Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The meeting was suspended for a Dáil vote. I propose that we now go into private session to finish private business of the committee and return to public session in a moment.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Dr. Adeelia Goffe, Dr. Rob Sweeney and Ms Roisin Greaney from Think-tank for Action on Social Change, TASC, to continue our examination of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare report.

Before we begin, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they do not adhere to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

I call Dr. Sweeney to give his opening statement.

Dr. Robert Sweeney:

On behalf of TASC, I extend my thanks to the committee for the invitation. As mentioned, I am joined by Dr. Adeelia Goffe, senior health researcher, and Ms Roisin Greaney, climate justice researcher and community outreach officer.

We broadly welcome and support the findings of the commission, chapters 13 and 15. The chapters set out, at a high level, some of the required tax and welfare reforms necessary to meet Ireland’s climate and healthcare commitments. As the committee will be well aware, and as the report of the commission references, Ireland's record on emissions is very poor. It was recently reported in the media that emissions per capitain Ireland were the highest of all EU countries. This potentially reflects the strictness of Ireland’s lockdown, as recent growth in emissions is a function of the strong recovery in economic activity. Ireland normally ranks as one of the worst performers in terms of CO₂emissionsper capita. The commission notes the progress Ireland has made in reducing emissions; since 2005, emissions have fallen by 12%. This figure flatters Ireland somewhat, as 2005 represents the height of Ireland's construction bubble. While we accept that emissions have declined over the past decade as economic activity has increased, it is noteworthy that the commission made little reference to how Ireland is going to meet its emissions targets, while at the same time massively expanding its housing stock.

While we broadly welcome the commission's recommendations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, equalise rates of excise duty and better reflect the societal cost of carbon dioxide emissions, we stress that these policies should be designed to address underlying inequalities. Targeted measures should be introduced in tandem with green taxation and subsidy removal to fully protect and support low-income households and those living in, or at risk of, energy poverty to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and build social approval for publicly-led climate action. Failure to do so will risk deepening existing inequalities and create fossil fuel lock-in for households across the State. TASC’s most recent annual inequality report highlighted that low-income households have been hardest hit by the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, given that basic necessities such as energy and food make up a greater share of their household budget.

Recognising the share of emissions contributed by the agricultural sector alongside the risk of an unjust transition to Ireland’s rural communities, we note the absence of recommendations pertaining to how the current farm subsidy model could be reshaped to reward farmers for ecologically-regenerative farming practices and address existing inequalities within the sector.

Regarding healthcare we acknowledge the major progress that Ireland has made in improvements in health, especially life expectancy, in part due to improvement in treatment outcomes when care is required. While it is important to acknowledge these gains, accessing the system remains a major problem. Waiting times for inpatient and outpatient care have grown tremendously over the past decade, not just during Covid. Healthcare expenses are relatively high, and we note a recent ESRI report that indicates more services should be met in community as opposed to hospital settings.

Ireland’s system of dual public and private care adds to the system’s complexity. We therefore welcome the commission’s proposal to gradually phase out subsidies for private health insurance in lieu of introducing a universal Sláintecare model. It is not clear from the report what would happen with the additional funds the Government would receive by phasing out the tax relief. We suggest the funds be earmarked for investment in universal provision, such as community care centres.

The report rightly makes reference to the damaging effects of smoking in elevating the risk of death. Indeed, smoking is the major lifestyle contributor to mortality and, unlike dietary factors, is significantly above EU norms. It should be noted that while smoking cigarettes has declined, smoking e-cigarettes has grown in popularity, among young people in particular. In conjunction with education and awareness raising, the Government should standardise the fiscal treatment of electronic and conventional cigarettes, unless it can be conclusively shown that such a move would deter switching such that overall health outcomes would be inferior. We once again thank the committee for the invitation and look forward to any questions.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank TASC for its opening statement. I will open up the meeting to members following our usual rota. I do not see Deputy Durkan so I will move next to Deputy Mairéad Farrell.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was a very interesting opening statement. On private health insurance, what is the annual cost to the Exchequer of the related tax reliefs? From the perspective of equity, are those reliefs fair? How quickly could they be unwound in the context of the roll-out of Sláintecare?

Dr. Robert Sweeney:

The commission's report refers to the cost of the private health insurance tax subsidy. I do not have it in front of me but it is in the region of €300 million to €350 million per annum. Personally, I do not think it is fair because it disproportionately benefits people who can afford private health insurance. There is a double unfairness there, in that they are subsidised and while they do not get access to better treatment, they get expedited access to the system. As I said in the opening statement, we definitely support the gradual phase-out of that subsidy. Obviously it must be in conjunction with moving towards a universal Sláintecare model.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How fast could that wind-down be done in the context of the roll-out of Sláintecare? What is TASC’s vision of that or is it too difficult to compute given that it depends on how quickly Sláintecare is implemented?

Dr. Robert Sweeney:

It depends on the speed with which Sláintecare is implemented. I would not have a figure on that.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair.

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

Considering the additional challenges that some families may face, there is the burden of private health insurance that some people are willing to pay. Losing that additional €200 or 20% of the total they are paying may be detrimental to adequate health services being provided.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can Dr. Goffe explain that with an example?

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

I have not been able to find any data on it. It is very challenging to figure out who is paying and how much but there is some indication from anecdotal evidence that for some people there is an additional burden. They are willing to pay for private insurance but losing the subsidy might cause challenges. It would be important to look into that before completely removing that tax benefit.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Dr. Goffe is referring to removing it without Sláintecare implementation.

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

That would be the challenge that if it rolls out too quickly, people who would not have suffered in the past would suffer. It would be missed.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There would be additional suffering, I suppose. I read a recent OECD report that showed the State had the lowest number of consultant specialists in the EU per head of population. The EU average was 2.45 per 1,000 population but this State falls well below that with just 1.44 per 1,000 population. Why is that and what could be done to bring us more in line with the EU average? If Dr. Goffe does not know that is okay but it is something I noted and thought I would ask.

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

There are lots of challenges around both education and retention of healthcare professionals. Whether it is doctors who are leaving the country, changing profession or going private, there have been huge challenges with that over the last number of years.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair.

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

We see high salaries in Ireland in comparison with other EU countries but maybe working in Australia or changing career is more beneficial.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is also the issue of housing. Chapters 13 and 15 of the commission’s report concern the need to move to a low-carbon economy and address the area of public health in general. I have a question on an area that links those two areas. It has supposedly been a Government priority since 2018 and there is almost universal agreement on it, not only by industry but also the Government. I refer to the need to move to more modern methods of construction. Does TASC have any view on that? We know the environmental benefits but there is also the fact that so many people are living in poorly insulated homes and the impact that has too.

Dr. Robert Sweeney:

I think everyone is in agreement on the need to move away from our current model of building. TASC will begin work on how to kick-start modern methods of construction in Ireland. As a preliminary, there is a number of challenges to scaling up modern methods of construction. First, there is the lack of a stable pipeline and stable demand from, for instance, the Government. We all know that the construction sector, which is cyclical everywhere, is particularly cyclical in Ireland given all the problems we have. The industry would typically say we need a stable source of demand. There are other barriers too. I understand there are effective regulatory barriers which limit the uses for which timber can be used to build houses. There was a recent report. Limits on combustible materials effectively restrict the use of timber buildings to four storeys. Obviously, safety issues should not be dismissed but there has to be some way of addressing that because even Scotland uses modular homes and timber homes much more than Ireland does.

