have identified and addressed many of those in terms of land access, finance and capital investment support to ensure that people have a lifestyle that is comparable with that of their peers.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Hanrahan mentioned integration and producing energy. What has he seen in Europe that could be replicated here?
Mr. Liam Hanrahan:
As already mentioned, there is no doubt but that there is a greater uptake of the likes of solar panels and anaerobic digestion in Europe. From an integration point of view, my point on integration was in terms of working with tillage and beef farmers in terms of buying and selling rations and stock.
Going back to the Deputy's point about land availability, our policies are about encouragement as opposed to control, or that is what we would like to think anyway. Regarding geographical areas and spread, I am from west Clare and we are farming there. A proposal could be put forward to ensure we got a higher rate in TAMS, as one of those geographical areas with a lower population. Introducing a higher TAMS threshold would be something to do, at 80% or €120,000.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I take Mr. Keane's point that anaerobic digestion has been researched to death in Europe but as part of the just transition, Longford County Council has got a significant sum of money to research a large anaerobic digester facility on the site of the old power station. Surely this is an opportunity to go to work with farmers and do an integration model there? Are the representatives from Macra na Feirme aware of that or have they had any input into the Longford model?
Mr. John Keane:
I am aware of it and of a number of other research pieces that are ongoing in other parts of the country on a smaller scale.
To take the first question addressed to Mr. Hanrahan on integration at an EU level, it probably links back to this point again. Our European partners through the European Council of Young Farmers, CEJA, could have, on a specialised beef or a dairy farm, three of four sources of income coming onto that farm. This income could come from supplying an anaerobic digester, solar panels feeding the grid, the creation of wind energy and from their main - if you want to call it that - enterprise of beef or dairy farming. That is what integration looks like to us. The anaerobic digester is an opportunity for farmers to be able to get an alternative source of income. As far back as 2010, none of three of us were involved in Macra na Feirme at that stage so we cannot take any credit for it.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Fitzmaurice was.
Mr. John Keane:
He was doing the green certificate at that stage.
We had a proposal in around anaerobic digestion and its integration into agriculture and agrifood systems so we have been a long-proponent of it; particularly in areas where farming can be challenging or a large amount of farms that are either vulnerable or unenviable as classified by national farm survey. This offers them an opportunity to be able to supply into these facilities. The realisation must also dawn and what we have seen on the Continent, is that for one of these digesters to work efficiently and effectively and to have a value for the owner as well as for the farmer, there is no point in leaving a field go at the end of August and not cutting it again until the following June. It is not getting the raw materials and energy that will give a good value and return from it. On the Continent they are feeding whole crops, the likes of grain, maize, high-quality silage and grass into the digesters as well as digestate, slurry and other materials. The digester needs a quality feed going into it. You need to be able to grow that to be able to supply it.
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If the Chair will indulge me I have one last question.
I am sure our guests have seen the practice in France where companies are approaching farmers who say they want a new slatted shed. The company builds the shed, takes the solar income from it and the farmer does not have to pay anything to build the shed. After 20 years, the farmer gets the solar income as well. Does Mr. Keane see a model like that working in here?
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is right. Assuming we resolve the TAMS issues, can Mr. Keane see that working?
Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
For 20 years, yes.
Mr. John Keane:
I am aware of a project in Roscommon at present where approximately 18 acres of land are being let on a long-term lease from a farmer to a solar company, which sells the electricity back into the grid. That is something which is new and I do not know how many incidences of it there are. Currently, there are a small number of incidences where a farmer is receiving a reward for his or her land and the company also receives a return. That is something which is happening. We would prefer if that could be seen on a scale that is not soil stealing so that it is not removing land from being productive but we recognise it can offer an income.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I acknowledge the contribution of the representatives from Macra na Feirme, not only here in the committee but in society over the past 60 years in particular. There is a very interesting last paragraph in their opening statement, where they say the status quois not an option. That kind of sums it up in one phrase. It is a really fair line. In many ways, there is a conflict between the young active farmer who is working the land at the moment and the potentially older farmer and where he is regarding the circle. The contribution from the representatives is very valuable and it is important we take it on board. I appreciate issues did not go their way, particularly in the last CAP. That has to be acknowledged.
The stamp duty issue is one I continuously go back to. Stamp duty relief for the head of the farm holding kicks in while the farmer is below 35 years of age. This is no reflection on our parents but there is a cohort of people who will transfer the land on the last day of a person being 34 years of age. Receiving their family landholding at the age of 35 is a major impediment to the young farming community getting involved at an active age. I realise there is an income issue here. Mr. Keane mentioned a farm that had one income running a household and with a father and son running a farm, potentially you need two incomes coming out of the same holding, which is an issue . What does Mr. Keane believe the current stamp duty threshold should be set at?
Should it be 35, 40 or something brave and go down to 28?
Mr. John Keane:
I thank the Deputy for the question. It is a difficult one to answer. From our perspective, the arbitrary figure of 35 is probably reflective of some of the age categories who are farming. We are young farmers and, as has been commented on, we have the ambition to change the world in this document and what we want, rightly, to see happen. We also have to be cognisant of the people who have gone before us and that we have inherited a system of agriculture that, when compared with the rest of the world, means we are very fortunate to be where we are. From speaking to older farmers, one of the biggest impediments is financial security, and that is the number one issue that comes back. What am I going to have if I give up the farm now and my son or daughter takes over? We recognise that 35 or 34 years, 11 months and 30 days can be the deadline people are aiming for, but addressing the problem at source is probably a better way of going about it than changing the arbitrary figure. In reality, someone could still be 55 and their son or daughter 30. Fifty-five is a very young age for people to be thinking about retiring. There should be a pathway for succession and partnerships, and we recognise partnerships are there.