We could potentially look at a construction-type industrial policy where a certain percentage of new builds use modern methods of construction. Under Housing for All, Ireland is set to scale up building of social and public housing, particularly direct build as opposed to other forms of social housing delivery, for example, Part 5 turn-key where essentially the private developer gets to design the house. With direct build, the Government could specify that a certain percentage of new builds using direct build should use off-site construction. This certainly needs to be done but there are a number of challenges. Maybe there should also be more standardisation of homes as well. The nature of construction is such that the product is not standardised. Every site has specific challenges. It is not a fungible product like we see in a lot of manufacturing but greater standardisation of design in Ireland is something to look at.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will leave it at that because I am conscious of the time and that we have other witnesses coming in later. I thank the witnesses.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I appreciate them taking the time to do so. It is very important for the committee to have this type of engagement with people in important positions. The witnesses have been following the work of the committee and understand fully from where members, with all their varying viewpoints, are coming. As I repeatedly state, we always try to achieve balance. Another thing I always say is that too far east is west. In other words, when we go one way with everything, we leave others behind. We need balance. When it comes to taking care of people, we need to make sure we get our priorities right, whether that is in the context of taxation, healthcare or any of the other facets of the different problems with which the committee has been dealing in recent weeks and months. It is important to get the balances and checks right. In the context of organisations or committees such as this, when one is doing good, one certainly does not want to do harm. We need to strike that balance and I hope we are doing so in the best way we can. I have no questions; I just wanted to hear the presentations of the witnesses. I thank them for those presentations.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank TASC for its very interesting submission. I am interested in the points made in respect of the health service. There was reference to the complexities arising from the two-tier system. I ask the witnesses to elaborate on that. There are certainly complexities and great inequalities as a result of the two-tier system. There is further complexity arising from the fact that much of the health service seems to operate in different silos. There are bits of it run by Bons Secours, with other bits run by the Sisters of Charity, the HSE or other organisations. It is not just a two-tier system; it is hopelessly fragmented. Even within some of the hospital groups, there is no proper integration of computer systems, for example. It has been built on an ad hocbasis and it is deeply dysfunctional. Do the witnesses agree that the approach being taken is to address that in a piecemeal way rather than doing radical surgery - pardon the pun - to address it? Do they agree that, in light of the fact that there are all the silos and the big gap between public and private care, we cannot even begin to resolve the problem if we do not have an integrated one-tier national health service? I take the point in respect of people with private health insurance and the sort of fear factor that drives them to it, as well as the question in respect of what would happen if the subsidies were cut. I am not saying that if all the bits of the health service were added together and properly integrated, we would have the capacity we need. I strongly suspect there is significant under-utilisation of capacity, however, as a result of the fragmented and two-tier nature of the system. I have heard radio advertisements for the Blackrock Clinic which state that persons attending its emergency department will not be waiting on a trolley for two days. It does not have a capacity problem but it is only available to those who can pay, while those who cannot pay will be left waiting on a trolley for two days. I would be interested in the views of the witnesses on those issues.

An interesting point was made in respect of expanding the housing stock and meeting our climate goals. If I heard the witnesses correctly, they were saying we could square that circle if more timber is used in the construction of houses as that can lock up carbon, while the development of timber products and so on could be part of an ecological regeneration that would also help to address climate. Do they have any comment on the intense debate in respect of forestry, the involvement of investment funds in forestry and the type of forestry model that gives? Investment funds that are, in essence, seeking to make money from forestry are not too bothered about developing sustainable forestry that will positively impact on climate or enhance biodiversity. Rather, we will get short-rotation monocultural and industrial forestry that is very bad for the climate and biodiversity. The other side of the debate argue that we need timber products and industrial forestry is what is required to produce them. I do not think such forestry is needed but I would be interested to hear the views of the witnesses in that regard. I think there can be biodiverse and sustainable forestry that is a continuous cover model involving thinning rather than clear-felling and so on but I would be interested to hear the views of the witnesses on that issue.

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

Whether it is a two-tier system is debatable. It is certainly more multi-tiered at the moment, as the Deputy stated. Sláintecare, when fully implemented, will allow most of those tiers to disappear. There will still be some of the fragmentation within the different regional areas and CHOs in terms of how they are regulated and function. Some of it is historical. They work quite well for the communities they serve but, looking at it on a national level, people in different areas are not necessarily receiving the same type of care. Once Sláintecare is implemented and there is an overarching access to primary care, it will be far easier to see where the holes are and where more efficient decisions can be made. Without doubt, there are challenges relating to lack of access to IT services, for example, such as general practitioners, GPs, being unable to transfer documents to each other or to hospitals. That should be sorted out as soon as possible in order to increase access and decrease waiting times. The Deputy is correct. It is far more than just a matter of public and private systems.

Ms R?is?n Greaney:

On the point in respect of forestry, opposition to forestry has arisen quite often in our research, as has, in a similar vein, opposition to wind farms and various other projects that are being embarked on towards our climate goals. My experience through focus groups, interviews and community forums is that when one digs a little deeper, one discovers that people are not necessarily opposing climate action or afforestation. Rather, they are usually opposing not having a say in what is happening and not having ownership over local development. That has repeatedly come out in our people’s transition work, where we try to link climate action with local development.

On the issue of monoculture, we do not have specific experience of its scientific element.

It is raised by many of the communities we work with, in respect of issues regarding whether this is going to benefit our climate goals.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In TASC's vision of things, would we get rid of private health insurance altogether? I am in favour of doing so. To me, private health insurance is just parasitical. It flows, though, from the fact that there is fear about the inadequacy of the public health system. People feel they have to take it out as, literally, insurance against having to deal with being on a waiting list for years or being on a trolley for days. If we get to the health system we need, however we get there and however quickly we get there, is the endgame to get rid of the private health insurance for-profit industry completely?

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

No. I think the goal is to get rid of the need people feel they have for it. The fact that 46% of the population in Ireland has private health insurance is a problem. It means many people do not trust the health system. I refer to reducing that percentage and increasing the faith people have in receiving healthcare in respect of achieving any improvement in being able to access GP services, to have shorter waiting lists and in children being able to get quicker diagnoses.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation in this context? The loads of money, resources, time and billing and all the administration that goes into the existence of a private health insurance industry is all waste. It is accounted for as health spending. We are often told Ireland has a very high level of health spending, but it actually has nothing to do with the provision of front-line health services. It is, instead, parasitical on the health services. That is my view. I wonder what the witnesses think.

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

It seems as if most countries in Europe either have one or the other approach. They either have a strong public system or privatised healthcare paid for by the state, where everybody has health insurance and access to primary care. It is either one or the other type of provision. That seems to work really well. The challenge here is the hybrid option based on fear, such as people having such long waits.

Dr. Robert Sweeney:

Additionally, the aim of Sláintecare is to get private healthcare out of public hospitals. We certainly endorse that aim. Equally, while the State should not be subsidising private provision, if people want to go ahead and get private healthcare, that is up to them. I do not think, however, it should be the State that subsidises it. Regarding the costs, if we look at what country has the most expensive healthcare system in the world, it is the United States. Much of the expense there is driven by administrative costs, as the Deputy said. In the EU, Ireland has the second highest spending as a percentage of national income after Germany. This is despite the fact that we have a young population.

I take the Deputy's point about some of the issues and inefficiencies generated by the overlap between the public and private system. Another aspect I raise is that the cost of having public services in Ireland is generally more expensive because of, shall we say, mistakes in the planning system going back many years. Basically, it is more expensive to service our population with public services because we have this really spread-out population. In the case of healthcare provision, in particular, there has been an overreliance on hospitals. A couple of different factors, therefore, are in play here. It is not just that we can say the experience we see in the US fully explains the inefficiencies we have in Ireland.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, but I have to stop everyone. A vote has been called in the Dáil. I apologise. Deputy Canney will be first up when we return.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was reference in the opening statement to the possible removal of some tax subsidies. I am thinking of fossil fuel subsidies in particular in that regard. The committee has discussed this at previous meetings. Will the witnesses expand on this issue? At other meetings, the committee heard about the societal difficulties in this context and the legacy that we are living with the reality of that. Dr. Sweeney referred to a just or unjust transition for rural Ireland and how the current farm subsidy model could be adapted and reshaped to reward farmers for ecologically regenerative farming practices. Will the witnesses speak to those two issues and unpack them a little?

Dr. Robert Sweeney:

The report of the commission makes a number of recommendations, such as the equalisation of the rate of excise between petrol and automotive diesel. There are several other subsidies. The report refers to the fact that Ireland is one of the biggest subsidisers of fossil fuels in the OECD. We would support phasing out that subsidy. It is almost widely agreed we need to phase out many of those subsidies. We also support the introduction of a carbon tax. I understand some of the concerns in respect of carbon taxes, such as that they are often not distributionally neutral. There are a couple of points to be made in that regard, however. First, not every lever has to be distributionally neutral. Excise on cigarettes, for example, is not distributionally neutral. It is designed to change people's behaviour. That is one point in support of carbon taxation. In addition, a suite of measures must be introduced such that the aggregate policies are not distributionally negative or regressive.

The commission's report makes many recommendations on how to reform the welfare state, social insurance, unemployment benefit, pay-related unemployment benefit and so on. That is what I have to say about that. Behavioural change is a legitimate justification for implementing some sort of fiscal measure, provided it comes with other measures potentially to offset some of those regressive aspects.

Ms R?is?n Greaney:

I will add to that point on some of the recommendations on congestion charges and road use charges. There is a recent report by the OECD, Redesigning Ireland’s Transport for Net Zero, which has some interesting points about how congestion charges, road use charges and the carbon tax can have low transformative potential when implemented alone. Dr. Sweeney referred to the suite of policies. This should be implemented alongside more transformative policies like reallocation of road space and better accessibility. There need to be options for shared travel and active travel to be more attractive, as well as the taxes, even if they are important to the State with regard to revenue.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I wanted to ask them about a number of things. We will start with how we deal with the health services. The witnesses talked about the universal Sláintecare model being the one by which everything will be done in the future and how we will get rid of private hospitals and private healthcare. That will take decades to achieve. We have a situation in Galway right now where the hospital has a computer system that does not relate to Portiuncula. When we put in an X-ray facility, which we are doing in Tuam, the X-rays will have to be read in Portiuncula because they cannot be read in Galway because we have two different systems. Likewise, GPs cannot access systems to put stuff up so people can see it in hospitals. There is inefficiency in that alone. It will take a lot of money and time to get that right and get us singing off the same hymn sheet.

The witnesses talked about Sláintecare and how people should not be paying insurance. They are paying it for the simple reason they feel they will get nothing elsewhere. I do not necessarily agree that the emergency department in the private hospital is as good as the emergency department in the public hospital. What I mean by that is that, if you go into the finer detail, the emergency department in the private hospital might be open from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday to Friday, or something like that. It does not provide the same service. It is different. If we are to look at taxation and reducing tax incentives for people to have private insurance, we cannot do that without having a pathway set out. It cannot just be a policy like Sláintecare is but needs actual meat on the bone with regard to things changing in the health service. Will the witnesses comment on that first?

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

I agree with Deputy Canney. There are many challenges ahead. It will be necessary to assess every step of the way to make sure people are not being left behind. Such a large transition will require identifying hiccups on the road where some people are not able to access care. Some of those challenges are geographic. Sometimes it relates to transportation links and people being able to access a certain service in a particular location because they live in a rural area. Maybe they are accessing a service outside their county or maybe in the North of Ireland. It is situational and it will take time. I do not necessarily think it will take decades. Given how quickly Ireland and the world were able to put processes in place for Covid-19, that gives me hope. I believe it is possible to do it quickly with enough will and enough money. It is possible to do it in less than ten years but it will take much effort and energy.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will it take emergency legislation like we had for Covid to wake people up? I will give a good example from my community health organisation, CHO, area in the west. We are serving 800,000 people. If people need cancer treatment, they have to travel from Donegal to Galway. That is the reality. We produced a plan where we are going to create a centre of excellence in Galway, which is my own nearest city. We have not created the centre of excellence but we have been talking about for 25 years. We do not have a cancer hospital with beds available. We probably need to invest in infrastructure in Galway to make it a centre of excellence, between cancer care, emergency department treatment and building, a new paediatric unit and a new maternity unit. We still have hospital beds in the Nightingale wards, with ten or 12 beds and a toilet at the end of the corridor. We have four blocks like that still in place. Maybe I am being depressing, but the radiation unit we built took 16 years from inception to being opened and was a small part of the overall project. We have an elective hospital to build in Galway and another in Cork. I do not know when they will see the light of day.

We talk about these things at a very high level and create policies around them, but people with the shovel or spade to make it happen are missing. What happened during Covid was a great example of our backs being to the wall and us doing something about it. Our backs are to the wall with health and we need to bring in emergency legislation to wipe away all these prices that are there and which spend millions of our money without actually delivering the infrastructure we need. Will the witnesses comment on that?

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

My only concern is that if too much energy is spent on investing in the future, the waiting lists now will not get any shorter. It needs to be done in tandem with making sure people who are waiting and urgently need access will still receive access. If it is necessary to put emergency legislation in place, then certainly do so. However, allowances, funding and staffing need to be made available for people who need access today and needed it yesterday.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the infrastructure where people can work is in place, people will be attracted to work in the health service. At the moment, as Dr. Goffe says, we have to bring down the waiting lists. Emergency departments in hospitals are overrun, short staffed, and do not have the necessary infrastructure. We need to have infrastructure-led development in our health service. The healthcare workers will follow. I imagine that as well as the healthcare workers following, there would be a better patient experience and the dignity of the patient would improve significantly.

Dr. Robert Sweeney:

One thing I would flag is that in the context of spending on healthcare in Ireland, spending on inpatient care is one of the big drivers for why we spend more than it appears we should be spending. There are a couple of reasons for that. As mentioned in the Sláintecare document, it is widely acknowledged we are over-reliant on hospitals. One issue is that there are not always step-down facilities for people within the hospital system. There might be mainly older people in the hospital setting who might be better or more appropriately treated in a community care setting. If we continue to invest in primary care centres and local community care, that would free up some of the space within hospitals.

The big issue, as everyone knows, is the waiting times. They differ according to treatment. Cancer and radiotherapy waiting times typically among the lower ones. We still have a big problem with waiting times but the survival rates and mortality rates for treatment, including for cancer treatment, are pretty good in Ireland. There is, however, a big issue in Ireland around building things and investing in infrastructure. I mentioned previously in response to one of the other questions that the planning system is often a hindrance to big infrastructure projects. This raises the cost of a lot of public services and capital projects in Ireland.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do I have a minute to respond?