The solution is providing a succession scheme that offers a realistic income for older farmers to step back and has supports for a young person to come forward. We will send on to the committee the succession scheme we recently proposed to a number of the Food Vision groups. I apologise for not attaching it to the end of the document. That scheme includes a recognition of a farmer's working time of about 40 hours a week, a payment at minimum wage, and the incentives we have spoken about for younger farmers around investment support, TAMS and low-cost finance through the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI. Those are measures young farmers can use to start off. There is a double side - support for the older and younger farmers. That is the best approach. There is also the benefit of experience still being at play on the farm. We think we know it all as young farmers, that we are brilliant and fair play to us, but the reality is we lack life experience and the experience of changes in the environment and changes as time goes on. On that benefit of experience, I know from my own experience that having the ear of my dad at home to listen to and get advice from can be valuable for making mistakes and so forth. That is something we cannot discount either. Older farmers still have a huge role to play, and simply writing them off is not fair either.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Land access is the key issue in many farming circles. The price of land and where it is going was mentioned. Has the mobility service, where land can be moved on a lease or partnership basis, worked over the past decade since it was rolled out? What will be the approach over the next five to ten years, taking into consideration the older profile of the farmer?
Mr. John Keane:
The land mobility service is a pilot scheme Macra na Feirme started in 2015. To date, about 60,000 acres have been facilitated and transferred through that service. It is a regional service because it is supported by private enterprise. FBD supports the programme to be rolled out in many of our co-operatives such as dairy co-operatives. There is a sum from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine for the delivery of that service, which has been €50,000 annually and will be €100,000 this year, should it come through. The regionalised approach has a high effect in many areas where it is regionally based but we do not have it on a national scale. It is successful; it has been proven. It links older farmers with younger farmers and farmers who have no access to land, as Deputy Carthy mentioned earlier. That is one of our big things as well, that somebody who does not come from a farming background can start farming. We have that through the land mobility service. We had a request and submission into the CAP for long-term funding for the land mobility service. It was called out in the European Commission's document as a model that European countries could follow for facilitating land mobility. Our Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine chose not to include it in our CAP strategic plan. That was a glaring omission from our side of things in terms of supporting land mobility.
What needs to be done for that service to be nationally successful and to continue to work as effectively as it has is the provision of funding from the Department to grow it. We have a request in for the Department and the Minister to double that funding in the short term, to grow the funding over the next few years and beyond, and to create a link with Teagasc so that we can secure its future going forward and embed it.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Macra na Feirme is more than a farming organisation. Their membership is quite spread out. Will Mr. Keane share his thoughts about rural Ireland and where he believes that dynamic of re-energising rural Ireland needs to be brought into it? The membership is not just based in farming. As mentioned in previous contributions, it is about making sure that even small businesses that might have a rural edge would receive low-cost funding. Where does Macra na Feirme believe that is going to play the vital role regarding re-energising rural Ireland?
Mr. John Keane:
I will ask Mr. Curran to come in also. Some 64% or 65% of our membership are non-farming now; 33% are actively farming. Many of them come from farming backgrounds and 49% of our membership are female. We have many members involved in business in rural Ireland. The committee may have seen the proposals specifically for agriculture and reduction schemes this week. We have costed that at about €1 billion that will be lost in circulation in the rural economy. That is based on a figure mentioned to the effect that if 100,000 cows are taken out of the system, with 5,500 litres from each cow multiplied by the price of milk, that is about €250 million in direct income to farmers. Research also suggests that every euro that goes into a farmer's pocket recirculates in the rural economy between three and four times. That is €1 billion. Farming is important for the fabric of rural Ireland. We mentioned the importance of schools and sustaining them. We cannot overstate how important sustaining rural Ireland is, not just for our organisation and others. Young people are the very fabric of what happens in every village and community throughout the country, ensuring people are in schools, involved in the GAA and sustaining those communities.
Mr. Michael Curran:
I thank the Senator for his questions. Mr. Keane is right; we are a rural youth organisation. We are agri-focused because one third of our members are active farmers. We need to see rural Ireland being sustainable because the cohort we represent are the young people populating rural Ireland. The word "sustain" has been hijacked by many people and it is being used incorrectly. Sustainable, from our perspective, means it is capable of regenerating itself. That is why the family farm is so important, as Deputy Carthy mentioned. If we go towards massive industrial-sized agriculture like in Saudi Arabia, the US and South America, we are reducing the number of people working on farms because of the economies of scale. It will be about extracting the most production out of the most land and, with respect, to hell with everything else.
We come at this from a societal perspective. We are still a rural society in this country. We have a grá for the land that we cannot and should not leave. We all come from the land. You do not have to go back too many generations to see that. Looking around this room, I know I am speaking to people who understand exactly what I am saying and that the committee gets it. If we were to leave farming as it is going and continue to exclude young farmers from coming into the industry, we are not far away from 30% aged over 70 at this stage and we are four years away from that becoming 30% over 75. I know 70 is the new 60 and 60 the new 50 etc., but there has to be reason to this. From a societal perspective, unless we support young farmers, who are the centre of rural Ireland, to come into the industry, we are going to see rural Ireland die. On whose watch will that be, is the only question I have.
Mr. Liam Hanrahan:
This is one of reasons we have to be careful about the EU restoration plan and its implementation. We will take the west of Ireland, for example, which is not very heavily populated. We want to re-energise rural Ireland. If we go down the route of rewetting and reduction, that is going to happen in places where it is slightly more challenging to farm, which is more than likely the west of Ireland. There are certain cases where rewetting and restoration work. It is in very localised areas where you work with people. The implementation of the plan is the crucial part. It can work where it is done properly with proper consultation with local people and in terms of re-energising, bringing more people back to rural areas and generating different sorts of diversity, which generates more interest from a tourism point of view.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is one document with eight pages. We are in a room full of men with one woman. There is no real acknowledgement of where Macra na Feirme believes females are going to play a really important role in agriculture. The membership of Macra na Feirme at this stage is only 50:50, I would say. A wonderful document was put before us. The role they will play is a very significant role. What does Macra na Feirme believe should be done to make sure that can be strengthened? We have heard talk about having special TAMS and so on, but realistically we need to go a lot further if we are going to break down the barriers for women in agriculture. Where does Macra na Feirme believe we can progress to make sure we break those barriers down? It is not in the document.