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, just a minute.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I agree with Dr. Sweeney that the primary care centres should be the big driver to reduce the reliance on hospitals. We have built 14 primary healthcare centres in the State and yet we did not put an X-ray facility into any of them. The mind boggles. When I asked the question, "Why not?", I was told that it was not part of the brief when they were doing the design. Yet, these primary care centres were flagged as the saviour of the hospitals.

Consider the primary care centre in my town of Tuam as a good example. It was opened in 2016. It is now 2023. They said they would put in the X-ray facilities and they would retrofit it but it is still not happened. Why? It is because the public private partnership contract they put in place ceded control of that building, and 14 other facilities like it, to a private company. Now we cannot put in the X-ray facility without the express permission of a private company. That is the way we have been doing things, and I believe people have never been accountable for this. It is something we need to do in order to make sure we learn from our mistakes and when going forward we do not make the same mistakes again.

I agree with the philosophy that we need to get people out into the communities and we need to get people into step-down facilities. That takes money. I agree with Dr. Sweeney about the planning but we need to have some sort of a change in the HSE in how it does its business from the top and, especially in the context of its estates, we have a huge investment to do to be able to say to people that they do not need private health insurance and that we can give everybody the same thing. It was said earlier that the best form of health service is full public or full private and that a hybrid of the two creates awful problems. I agree with that too.

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee, and I thank them also for their opening statements. I will focus on promoting good public health. I will give the witnesses a bit of background. In my constituency of Kildare South I am aware of some poorly insulated homes under the local authorities. There are some that are okay in terms of insulation and retrofitting, but for those with mould problems it is often suggested that they leave their heating on as a means to deal with the mould problem. For obvious reasons, such a solution is no solution at all, as we are all aware. Not only would it be incredibly costly for the households, it would not help with our climate goals if people are leaving the heating on, day in, day out, to combat mould.

I was in a particular house in my constituency recently with such a problem. They had the heating on all of the time but it did nothing to stop the mould, which was climbing up the walls. One can imagine that the presence of mould often contributes to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and especially in older people. I am the Sinn Féin spokesperson on older people so I would be dealing with a lot of older people who are living in very badly retrofitted houses.

In the witnesses' opinion, what additional steps could be taken by the Government to facilitate local authorities in retrofitting the stockpile of local authority housing?

Ms R?is?n Greaney:

That point around mould and local authority housing has also come up in conversations we have had in the north-east inner city of Dublin, which is interesting. We recommend for the target of retrofit of social housing to be increased. Between now and 2030, €5 billion has been ring-fenced from the carbon tax, which could be used to scale up that target. In addition, there is a gap between people who are not eligible for the warmer homes scheme but who also cannot afford the upfront investment required currently under the grants available. At the moment the Government is looking at ideas around a low-cost loan and is expediting that process as well, and using the carbon tax fund to expand eligibility and to expand the targets for social housing.

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Greaney. Reference was made in the opening statements to earmarking funds for investment in universal provision, such as community centres. Obviously, I welcome that. I welcome anything that will enhance our community. We all know the importance of community centres especially for promoting public health in the local community. I meet people in day care centres, for example, where early medical information interventions are needed, as are therapies and so on, which people avail of in these centres. I am aware there are a lot of issues. I wonder about the document M building regulations and making access difficult for older folks and people with disabilities. This needs to change. Is there anything we need to be doing in order to make that more accessible for them, in the witnesses' opinion?

Dr. Robert Sweeney:

To understand the Deputy's question, is it to make primary care centres more accessible to people with disabilities?

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. What can we do to make those improvements?

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

This is the responsibility of the design phase. Whoever is commissioning the architect must make sure that accessibility is noted as being primary, and not just for mobility challenges but also for someone who might have visual or hearing impairment, or somebody who is on the autism spectrum. Without a doubt, buildings must be accessible across the board, including GP practices and primary care facilities.

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They all tie into one.

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

Everything needs to be made accessible for everyone in the community, or otherwise it is-----

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to enhance these areas and we need to bring them on and bring them forward. I just wanted the witnesses' opinion on that. I thank Dr. Goffe for that.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their submissions and their answers. I was listening in earlier. I will focus on two brief points. In moving towards a low-carbon economy the commission is recommending the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies. I am aware that the commission is looking at various options and alternatives there. This will put phenomenal pressure on people in some areas. I am trying to get a handle on where the witnesses would see how we could support those people and how that inequality would be dealt with. I referring to people in places where public transport is not an option. Connecting Ireland sets out a plan for rolling out upgrades on public transport but there are lots of areas where they have no ambition to extend public transport during the lifetime of the plan, and even where they do, one is looking at just a small upgrade. Realistically, being able to get to and from work is not going to be an option via public transport for many people under the current plan.

Similarly, for home heating, many people might be very keen to do the upgrades but they may not be able to afford it. An alternative option of switching over to a hydrogenated vegetable oil system, HVO, and running the home heating system much the same as at home might be a much more practical option for them. Have the witnesses looked at the taxation treatment of that option and where it could be availed of? How would the witnesses deal with those inequalities, if the commission is proposing to make changes in taxation for fossil fuel?

My second point relates to promoting public good public health and the widespread agreement on smoking and e-cigarettes, similar to the tobacco cigarettes.

One of the other big issues is in regard to obesity. If the witnesses have a particular angle on that, I would be interested to hear their views.

Dr. Robert Sweeney:

I will address the taxation issue before I hand over to Ms Greaney and Dr. Goffe. I do not have specific ideas as to the taxation and, in particular, how that would address people in rural areas. I would reiterate the point I made earlier that some taxes are designed to change behaviours and they are not always going to be distributionally neutral, such as taxation on cigarettes. However, it should come as a suite of policies such that we take care of people who are economically affected. I will just say that.

Ms R?is?n Greaney:

We would suggest that alternatives must be made available before reducing subsidies. An example of that could be specifically targeting low income households, households reliant on solid fuels and people who are at risk of living in energy poverty, first and foremost. Once those things are done, there is then potential scope to reduce some of those welfare-related fossil fuel subsidies, but only when it does not exacerbate underlying inequalities. The same goes for transport.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we move on from the issue of home heating, many people do not qualify for social welfare but they need their homes heated as well. To face into a €30,000, €40,000 or €50,000 conversion of the house is out of reach for many households, despite the grants. It is great to focus on those on lower income but there is a whole cohort of people who are not on social welfare who will also be very much disadvantaged and challenged. I do not want them disappeared. They have to have some alternative as well.

Ms R?is?n Greaney:

Absolutely. There are huge issues around that cohort of people who fall between the warmer homes scheme and being able to afford an upfront investment. As I mentioned, low cost loans are an option but also expansion of the funds under the carbon tax that are used towards energy efficiency. A report that came out last year by Friends of the Earth, Blockages to Retrofitting and Heat-pump Installation in Ireland, has some interesting recommendations about area-based approaches to retrofitting. What could be done is that, at a street or community scale, grants are offered based on people's ability to pay, all the way up, in order to try to address that gap.

To address the Deputy’s earlier question about the use of HVO in homes for heating, we have not looked into that but it is potentially something we could take away.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is huge opportunity there. We are talking about a couple of hundred euro for conversion of a heating system versus thousands to switch over to an underfloor heating system. I understand that much of the emphasis is to keep HVO for transport but there is real scope there and it would be very much worth looking at the possibility of using HVO.