Mr. John Keane:
As the spokesperson for an organisation with an almost 50:50 membership, all of the comments we make before the committee this evening are to try to get young people in and getting people onto farms. I think 12.5% of herd owners in the country are female while 5% are under the age of 35, and I think that figure is even smaller for women in agriculture. Where that needs to start is at the kitchen table. The idea that the son or grandson or whoever might be the person automatically assumed to take over is where the first part of the conversation needs to start. We need to create the narrative at home as much as anywhere else that we have equal opportunities for our sons or daughters coming after us.
The second piece is around education, ensuring that we are encouraging more young women into agricultural education and providing opportunities for them to take on those opportunities more widely in agriculture. The membership of our agricultural affairs committee is nearly half and half. Our young women representatives on that are constantly coming forward and saying, "Address the barriers that are there for young farmers and more of us will come through. Break down the barriers to young people and more of us young people and young women will see the opportunity that it creates in the sector".
On supports, improved access to TAMS is something we hope will improve the number of young females in the sector. Developing role models in the sector is also important. It does not matter what farming enterprise you are in or what gender you are, the more young role models in the sector, the more opportunities are provided for somebody to say, "I want to be like that. That is something I can pursue", alongside those supports. It is about the young people. Provide the support for the young people. If you have an organisation with 50:50 male and female members and there are more young women coming into it, provide them with the opportunity to take on the roles and they will take them on.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for participating in today's meeting. The committee looks forward to continuing to work with Macra na Feirme in the future. The witnesses put forward a very thoughtful and insightful presentation. We will suspend to allow the witnesses to leave before commencing the final session.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I apologise for keeping the witnesses waiting. The last session ran over. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and they may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside the proceedings held by the committee, of any matter arising from the proceedings.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in this committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurances in the context of participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts. Members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.
From Veterinary Ireland, I welcome Mr. Finbarr Murphy, chief executive, Ms Kate O'Dwyer, food animal chair, and Mr. Conor Geraghty, past president. I now invite them to make their opening statement.
Mr. Finbarr Murphy:
I thank the Chair and members of the committee. We welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee today to contribute to discussions it is having with stakeholders as part of its pre-legislative scrutiny of the veterinary medicinal products, medicated feed and fertilisers regulation Bill 2022. Veterinary Ireland is the representative body for the veterinary profession in Ireland. There are approximately 1,000 private veterinary practitioners, PVPs, engaged in farm animal veterinary practice who play a key role in the Irish agrifood industry.
Veterinary practitioners are the gatekeepers of animal health and animal welfare and, more pertinently, act as the gatekeepers in the supply of prescription only medicines, POMs. This committee has heard sales of antimicrobial intramammary products through co-ops, merchants and pharmacies have fallen by a catastrophic 90% since January 2022 as a result of the cessation of Schedule 8 of the Animal Remedies Regulations 2007, which have been repealed. Veterinary Ireland has access to the distribution data and will correct the record and outline the benefit that has been realised primarily to farmers but also to human health.
Since January 2022, the prescribing of intramammary antimicrobials has reduced by 25.3% and the prescribing of lactating cow intramammary antimicrobials has reduced by 6.5%. This not only represents a prudent reduction in antibiotics but represents a saving to Irish farmers of approximately €3.4 million in the first nine months of 2022. The sales of intramammary antibiotics containing highest priority critically important antibiotics, HPCIAs, have reduced massively. Cephaguard DC is down 73% and Cobactan LC is down 77%. The sales of critically important antibiotics in injectable form, for example, Marbocyl, have also seen a collapse anecdotally. Antiparasitic medicinal products have been designated as POM in Europe since 2007. Ireland availed of a derogation from 2007 to 2019 to allow these products to be sold over the counter under the licensed merchant, LM, category. The dispensing of these products is done by responsible persons, RPs, who are required to take a short level 6 course in handling, storage and dispensing of these products. This category of product has never been prescribed in Ireland. Any farmer or animal owner can purchase his or her product of choice over the counter in a store, pharmacy, or online shop.
The issue of antiparasitic resistance is a worldwide phenomenon and is both a public health issue and a serious issue for the agrifood industry in Ireland. Farming livestock on grazing systems is only possible where parasitic disease can be managed effectively. A study by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in 2016 outlined that 56% of worming interventions in sheep were not effective. Kelleher et alin 2017 found extremely high levels of resistance to all groups of wormers in cattle. The Veterinary Recordrecently published a report about a case of high mortality on a dairy farm in Wales where adult cows died due to inability to treat lungworm infections due to resistance. In order to address the issue of resistance we must ensure the right product is given to the right animals at the right time; that refugia is maintained through selective, targeted treatments; and that parasite control becomes a planned farm-specific procedure. The gateway to this outcome is through proper, scientific, farm-specific veterinary advice from the farmer's vet where a client practice patient relationship, CPPR, is in existence. This advice must be ongoing and monitored, take account of farm specific issues such as epidemiology, pharmacology, the clinical picture, stocking densities, buying policy and local factors. Once the farmer has a prescription for when to treat, what animals to treat and with what active ingredient, the farmer can fill the prescription from any legitimate channel in Ireland or across the EU.
The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has proposed the national veterinary prescription system, NVPS, one of the aims of which is to make it as easy as possible for farmers to fill their prescriptions at their outlet of choice. Veterinary Ireland believes this development increases competition rather than diminishes it. Veterinary medicine is a restricted profession governed by the Veterinary Practice Act 2005. Only a registered veterinary practitioner can perform acts of veterinary medicine and it is illegal for others to do so. This is not anti-competitive. It is the law. Acts of veterinary medicine are very few in reality and include: diagnosis of disease and advising on disease control; prescribing veterinary medicinal products; performing surgery on animals, with certain named exemptions; and veterinary certification.
The down side of being in this seemingly privileged position is that PVPs must adhere to the rules of the Veterinary Council of Ireland, VCI, and their code of professional conduct. Failure to do so may result in a fitness to practice investigation which is the equivalent of High Court proceedings. Defending oneself in a fitness to practice investigation is particularly onerous both mentally and financially with very few having the resources to avail of their constitutional right to appeal as it is through the High Court. Only vets are subject to VCI rules. Any other actors in the field cannot be held to account by VCI. The thrust of this legislation is that all the responsibility rests with the prescribing vet.