Dr. Adeelia Goffe:

There were two recommendations focusing on obesity. The first was around taxes on alcohol, tobacco and sugary drinks. Reading through that, and understanding what is going on in terms of population, I do not see too much of a problem with that. There are lots of benefits to that, not just around obesity and BMI in the Irish population, but looking at other health outcomes as well, such as cancer incidence and so on. However, I did find that the ultra-processed foods recommendation was a bit vague. I found it a bit unclear exactly what would qualify as an ultra-processed food, how many people in the population would be affected by that, and the potentially disproportionate burden on certain portions of the population that might have very limited access to fresh foods or ways in which to produce a meal out of fresh fruit and vegetables.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am mindful that we have to bring in our next set of guests. I apologise again for the interruption to our session due to the vótáil. That concludes this part of the session. I thank the witnesses for their time today and I again apologise for the interruptions. We will suspend the meeting to allow our next set of witnesses to take their places.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome from the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, Mr. Tim Cullinan, Ms Rose Mary McDonagh and Mr. Karol Kissane; and from the Irish Road Haulage Association, IRHA, Mr. Eugene Drennan, Mr. John Nolan and Mr. Paul Jackman.

Before we begin, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they do not adhere to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

I invite Mr. Cullinan to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

I would like to thank you for inviting the IFA to address you today. I am joined by Ms Rose Mary McDonagh, who is the IFA farm business chairman; and Mr. Karol Kissane, who is the IFA farm business senior policy executive. As the largest and oldest indigenous industry, the Irish agriculture sector has been the foundation stone on which economic activity and employment, both upstream and downstream, has been built in towns and villages throughout rural Ireland. In line with its positive and growing status on global markets as a consistent supplier of high-quality sustainably produced food, many Governments have prioritised agriculture and food as a major economic driver for the Irish economy. Farm families and industry stakeholders have delivered on this. This also explains in part the large suite of tax relief measures that are currently in place to support the sector, spanning multiple facets, including land mobility, inheritance and measures to complement wider agricultural policies and schemes. For example there are schemes aimed at improving competitiveness, assisting new entrants and young trained farmers, promoting environmental sustainability, supporting improved on-farm efficiency, promoting alternative farming models and advancing income volatility measures.

Undoubtedly, there are numerous and broader challenges ahead for Ireland and its citizens. This prompted the establishment of the Commission of Taxation and Welfare and the review of existing taxation and welfare systems for the new realities. The IFA regrets that we were not afforded the opportunity to have a representative on the commission, despite numerous attempts on our part. While we acknowledge the work of the commission and appreciate its challenging remit, there are a number of proposals, some within the chapters we will be discussing today and others in the wider report, that the IFA would have serious concerns about, and strongly oppose.

There are concepts in the report, too, which we very much agree with, such as preserving the integrity of the agricultural relief, and adopting equity or fairness – taxing people according to their ability to pay – as the key and core principle in the design of our future taxation and welfare system. In this regard, it is essential that the full economic impact of any proposed amendments is thoroughly understood not just in isolation but also from a composite or cumulative perspective, which means examining their combined impact on farm families. This needs to take account of the availability of obvious alternative inputs and practices where relevant, which will help to avoid the creation of economically unviable family farms. If introduced, many of the proposals within the commission report – for example, the progressive removal of reduced VAT rates, and capital taxes and charges - will undoubtedly have a disproportionate impact on farmers.

The IFA understands the comprehensive report prepared by the commission is not in any way intended as an exhaustive list from which the Government is to merely implement measures in future budgets. Instead, it represents a series of considerations which the Government will ultimately decide on and implement those it perceives most appropriate and fair. The reality is that the drip-feeding of proposals through media leaks and, subsequently, the report itself have created a cloud of uncertainty for farm families. We have anecdotal evidence, for example, of farmers transferring farms earlier than anticipated, purely out of fear that agricultural relief and existing capital acquisition tax thresholds will be significantly eroded and their children left with a considerable tax bill. Thankfully, numerous senior Government officials have eased concerns somewhat more recently, rejecting the commission proposals and confirming these key supports will very much be protected going forward. We are not here today to comment on the report in general, but rather on chapters 13 and 15, so I will concentrate on those chapters now.

To be clear, the IFA recognises the climate challenge we face. Farmers are on the front line and changes to climate affect our daily lives. We support all reasonable proposals to reduce emissions and decarbonise the economy. However, we will not support measures that may make family farms unviable, especially where there are no practical alternatives. One instance where this arises is in chapter 13, on moving to a low-carbon economy, where a recommendation is made to levy excise duty and other taxes on marked gas oil, MGO, or agricultural diesel at the same rate that applies to unleaded petrol. If these were to be equalised, at today’s prices and rates it would see at least an extra 50 cent per litre added to the price of agricultural diesel. With 1,147 million l of MGO used in 2022, this would mean an extra cost of over €570 million having to be shouldered by primary Irish agriculture in the main. As most understand, agriculture is a business with very tight margins, and the difference between a farm being viable and unviable can be small. As price-takers, in the vast majority of situations farmers cannot pass on cost increases to those who purchase their products. One of the sectors within Irish agriculture with the highest use of MGO is the tillage sector. Stated Government policy is to see the expansion of this sector. If so, then such a move would run counter to this policy. In areas such as private motoring there are viable alternatives to fossil fuel vehicles. However, this is not the situation in agriculture, and until viable and affordable alternatives are available, such a move must not be considered. At a time when a cost-of-living crisis is adding uncertainty, adding any extra costs into the food chain would be irresponsible.

A further recommendation involves road usage charges based on distance, location and time on the road. This would be a tax that would unfairly hit persons, including farmers, living in rural Ireland. Often people living in rural Ireland have greater distances to travel to work or to access services compared to people living in large urban centres. The provision of public transport options as an alternative is not comparable. The report recognises that Ireland has a mandatory target of at least 16% of gross final energy consumption coming from renewable sources by 2030, and that we are currently projected to fall short of that target. It recognises the need for sufficient investment, in a timely manner, if there is to be a chance to reach this target. Agriculture and farmers stand ready to assist in meeting this target. We acknowledge that policy changes around rooftop solar in the past 12 months have made this a much more attractive option for farmers. There is a large interest in the farming community to be involved in the generation of electricity by solar, both for on-farm use and to supply back into the grid. It must be ensured that there are no impediments present in enabling farmers to generate and supply electricity by these means. The Government needs to ensure that where required, the grid is brought up to a standard to support this supply, with no restriction on the percentage that is generated that a farmer can supply and get paid a fair rate for into the grid.

It is stated Government policy is to have biomethane generated through anaerobic digesters as a means of decarbonising our gas network. Unfortunately, other than announcing this aspiration, no tangible supports, policies or solid plans have been set out. The IFA is available to consult the relevant Departments on potential policies and plans that may be put in place to support anaerobic digestion, AD, in Ireland. If such plans are to be successful, farmers must be front and centre of all discussions, with options for involvement all along the value chain, and not seen as just a source of feed stocks for AD plants.

Moves by farmers, if they so wish, into the generation of renewable energy must not result in negative tax consequences for either them or their successors. All tax reliefs relating to agriculture such as capital acquisitions tax, retirement relief for capital gains tax, young trained farmer and consanguinity relief from stamp duty and relief on long-term leasing of farmland must also be available for these farmers.

We broadly support the measures in chapter 15 that assist in promoting good public health in Ireland. As noted in this chapter, after tobacco use, risk factors often associated with obesity and poor diet and lifestyles are of particular public health concern. As outlined, countries with high availability of ultra-processed foods have correspondingly high rates of obesity and, unfortunately, Ireland is one such country. Ultra-processed foods have ingredients such as hydrogenated fat, high fructose corn syrup and other additives that are not used in domestic kitchens. Here in Ireland, we have a sugar sweetened drinks tax, which in 2021 realised just over €30 million. The IFA supports a strengthening of the use of the proceeds of this tax for the promotion of healthy diets in Ireland. The report recognises that those in the lowest socioeconomic groups are more likely to have a poorer diet. The IFA believes that from a young age children should be introduced to healthy, wholesome foods, for example, through the Food Dudes initiative run by Bord Bia and the school milk scheme run by the National Dairy Council. Further Government funding should be allocated to these initiatives to ensure that all children have access to them, and that these healthy eating initiatives are available in all schools.

Links should also be built up between schools and the producers of Irish food such as the Farmer Time programme run by Airfield Estate which links farmers and schools virtually. Where schools provide meals for children they should also be encouraged to purchase the ingredients locally, where available, to further strengthen children's understanding of a healthy, wholesome diet and where food comes from.

The agriculture sector represents the foundation stone on which economic activity and employment, both upstream and downstream, revolve in many towns and villages throughout rural Ireland. Data suggest that aggregate direct expenditure from Irish-owned firms is comparable with foreign-owned firms at €27.6 billion versus €29.8 billion, respectively, with significantly higher proportions of food, drink, and primary production sales consumed locally relative to foreign-owned firms at 75% versus 9.7%, respectively.

Irish farmers, across all sectors, are facing into an increasingly uncertain future. Increasing input prices and regulation and pressures to meet climate ambitions, along with substantial cuts in European Union direct payments as a result of a new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, reform for many, create enough stress and complexity in normal day-to-day operations, not to mention making planning and future investments all the more difficult.

With almost 60% of farm families earning less than €20,000 in 2021, in the interest of fairness and equity it is incumbent on the Government and all Department officials to ensure that additional cost and tax liabilities are not placed on already low-income farm families, now or into the future. Instead, where possible and appropriate, support through the taxation system, for example, should be given to assist the sector in reducing its emissions and enhancing its sustainability.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Cullinan and I now invite Mr. Drennan to make the opening statement on behalf of the IRHA.

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

I would just like to point out that even though we are starting late, we acknowledge the reason for that. This is very important to us. We started at 4.20 a.m. and 4.40 a.m. this morning to facilitate various Government bodies. We would like for there to be consultation and for this issue to be teased out because it is such a big one for us, rather than for it just to be a rubber stamp.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that.

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

We thank the committee for the invitation. I am joined by Mr. John Nolan and Mr. Paul Jackman from the management team of the IRHA. Similar to what Mr. Cullinan has said, I will refer to the background and context for the members of the IRHA and our sector. I will give members an idea of what we do for the economy, our sector and the relevance to us of the Commission for Taxation report.

The IRHA is the representative body for the licensed haulage sector in Ireland. Our members play a critical role in keeping the Irish economy moving and ensuring that our homes, shops, businesses and key services are supplied with the essential goods that we need each day.

Our members operate within Ireland and all over Europe and also play a key role in keeping Ireland's mercantile trade going, bringing goods to and from Ireland on international routes. The 24,000 HGVs in Ireland do 87% of the heavy goods transit, covering more than 1.8 billion km per year. As a sector, we have faced a number of specific challenges over the last four years. Covid-19 provided a specific challenge for the sector but also imposed a particular duty and obligation on our members to keep important supply lines going, despite the significant public health challenges in travelling to some countries with red zones, etc. These challenges impacted on members delivering within Ireland, but in particular for members operating across Europe. The sector responded positively to the challenges presented by Covid-19 and we worked hard to play our role as an essential service during an unprecedented difficult period. As far as I know, Ireland was not short of very much due to our efforts.

The impact of Brexit has been really significant for the licensed haulage sector. The key impact has been the additional costs, delays and responsibilities that Brexit has introduced. This has led to a seismic shift in the trade patterns between Ireland, Britain and continental Europe. Hauliers have been to the fore in bearing the additional impacts of the new rules, regulations and routes. At least now we can see the long-term impact of Brexit and hope that the State authorities can adjust their practices to ensure that the facilitation of trade is supported rather than obstructed by excessive checks and stops. We must now try to work with the unfair competition that may be presented by the Windsor agreement. In all of this we are conscious of separating the commercial from the political, and also our island status.

The increase in fuel prices following the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been a major issue of concern to members. I acknowledge the Father of the House, Deputy Durkan. It is a long time since he got involved in a dispute of ours outside Buswells Hotel to be educated on the amount of fuel we take. My neighbour from Kerry, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae is also very well aware of our agenda. Given that our sector is almost entirely dependent on diesel fuel, any increase in the cost of this fuel goes straight to the bottom line. We are grateful to the Government for the various relief and support schemes to help to defray the high cost of fuel. We have argued for the continuation of these schemes until fuel prices decline to more manageable levels. However, in spite of all our reasoned lobbying the Government has sneaked back in the National Oil Reserves Agency, NORA, levy in the past two weeks. Given the amount of fuel we burn, the result is that the past two weeks have taken back any help we got through the hardship scheme within one year. We are very annoyed over this. I do not think it was needed at this time but we will tease that out later.

There is a real difficulty in sourcing drivers for HGVs and this is presenting a major constraint for the sector. We have brought forward various ideas and initiatives to seek to support the training and recruitment of drivers, as well as streamlining the approvals processes by the RSA. As late as this morning we had a meeting on this. There is still much that needs to be done in this regard.

Operating costs and competitiveness are very close to our heart. As an island nation, we must do our level best to keep the competitive edge. In addition to fuel costs, our sector has also had to deal with other high operating costs, including the exorbitant rate of insurance, which continues to blight many business sectors. For some reason, which I am sure committee members can figure out, the reforms that have been introduced to reduce the cost of insurance have not translated to cheaper premiums. Insurance companies are seeing profits increase, but our members are not seeing premiums come down. Currently there is an attempt to introduce measures on behalf of a private company, the Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland, with the only one getting a fine or sanction being the haulier.

Our sector is also intensely competitive with members operating on very tight and volatile margins. We are not unlike the farmers in this regard. The slightest increase in costs or charges can turn a marginal business into a loss-making position very quickly.

I will turn to the Commission on Taxation report, in particular chapter 13, which is our main focus, although we will reflect on chapter 15 as well because the mental health issues deal with some services for drivers. The issues raised in that chapter which apply to our sector highlight issues of extreme frustration to licensed hauliers. There is a really strong sense among many of our members that there is a stubborn and unreasonable resistance by certain think-tanks, including the commission, to accept a basic reality that is central to the operation of our sector.

It is an incontrovertible reality that no matter what we might wish, the vehicles we use to transfer the nation's goods will remain powered by diesel in the medium term, at least. Despite promises of evolving technologies, whether from gas, hydrogen or electrically-powered vehicles, real progress in rolling out these technologies is a long way off. Most are still at design or concept stage and lack the practical application to be effective substitutes for diesel. None of the major heavy goods vehicle, HGV, tractor unit manufacturers are close to rolling out viable alternatives to diesel at present. While we may wish this to be different, there is very little we can do to magic up alternatives that do not exist. This does not mean that the State is powerless in terms of advancing measures to support the reduction in emissions from HGVs. I am happy to spell out some suggestions in this regard. It does mean there is nothing to be gained from taxing or penalising diesel use by HGVs in circumstances where there are no realistic and substitutable alternatives.