The majority of antiparasitic medicinal products were classified as LM and therefore have never been prescribed in Ireland. The NVPS was born out of a desire to fulfil two requirements of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, namely, to comply with the obligation under Article 57 on member states to collect data on the use of antimicrobial products per species; to satisfy co-ops, merchants, and pharmacists that veterinary prescriptions would be readily available; and to allow seamless dispensing to farmers and essentially level the playing field for dispensing. The NVPS as proposed brings many more significant benefits to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, including providing evidence for improving national animal health and welfare policies; maintaining a competitive veterinary medicinal product, VMP, dispensing market; providing digital capability for distance selling; improving regulatory oversight of VMP usage and supply; and increasing international confidence in Irish food production. There is no requirement to write prescriptions electronically in Regulation 2019/6 or Regulation 2019/4. The obligation is on the member state to collect macro sales data and usage data at farm level. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, by way of derogation, has unilaterally decided to collect prescription data as a proxy for usage data. It has decided to put the NVPS into primary legislation to force PVPs to either use it or retire from practice as opposed to the normal method of consultation and agreement with Veterinary Ireland to ensure the system was fit for use and to ensure unwarranted collection of data was not placing an undue burden on already stretched PVPs. PVPs need assurances on how this data will be used, who might be able to access this data and that further additional requirements will not be thrust upon PVPs annually as was the case with the animal health computer system, AHCS.
Veterinary Ireland and the veterinary profession are proud of the key role PVPs play in the agrifood industry. Veterinary Ireland believes that PVPs will rise to the challenges posed by the implementation of the regulation in order to protect human health; animal health and welfare; the efficacy of veterinary medicinal products; and the reputation of the Irish agrifood industry. We ask this committee to ensure the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine engages with Veterinary Ireland to ensure a smooth and agreed integration of NVPS into veterinary practices that minimises the impact on the running of veterinary practices; enables PVPs to provide the clinical services required by the agrifood industry; and reduces the use of veterinary medicinal products prudently in compliance with the regulation.
I thank the Chair. We are happy to answer any questions.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Murphy. He said in his opening statement that Veterinary Ireland desires to reduce the use and to make it clear that PVPs must be specific that when they use a product, it is needed. How can it marry that with the idea of a 12 month prescription?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
I will answer that Chair. Originally in the discussion with the antiparasitic resistance stakeholder group and the Veterinary Council of Ireland, we advocated that 12 months was too long for a prescription, which is universally accepted. Something cannot be prescribed safely or ethically for 364 days' time. The compromise that the council and the Department came up with was "up to" 12 months prescription as was highlighted at this committee last week or the week before. The code of professional conduct states up to 12 months, but the onus is on us to justify anything we prescribe. The proposed legislation also states up to 12 months. In reality what we are talking about here with antiparasitic products specifically is that when a farmer and a PVP get together, such as in the parasite control targeted advisory service on animal health, TASAH, which is ongoing, they will come up with a general plan of what they will do to minimise use, to use more targeted treatments and maintain refugia which is the key element in reducing resistance on farms. Outside of that, there is ongoing contact, both formal and informal. Where farmers are working with their vets, there is ongoing contact. You may have a plan but you will often get a phone call from someone asking, "What will I do now or will I do it now?" or saying, "I have the fecal egg count results or the cattle are not thriving" or asking, "Should I bring in a sample as there is evidence of diarrhea?" That goes on all the time. That is the way it will work in practice. The up to 12 months timeframe was probably included to satisfy other stakeholders rather than the reality of what will happen on the ground.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes but surely the objective of the Bill to reduce the use of products-----
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A 12 month prescription of a foolscap page of the products a farmer might want over 12 months does not make sense.
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
No vet that is answerable to the Veterinary Council could write a prescription of a foolscap page of products for a farmer and expect to defend it. It is more likely a vet will prescribe at intervals. That is the way I do it with my clients because a vet cannot predict in January, for instance, what kind of summer we will have. For example, last January we may have predicted that we would fluke dose in autumn but many farms in my practice do not need a fluke dose this autumn.
That is the reality.
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a few questions. I will start with the matter Mr. Geraghty has just been speaking about. He said the objective of the regulations is to reduce the use of these antiparasitic products. Does he believe that he is best qualified to ensure that happens?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
The idea of reducing the use is over-simplified. It will probably end up in a reduction of use as has already happened with antibiotics. The idea is that they should be used prudently and where needed while maintaining refugia and to step away from the old-fashioned practice of blanket treatment by date, where the entire cohort is treated every three, six or nine weeks depending on the product and we end up selecting for resistant parasites on the pastures. Dealing with cattle is slightly different from dealing with sheep. For example, with sheep we maintain refugia by leaving a group of the animals undosed. With cattle it is more about ensuring the pasture has a broad mix of worms and we are able to kill some of the worms on the pastures. That means delaying the dose until the right time.
As to the Deputy's question as to who is best-placed to determine when that is, there is no doubt that many local factors are at play. As vets, we know it is farm-specific. Not all farms are the same. There is an epidemiological element, a stocking rate element, buying policy and it depends on the way the paddocks are grazed. Individual farms have individual needs.
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Did Mr. Geraghty not say or did someone not say last week that the investigation of stools and so forth would give a vet plenty of information to determine the need?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
It will not on its own because parasitic diseases can be prepatent. Checking fecal egg counts is quite useful for managing roundworms but the issue of pasture contamination is not solved by individual fecal egg counts. For example, if we apply a threshold of 200 eggs per gram and dose above that, if the stocking rate of one farm is twice that of its neighbour, those 200 eggs per gram on twice the number of cattle per acre will contaminate the pasture much faster. The invention needs to be earlier in that case. It depends on how tight the grazing is, whether the farm is using a leader or follower system and so forth. It is not as simple as counting the eggs and then dosing. It does not work that way.
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Veterinary Ireland an all-Ireland entity?
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Has it had any issue with RPs dispensing antiparasitics in the past?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
Not in dispensing antiparasitics because we still have 450 odd RPs working in veterinary practices. They were dispensing antiparasitics, which were non-prescription products, for us as well as for merchants, co-ops, etc. Those were the rules. People who wanted to dispense them had to do the course to be trained in handling and dispensing.
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Geraghty believe that if they are not to be used under the new regulation, that is an error?
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Geraghty agree with that?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
It is advantageous for the Irish agrifood industry and for human health because we have a situation where more and more resistance is cropping up. In certain instances farmers are running into trouble with production levels because they cannot control parasitic disease. It is time to grab the bull by the horns.
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Geraghty states that it has been an issue for RPs in recent times to have the responsibility they have and they have not dispensed properly.
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is it not possible for the RPs to be adequately trained and upgrade their training to be in a position to meet with the sentiment Mr. Geraghty has expressed?
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes.
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As they did in the past.
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not recall any evidence of any complaints being made about the work they were doing.
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
In the past, if I, as a farmer, wanted to buy a can of dosing, a bottle of Ivomec or whatever, I could. I would choose it and pick it up or I could buy it online. Essentially the farmer was prescribing because there was no prescribing. The farmer picked his or her choice of product and it was dispensed. They were told how to handle it safely and what the withdrawal periods were by the RP. What is now proposed is that farmers will no longer choose. They will have a discussion with their vets about the best product and strategy, how to use the product, the group of animals to use it on, when and under what conditions. Then the vet will write a prescription which is essentially an instruction of what dose to use and when.
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will the product be available with the vet as always?
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Geraghty recognise the difficulty for licensed commercial traders who will lose business as a result of this regulation?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
We recognised the difficulty at the outset. We feel that the Department's suggestion to set up an NVPS - an instant online system that goes straight to the cloud and the farmer receives a text with a number - provides farmers with a high level of choice that they did not have before, not only for antiparasitic products, but also for other products. Those prescriptions can be filled by any legitimate outlet, not only in Ireland but within the EU. From a veterinary point of view, we see this as additional, rather than less, competition.
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I see the opposite as it relates to antiparasitics especially. I have considered the background and the manner in which this has been discussed, debated, analysed and the ultimate legislation required to enact it. The initial opinion of the Attorney General has been reconsidered in light of new information in the form of a legal opinion furnished to the Department. I have considered it coldly and objectively from afar. I note that 800 vets are employed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, but no RPs or pharmacists and that the expert group set up by the Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, to investigate and advise on this issue did not include any merchants or farming organisation but five of the seven members were vets. It is heavily weighted in favour of vets.
Northern Ireland is continuing as it was. We are interested in and espouse an all-Ireland and an all-island economy that we committed to in the Good Friday Agreement and there are synergies in many aspects of governance, including agriculture. It is imperative that our product becomes one in order to sell it across the world and the protocol provides for that and now we have a difference on this issue. We hoped they would be able to come together to reach a satisfactory resolution, one which does not impact on commercial outlets and the farmers who are dependent on their expertise. If it is the case that Veterinary Ireland believes that RPs need continuous upgrading to meet the demands that are imperative under this regulation, that should be the road to follow. Mr. Geraghty does agree with that and that is where we are at odds.
It is the responsibility of the committee to assess his views and expertise as they relate to the regulation, to talk to other stakeholders and to make a recommendation to the Government. As it stands and as the preparations are raging ahead by the Department, there is no agreement. Where there is no agreement, it is a difficult situation and everyone suffers. We do not want that to be the case. We hope that some effort will be made, even at this late stage, to create the sort of synergies we want to see across this island, across Ireland, and to be in a position where we recognise the status quocannot continue, but the RPs are adequately trained and their training is reviewed on a regular basis. Everyone can have their tuppence worth but only when people who are impacted by this are also represented and can make recommendations to us. They are not at present and it is causing the sort of conflict we have. I know that it is an opinion and Mr. Geraghty has his.
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
It is.
The reality is that to prescribe is an act of veterinary medicine and is governed by the Veterinary Council of Ireland. A lot of responsibility is being put on vets in this regulation and Bill. As long as they are prescription products, we do not see how anybody other than a vet could prescribe them because we are the only ones entitled by law to prescribe in this country and the only ones who are accountable. We have to reach a higher bar than everyone else.
Regarding the competition, I believe farmers will continue to use their outlet of choice. Farmers are a lot more tech savvy in 2022 than they were ten years ago. They get bovine viral diarrhea, BVD, results to their phones and can work text messages. Every farmer with beef cattle has to have a mobile number to get their BVD results back. They will know they can fill that wherever they want. The key difference in antiparasitic treatments going forward, if it works out the way it is supposed to work out, is that there will be planned, targeted treatments rather than somebody running to the nearest outlet on a Saturday morning to grab a bottle of X, Y or Z.
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Geraghty has stated that twice and I think the farmer and the trader are a bit more responsible than that. They have obligations and responsibilities they have to take seriously, and I do not doubt they have done so in the past and can, should and will in the future. Mr. Geraghty is here to give his opinion, expertise, input and viewpoint and to protect his own profession and ensure its professionalism is of the utmost. We are not the experts but we are charged as legislators with responsibility to take on board all information from all sides from all stakeholders and to make a recommendation thereafter. There is nothing wrong with the fact we do not agree with Mr. Geraghty. That is life, democracy and the way it works.
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Northern Ireland can have it both ways but, unfortunately, a lot of them do not see that. The beauty of the situation they find themselves in relation to the protocol and the alignment to the UK and to the EU-----
Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are, and we are subject to our Attorney General interpreting that regulation and applying it thereafter. That is for review it is not set in stone. It may have been initially, but based on consultations we had with the Department officials last week or the week before, there is a new way of looking at that based on the information that has been brought to bear. We await their decision and would be in a far better position to talk to Mr. Murphy if we had that decision but we do not. We have to respect the process by which it will be investigated and await its conclusion.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will follow up on some points Deputy Cowen was pursuing. The first is to comment that the North is in line with EU regulations and is compliant with EU veterinary medical products regulations because they avail of the derogation contained within those because their equivalent of responsible persons have had the historical right to prescribe and, therefore, it fits in. The difficulty is that we in this State did not do that when the British put in place the system whereby responsible persons are prescribing. I have heard nothing to suggest that was anything other than either an oversight on the part of the Department or a belief within the Department that the role carried out by the responsible persons in pharmacists, licensed merchants, co-operatives and in veterinary practices was akin to prescribing. I believe it was the latter and that it was an expectation on the part of the Irish authorities that the derogation would apply. That is a matter of conjecture and opinion at this point.