We would all love to embrace some new transmission sources but none are realistically available. We need to work with existing technologies and try to ensure that where diesel is used, taxes and subsidies reflect the amount of carbon emitted. We have paid millions into the carbon fund and have not seen any incentive in return for our sector. Bearing in mind the absence of any commercially available or viable alternative to diesel, any new measures designed to modify behaviour or force a move away from diesel will merely be punitive and counterproductive where no such alternative exists. We must strip out from the private to the commercial. We also point out the complete inconsistency between the treatment of the fuel powering HGVs and that powering airlines, where zero rates of VAT, excise and carbon tax apply to aviation fuel. How can two industries, both essential to the effective and efficient operation of our economic and social activities, be treated so differently? It appears that the commission has no difficulty in accepting that the airline sector has no alternative to kerosene, but cannot accept that HGVs have no choice but to use diesel. To put different taxation treatment for both sectors in context, a truck delivering kerosene from Dublin Port to Dublin Airport pays more tax on the diesel used to make the delivery than will be paid on the consumption of the full 30-tonne load by the aeroplanes it will be filling.

The Irish Road Haulage Association believes that many of the commission’s recommendations in chapter 13 should be refined when it comes to looking at the use of diesel for commercial vehicles. This refinement could come in the form of seeking to hone any adjustments to excise, motor tax and vehicle registration tax, VRT, and so-called fossil fuel subsidies to take account of the following positive initiatives which could help to reduce carbon and other emissions. Recognition that clean diesel is appropriate until new transmission sources are available. There are items the committee may tease out with us regarding a plan. Provide clean diesel rebates for diesel use that achieves the lowest emissions targets possible, readily achievable through Euro 6 and Euro 7 diesel HGVs. Provide an incentive or scrappage scheme or both to support the transition to Euro 6 and Euro 7 HGVs. At present, uncertainty around future State taxation treatment of new HGVs is limiting take-up of new vehicles and unnecessarily keeping older HGVs on the road. Provide incentives for the operation of clean diesel vehicles through toll roads, fuel rebates and relevant city permits. Provide encouragement for the use of hydrotreated vegetable oil, HVO, over diesel. I heard Deputy Moynihan speaking about it for home heating to the previous witnesses. There is not enough HVO for all of us to soak up the carbon and we are the big carbon users. I will tease that out in a minute.

Another initiative would be to ensure support for night-time deliveries by making adjustments to ferry timetables and container terminal operations to reduce the HGV impact on areas adjacent to ports, facilitating eco-driving, reviewing an increase in vehicle weights and dimensions to reduce road trips by smaller, less efficient vehicles, adjusting traffic light sequencing in towns to reduce dwell time at lights to a minimum and providing barrier-free tolls for HGVs on all toll bridges to reduce dwell time at barriers to a minimum. We have been asking for more than 20 years for a barrier into the port to be lifted automatically. It is responsible for between 2.5 and 8 tonnes of carbon a day in Dublin city. There is much that can be done to achieve a low-carbon economy and our taxation system has an important role to play in this regard. Taxation measures, however, must reflect the realities as they apply today and for the foreseeable future and not seek to change behaviour that cannot be altered due to the absence of alternatives. We hope the committee will look at the Commission on Taxation report through a lens of reality, taking account of the challenges on the ground of giving effect to recommendations that do not take account of practical and real difficulties in migrating from diesel to as yet unproven and unavailable technologies, as well as in respect of our island status. We are happy to take questions from the committee and thank members for their attention.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Drennan. I will now open the discussion to members. I see a Fine Gael representative on the call.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests and congratulate them for their presentation. It is very necessary at the present time. We have spoken about this many times in the committee recently, particularly on proposals we seem to be in a mad rush to adopt without having regard to the consequences. I congratulate the witnesses for their submission and the manner in which they have articulated it. It is hugely important. It is time for the farming community and other people involved in the development and promotion of the economy to be alert to what may happen. I do not want to see a situation, which happened in the sugar beet industry, where it was gone overnight. It was sold as a bonus to the farming community and it was said that farmers would get €179 million between them. That did not work out and, of course, we now know that a technique employed by Brussels and elsewhere is the carrot, to encourage people to go for a buy-out or reduction. I point to the sudden development in the forestry industry. I agree that we need forestry, do not get me wrong. It is an important way of absorbing carbon, and not just native deciduous species either. We do whatever must be done to grow whatever we grow. I have reservations about the use of productive agricultural land, which will be taken out of production lines and turned over to forestry. While the theory is that the farming community can live off forestry in terms of income, after 40 years or so, we cannot eat trees and we cannot eat wood. I warn of a food shortage in the not-too-distant future. The European Union was formed initially to ensure there was not a food shortage in Europe. Sometimes, we seem to lose track of that. That was the original reason. It worked very well. Now, with the war in Ukraine, and other wars all over the globe, there will be greater demand for food. The more serious we are in our intentions to retain the maximum amount of land available for beef, dairy and cereals, we had better recognise that there will be a shortage. It will come very quickly, when we least expect it. I strongly support the points made by the speakers and assure them we will proceed in a helpful and supportive manner.

In turn, we will look for their support in drawing attention to the needs that are apparently in the arena right now. We do not have to wait to see developments. They are already happening. I do not want to go into the details other than to say that I have already sent the submissions I received this morning off to the relevant Departments. We will keep the committee posted.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With the remaining time, would the witnesses like to respond to any of the points made by the Deputy? We have four minutes.

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

I thank Deputy Durkan for his comments. I agree with his sentiment. He is right; we saw what happened with the beet industry in Ireland many years ago. To this day when I speak to farmers, they regret that decision was made at the time. We have to find a balance here. We all acknowledge the challenge around climate change. Last year, we all agreed we would reduce emissions by 25%. We as farmers came on board with that and we are working on a plan around that already. We can demonstrate that we can achieve 18% of the 25% in the current measures that farmers are doing. Further measures will be adopted as we go along. There is a substantial cost around all of this as well. It will lead to further costs for farmers and a cost for producing food as well.

The Deputy mentioned forestry. We obviously have many concerns around forestry. We do not want to get fully into the debate on forestry this evening but, obviously, we have huge concerns around the development regarding Gresham House and a pension fund getting involved. I have grave concerns around that and I did see it as a vehicle for Coillte to be able to draw down premiums. We have our Government coming forward with a proposed package, which is not agreed yet, of €1.3 billion. We must ensure that funding is ring-fenced for farmers as priority number one. If we look at the whole forestry programme, last year, farmers only planted 300 ha. That is obviously because of the whole concern around licensing and where that is as well.

The Deputy mentioned food security. We all have an obligation. This is where I come back to the balance in working with climate. Human nutrition is very important. It is in what we are discussing this evening as well in terms of having a proper diet and ensuring that we can continue to produce that food here in Ireland. It is absolutely a right. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is absolutely sad to say that it took a war and an invasion for a wake-up call around food security. Last year, I spoke to farmers in North African countries. Their concern at the moment is the supply of food. Absolutely, the beef, dairy and cereal sectors are very important to our Irish economy. Last year, we exported €16.2 billion worth of food out of this country. My colleagues beside me from the transport industry are an integral part of that as well. I agree with Deputy Durkan's sentiments.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the IRHA want to come in on any of those points?

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

We will put it in the ring now but I am sure other Deputies will be interested in this. I will introduce one of our novel ideas and my colleague, Mr. Jackman, has put a lot into presentations on HVO and cleaner diesel. We can perhaps bring that in on the back of questions from other Deputies.