Do witnesses believe the interpretation of this new legislation will lead to a divergence in the level of antiparasitic resistance North and South? As the North will be operating on the basis that responsible persons will be prescribing and dispensing, as has always been the case, and the South will not, the witnesses must look forward to being vindicated because we will see the evidence of that very quickly. Is that not fair to say?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That would be the implication of the witnesses' evidence.
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
We would hope so in the long term. It is not a quick fix. Once resistance is there, it takes quite a while to repopulate farms with worms that are susceptible to various families of drugs, and we have seen multi-drug resistant studies in Ireland. It occurs quite quickly because we availed of the derogation in 2007 because there was not enough reported resistance in Ireland. We have seen in the intervening years of 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, and every day in practice, where animals are treated with a wormer, it does not work, they become clinically ill or there are losses due to subclinical disease or poor weight gains. It is not something that will turn around in 2023 or 2024-----
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am conscious of the time and that other members need to come in, so may I ask what Mr. Geraghty expects to be the overall reduction in percentage terms in the sale of the products that would fall under this regulation once it is brought in? For instance where we were last year in percentage terms compared with where we may be next year
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Geraghty think it would be greater than 20%?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Geraghty believe that will happen from day one?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
I do not think it will be from day one because people are invested in it and we were all told in college and the in early years that blanket dry cow therapy was the way to sort out somatic cell counts in cows. Over the past four or five years we have had to readjust that advice. First, it has to be readjusted for the professionals and then the message has to be got out to farmers, and it is working. However, it takes a few years. I would say that over the next two to three years there will be a 20% reduction.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In terms of products that have already been regulated from the beginning of this year, would Mr. Geraghty have evidence that sales have reduced by about 20%?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Mr. Geraghty have those data?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would he share them with the committee?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Mr. Geraghty.
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
It is only on intramammaries and antimicrobials, which are split into two groups: dry cow therapy and lactating cow therapy. It is split two ways, the moving annual total from 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022, and year to date, which is 1 January until the end of September. In the case of the moving annual total, taking into account any seasonality issues, the entire market, which includes dry cow and lactating cow, is down 19.7%. Dry cow is down 25.3% and lactating cow is down 6.5%. Everybody is down and this is the key thing-----
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is between 6% and 24%. Is that correct?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. Mr. Geraghty referenced the evidence given by the representatives of the three other sectors and each in turn gave figures of between 60% and 90% in respect of their sales of these products. That would suggest Mr. Geraghty's members have sold more proportionally than they would have done previously.
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
No, we did not, actually. One sector sold slightly more but our sector was down 9.4% for dry cow tubes and up 0.3% for milking cow tubes, which is very little and basically static. That is the moving annual total.
In the year to date, we are down 2.5% in lactating cow tubes and down 6.6% in dry cow tubes.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Geraghty has indicated he will share that data with the committee which will be very helpful in moving forward with pre-legislative scrutiny. In response to a previous question, he mentioned the online or e-prescription model the Department has been flaunting. I note that in the past, he raised concerns about the national veterinary prescription system, NVPS. In fact, I think he said in April that he could not recommend it to his members. Has his position changed on that?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
Our position is that these or similar systems where vets prescribe electronically have been in place for many years and some are slicker than others for the want of a better word. The key part to any system like that is that it has to be easy, quick, and repeatable so that it is not overly onerous on vets to do it at the side of a crush, where they are supposed to do it. There are two elements to this. For instance, writing prescriptions for antiparasitics would be preplanned and done at intervals. Some 99% of the prescriptions we write are at the side of a cow in a crush in all sorts of the weather or in the middle of the night, so it has to be quick and easy or people will not engage with it. If people have a list of calls in front of them in the middle of spring, they have to be able to do it easily.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Mr. Geraghty suggesting the NVPS is not quick and easy?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
It is not easy enough. When we looked at the first unveiling of the prototype - it was only a prototype, to be fair, and I am sure it is improving all the time - it took more than 50 clicks to do a standard prescription, which was way too long. We looked at the commercial software we were using and we went to the people involved. They said they could interact with NVPS and that we would not have to change or get rid of our systems. We now believe that if practices are in any way busy, that is the road they will have to go down. They will have to get third party commercial software to be able to do this quickly and easily.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would vets have their own software that would then interact with the Department's software?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay. What percentage of vets would currently use e-prescription technology?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It was 15%.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I read that Mr. Geraghty indicated in Agrilandor somewhere that if the issues pertaining to the NVPS were not addressed, they would be in full dispute, which I think is the term he used. What would that look like or is that still-----
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
It would have looked like a dispute at the time but we will not get the opportunity now because it is going into primary legislation. We will be breaking the law if we do not engage with it. Our view is that we have been bullied into this and that we need proper engagement to ensure it runs smoothly.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We have legislation that nobody is happy with.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have to say the Department is doing a good job of managing to wind up everybody involved in this process.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have never seen something so universally unpopular, where every stakeholder is unhappy with it.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have one other question. The Department claims that every individual who is prescribing will be able to get generic or replica products, for the want of a better term. Is generic products the correct term?
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If a vet is to prescribe a particular-----
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does the e-prescription system currently being used by Mr. Geraghty's members allow for that?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
Yes. It is envisaged that the prescription is the prescription but once it lands with the dispenser, they have the option to substitute it from a database. That is my understanding of what has been proposed. It is not up to us to make the decision; it is up to the dispenser. They will have a list of comparable products they can substitute instead of that product.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Mr. Geraghty satisfied that the legislation as it is described will allow that to-----
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
We have not seen the list. There are only a few instances where this may be unsuitable. For example, there might be a farmer who wants to use pour-on ivermectin for lungworm in coughing cows, such as in a case a few weeks ago where the farmer wanted to use a particular product because he had rheumatoid arthritis and he found the neck of this bottle was easier to manage and he could use it with his left hand and not have to use his sore hand. Therefore, he wanted that one. He would be able to communicate that to a dispenser and ensure he got it. I have not seen anything from the Department but it is my understanding from discussions at the antiparasitic working group that it would compile a database of products that were equal and licensed. There would be an anomaly with dairy cows as some stuff is licensed and some is not.
Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have a further broad question as it has come up at other meetings and it is fair we put the question to Mr. Geraghty even though I suspect I know the answer. People who do not know the sector are surprised to learn that vets prescribe and dispense, often in the exact same location at the same time. It would not be tolerated in human health on an ongoing basis. A number of discussions have centred on the notion of decoupling which takes place in other European countries where the vet is akin to the doctor and people would go elsewhere, as a way of avoiding further antiparasitic and antimicrobial resistance. What is Mr. Geraghty's view on that and does he have concerns that a rouge or incompetent vet would be incentivised to potentially over-prescribe because they are also selling the product they are prescribing? Every sector will have people of that nature. Does Mr. Geraghty have a view on the notion of decoupling?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
As regards over-prescribing, we have seen evidence that is not going on. Since January we have had full control of intramammary prescriptions and the opposite has been the case. The vast majority of vets take their ethical duties and responsibilities to the Veterinary Council very seriously because there is a serious penalty. If one ends up in front of the Veterinary Council, one is talking about four years of High Court proceedings. It is a legal matter and we have helped and supported people during that process but the reality is that if it goes against them, an ordinary family business cannot go to the High Court for an appeal, which seems wrong because everyone is entitled to appeal.
The number of complaints against vets in Ireland is tiny. The number of complaints against vets involved in farm animal practice are in single digits every year. We do not have many rogue vets, so I will put that one out of the way.
On prescribing and dispensing, no one ever asked us whether we did or did not want it. It was assumed that we did not want it. There is a large number of vets in the country who do not carry a lot of stock but a certain number do. If one takes it there are 450 to 500 people with licensed merchants licences, they are the practices that are interested in carrying stock. That is out of 750, so there are another 300 who do not carry much stock or just carry what they need to treat animals.
The reality is that if it was decoupled in the morning, there would be a number of issues that would affect other actors in the field and, to be honest, I do not think it ever got to us because other people slammed it down first. I am talking about end-users. There is a bank holiday weekend coming up and if was I go to a cow on a Friday night and prescribe something, the farmer would be waiting until Tuesday morning to fill the prescription in a decoupled situation.
We are not talking about antiparasitics. If you decouple, you decouple. End users might not like that system. As far as vets are concerned, we do not believe it will make that much difference because what is happening at the moment, unlike the human system, is that in many cases the prescription fee is included in the bit of margin on the product and all you end up with in a decoupled situation is getting charged double. You are going to get a prescription fee on one side and a margin on the dispenser’s side.
The human system in Ireland is a very expensive system. An unconscionable amount of money goes into it. As vets we would say we probably provide a better service on farms than those same farmers might get from their GPs. We are not disrespecting GPs in any way but we are proud of the service we provide. We provide it on a 365-day, 24-7 obligation which is very difficult to provide. It is difficult-----
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are told we have to vacate this room by 9.15 p.m. so I call Senator Lombard.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
With regard to the last point, we have to acknowledge the service vets give. They do an exceptional job 24-7. The last point might be in jest but it is a good point; you get a vet faster than a doctor most of the time. That is an acknowledgement of what is available and the service and professionalism. That needs to be acknowledged.
We have different figures before us regarding the dispensing and where it has gone in the past ten months in particular. Will Mr. Geraghty elaborate on the dry cow tube element? He mentioned a percentage. Was it 2.5%? He might clarify the percentage.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that based on the total product?
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Was the decision to reduce the usage based on the results of that?
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That was the point I was going to make. There were two elements to it. One is, as the Chair rightly said, that we are all very much aware of where the milk recording is coming into. Many farmers have participated in that. We are very low at the moment. We need to increase it dramatically. The idea that the majority of dry cow tubes have not been sold yet is probably a fair assessment to make.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So the big bulk of dry cow tubes going through the system will be in the next six weeks.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That will or could have a different impact on those figures.
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
It has not so far. The moving annual total takes into account last year's dry cow season. For the past three years, in conjunction with Animal Health Ireland, AHI, private vets have been doing dry cow consultations with farmers and selective dry cow therapy has been pushed, as every dairy farmer knows. A great many dairy farmers are doing it. Anyone who is milk recording is certainly doing it.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If Mr. Geraghty were my vet and I were to ring him tomorrow morning - it is a long way to come down to Minane Bridge - will he run through what I need if I want dry cow tubes? Does he need physically to call out? What is the process?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
Most farmers engaging in selective dry cow therapy are availing of the AHI dry cow concept, which is a farm visit paid for by AHI. You go down through the records, count the cubicles, check the cleanliness, go through the dry-off process and all the rest. Then you would select cows that need an antibiotic. That is what the legislation says. You cannot use prophylactic treatment. You must only treat an animal that has an active infection or one that has an infection.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will Mr. Geraghty give me an example? If I have a bunch of 40 mating heifers that I want to get dosed, do I turn up at his premises, does he call out, or how does this system work?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
At the moment the only template we have for that is through AHI and the parasite TASAH. That involves us calling out at some stage and going through a two- or three-page questionnaire about dosing practices and what is being used. Two free dung samples are included to be used at whatever stage of the year you wish. Then you come up with a parasite control plan. Out of that at intervals you can fill your prescription. That is the way-----
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that parasite control plan over a 12-month period?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
A farmer can apply for it once a year, but in terms of how it is working in practice, as an example, we had a farmer who signed up earlier in the year and we did the summer plan with him. We told him to bring in his samples when he thought he needed to and we are going back now to take the second dung sample.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is doing that system the only way the product can be accessed?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
No, a vet can examine animals or talk to a farmer in a consultation. I refer the Senator back to the code of professional conduct. Once a farmer has a client-patient-practice relationship with a vet - this used to be called a bona fide vet-client relationship one time but the animal is in it now - and the vet knows that the farmer knows what is going on and there are ongoing conversations, it is not necessary for the vet physically to go to the farm to write a prescription for anything if he or she is satisfied.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that for both bovines and sheep?
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is the competency of the vet versus the authorised person in the other practice that might not have the same veterinary. Would that be a fair analogy?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
We would see prescribing as something that requires a much broader training to include epidemiology, pharmacology, all the other disciplines within veterinary, knowledge of the farm and intimate knowledge of the animals and how animals, stocking rates and grazing management work. Our view would be that prescribing practice is an holistic approach the farmer and his or her vet would be able to know from regular contact.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
To take a scenario from dairy country, the normal protocol would have been to go to the co-op who probably knew the farm being set out for obvious reasons. That system is apparently closed at the moment. Rightly or wrongly, it is gone. Mr. Geraghty said there is a reduction of around 2%. When this dry cow period is finished-----
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is 20%. What does Mr. Geraghty think that will be at the end of the lactation period?
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In regard to the technology, uploading scripts and everything else that pertains to it, TB testing has been transformed. It is amazing how things such as artificial insemination, AI, has been transformed. It is amazing how technology has changed. When that piece of technology is up and running, will there be a charge in place for a farmer to get access to that script? How does Mr. Geraghty believe that is going to work?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
A script is the outcome of a consultation. The work is not in writing the script. The work is in arriving at a decision. At the moment, we have a model from the Department in the TASAH where vets get paid for doing this work. Ultimately, it is a job and people will have to get paid for it. It depends on the supports that are in place and on the relationship between the farmers and the vets. To do the sort of work involved, there is no doubt somebody will have to pay for the vets' time because we have to hire vets and they have to charge billable hours.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Regarding where we are with the veterinary practices, with ageing practices alongside ageing farmers and everything else, given the distances in some areas in particular, and Mr. Murphy probably knows Glengarriff and that part of the world better than most, there is a need to cover geographical areas. Regarding the number of vets who are available, does Veterinary Ireland have the manpower to cover this proposal? Sheep farming is the primary example of this, and it is an issue all along the west coast. It particularly will be an issue if there is a vet who probably never set foot on a farm.
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
I understand the concern. I live in the heart of lowland sheep country in east Galway and south Roscommon. Since the knowledge transfer programmes started, especially in 2017, we engage with sheep farmers all the time. They really value good, professional advice. The savings they have made, both in the context of mortality and through increased performance, by including the vet in decisions relating to what to use and when to use it, as well as when to use it correctly. I understand there are issues with hill sheep in some of the western counties. The Department released some data which would indicate that west Mayo might have an issue. We know the guys in west Mayo. They were on television years ago, on "Vets on Call". Those guys provide a serious service over long distances. Nobody is left without a vet.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There was an issue in Donegal many years ago where an area was left without a vet.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will not go there.
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
There are eight vets in a practice in that area who are providing a service. Where there are farmers, there are vets. If one goes onto the animal health and welfare website, one will see a map with dots for vets' locations. There is an Animal Health Ireland-trained vet, which does not include all vets, in every corner of Ireland.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A point was made about the North, which does not really affect me because of where I am located geographically. It is interesting that we have two regimes in one part of Ireland. How do we deal with that? Does Mr. Geraghty have genuine concerns about it being a two-tier system? Does he believe there would be much movement of product? Would a two-tier system be workable?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
A certain amount of prescription products have always leaked in from the North, even before antiemetics came into use. We have had a small number of complaints over the years. We bring them to the Department, which has a role in dealing with complaints. We know that there are plenty of sources of illegal product. I am not talking about the North but about markets and so on where products can be sourced. The vast majority of farmers do not engage in this behaviour because they know the value of being accountable and understand what will happen if they are caught.
I come from a long line of farmers. My father is still farming. Farmers are proud of what they produce and they are conscious that they export 90% of their food. I do not think they will engage in illegal activity for minuscule savings. Looking at the possible savings from reducing the use of product, the reality is that farmers will stand to gain much more by being shown how to reduce their dependence on product and to use it in a more targeted way. I do not think there will be a huge issue with the Border. There have always been a certain number of issues with the Border. When the UK left Europe, there was going to be a two-tier system for many things. We will have to deal with and live with it.
Tim Lombard (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are short on time. Saying that there has been conflicting evidence in the past few weeks would be an understatement. I am being polite. The evidence that has been given to this committee is black and white. Mr. Geraghty said he has sat through and watched the recordings. It is hard to imagine that we are talking about the same idea. The views of people on both sides have been black and white. Some say that we will have animal cruelty or that we will not have enough vets. Does Mr. Geraghty think there has been enough consultation with the Department? The Chairman made a good point that nobody is happy with this proposed legislation. Whether right or wrong, everyone has an issue with it. Is Mr. Geraghty happy with the consultation he has had with the Department?
Mr. Conor Geraghty:
We sat on the antiparasitic working group. It never agreed about the issue of antiparasitics. Every meeting was the same as the previous one, and there has not been any resolution of that matter. We would like more consultation on the national veterinary prescription system. We have a track record of delivering over 90% of vets to the animal health care system when we agreed it with the Department in 2003. It was a big change in different times. Technology was in its infancy compared with now but we still delivered over 90% of vets to that in the first year, through consultation and working through the issues. The Department has chosen to put this in primary legislation. We are fearful that people who do not understand some of the nuances in it might be inclined to retire a little early rather than take it on. People who are 66, 67 or 68 and intend to retire in two years might be prescribing very few antiparasitics. I do not see why there could not be an allowance to lead them on. They have to be replaced. Every sector in Ireland has recruitment issues. Large animal veterinary services are no different. More consultation on the national veterinary prescription system would be welcome.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The general scheme will give this committee a fair few headaches before it eventually proceeds to become legislation. I thank the witnesses for coming in to give their perspective, which is extremely important as key stakeholders in this industry. Vets are key to animal welfare and the protection of our reputation as food producers. The committee will adjourn until 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 November, when it will examine various schemes under the new Common Agricultural Policy.