Deputy Durkan mentioned food safety and the security of food in the EU and also the old beet acreage. In our proposals, we were teasing out the ten-year plan on the road freight sector, which was adopted one month or so ago. It was acknowledged within it that diesel was the only show in town in the short term. That does not seem to have as much focus in this low-carbon economy in chapter 13.

Within that, in moving to the new technologies of Euro 6 and Euro 7, the technologies of these engines reduce 20% of carbon and maybe towards 25% in their own technology. Then, we can add that they can run on HVO, or partly on HVO. I mention the old acreage of the beet because the security of food at the start of the EU is not quite as urgent as it was heretofore. The production is there and there is overproduction in some countries. The old acreages of the beet, plus some of the acres that will be available for farmers if they give up or lessen their amount of cattle, could be grown as sunflower and rapeseed. Tied in with that is that rapeseed would be for the production of HVO for the market here.

It is an agenda of Europe that food products must in the first instance be used for food. Because we are an island and we need to reduce the carbon, however, that would automatically add 25% of an additive to a fill of diesel with the modern technology. It would take us straight into the first barrier and first line that is required by 2030 of a 50% reduction. It may need some sort of derogation that we could do it in the interim, again, because of our island status and because it would be used in the first instance. Any moneys and grants that would be available for farmers, which would be more than welcome to them, would be tied into this production with a fair return for it but it would be kept for indigenous industry here. Rather than just paying them to get people out of production when they have always been used to production, we should keep them in the production of something. Giving a grant to get out of production is really rewarding the lazy. It does not reward the man who was an intensive farmer and worker all his life. If this product can be grown and refined here and, in the round, the subsidies to us, rather than a carbon subsidy would be to a carbon reducing subsidy. We have to tie the cost of the HVO and the use of that oil to be on par with the commercial rate of diesel at that time. Then, we will be at our 50%.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go to the next speaker. As Mr. Drennan said, he can bring some more issues in. I call Deputy Patricia Ryan.

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the IFA and the Irish Road Haulage Association for appearing before the committee today. I would like to speak to the representatives from the IRHA in particular because my family is involved in road haulage. I thank them for the opening statements. I fully appreciate the critical role their association and members play in keeping Ireland ticking over. Without the diligent and often thankless work of hauliers, it is fair to say that we would not have a functioning economy or have food on the table.

I also wish to recognise the hardships the industry has gone through in recent years, which Mr. Drennan outlined in his opening statement, which are mainly Covid-19, Brexit, rising fuel prices, the driver shortage and operating costs. It is safe to say that keeping the doors open has not been easy for them. I commend the association's resilience and that of its members.

I have three brief questions, which I will ask consecutively to save on time. In his opening statement, Mr. Drennan mentioned how positive initiatives could provide a recognition that clean diesel is appropriate until such time as new transmission sources are available. What is his estimation of how long such a time would be?

Could Mr. Drennan tease out how he would envisage a scrappage scheme would work for small, medium and large haulage companies? I am assuming he is aware that in the Sinn Féin budget submission, my colleagues, Deputies Doherty and Mairéad Farrell, called for a scrappage scheme for older lorries.

Could Mr. Drennan please expand on how night-time deliveries would help the industry and, more importantly, reduce carbon emissions? Bear in mind that I do not want the folks of south Kildare where I am from coming after me if HGVs are waking them up at 3 a.m. I understand the logic, however. I am asking for Mr. Drennan's opinion.

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

I will go to Mr. Jackman in a minute for the estimation of time for the development. On the clean diesel incentive I just outlined, it is a mixture that can be burned. We have recently added bio up to 13% and HVO beyond that. That is causing some trouble to the injector system of the trucks. It is too concentrated on that alternative now, or would appear to be. The trouble has just started. The mixture of the HVO is a cleaner burn, particularly if it is the first usage of the crop. It is a far more refined product. It burns clean and it reduces the carbon. That is where that is.

On the scrappage scheme, the answer is very simple; we are trying to get there. If we have it in year 2, 3 and 4 in a short, quick term, there are not that many in numbers left. As I said, 24,000 trucks in total do 87% of the lifting, so the cost to the State would be achievable at a reasonable rate.

It would provide the incentive. Over 43% of our members are sole truck operators. There is no way they can cover the cost. Depending on size and ranging from a single-axle to a six-axle to an articulated model, a new truck costs between €120,000 and €180,000, which is what the most modern ones will cost next year.

Regarding keeping residents awake, has the Deputy listened to the recent developments with newer trucks going by? You hardly hear them. There is no clap and bang. That is the new technology

Mr. Paul Jackman:

I reiterate Mr. Drennan's point that last year, 99.6% of the HGVs sold in Europe were diesel. There is no practical, functioning alternative at the moment. A grant is available from the Department of Transport for a hydrogen fuel cell truck but no hydrogen fuel cell trucks are available. Grants are available for a CNG or an LNG truck through the Causeway Project but that has been abandoned this year because it is no cleaner than diesel. We have been told by several manufacturers not to buy electric trucks because they are just not functioning. We know they are not functioning. They are not realistic. Diesel is the only option. As the charter went around, it shows just how clean and quiet modern diesel is, as Mr. Drennan mentioned. In our proposal for the budget last year and previous budgets, we came up with a green rebate concept where a diesel rebate came back to the operator of the cleaner vehicles. The operator would be incentivised to go up the emissions scale and buy Euro 6 and would get a rebate on the excise paid. That made perfect sense. In our submission, we exhibited how a 25% reduction in CO2 output would be achieved through accelerating the transition of the modern fleet to Euro 6.

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

That Euro 6 technology takes out over 90% of carbon monoxide, 98% of particle matter and over 90% of sulphur. It is very clean burning and helps people's health.

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As today is International Women's Day, I am curious to know how many women are in the industry?

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

Not a lot. They do not come in because of its nature but they are more than welcome.

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can Mr. Drennan see the figure increasing in the future?

Mr. Paul Jackman:

The IRHA developed a traineeship which is in seven ETBs. By the end of this year, we will have 1,000 new drivers on the road. I am involved in it and I go and meet the trainees. Between 6% and 16% of the attendees are female. The figure across the industry is between 1% or 3% in the transport sector and up to 5% in the coach sector.

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The mental health of drivers was mentioned. What is the biggest issue concerning the mental health of drivers?

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

They are waiting for boats, restrictions of the tachograph and good facilities on motorways during the night. They are often closed. We try to help them with these pressures.

Patricia Ryan (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With most hauliers with whom I speak, particularly long-haul hauliers, the issues are that they cannot pull in anywhere now. They were able to pull in at one time but they now find great difficulty in pulling in now to get their cups of coffee or have their rest time. This seems to be a major problem so I assume that at some point, we will be able to alleviate some of that.

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

There is a move to try to help address it. We had a meeting with TII, which is conscious of it, including in respect of any new planning applications, but that is a slow burn. In the meantime, it is not too bad regarding pulling in. It is more about getting the facilities. We asked TII to see if it can get operators to leave services open at night.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We might put that question on gender to the IFA as well because I believe there are some brilliant women farmers in Ireland.

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

I am delighted to see we have a balanced group here this evening. Ms McDonagh may wish to comment as well. It is very important and we take it very seriously. Approximately 11% of people involved in the sector could be women. It is very important to remember all our wives and partners, who play an untold role in the sector. I am delighted the Cathaoirleach asked the question because on International Women's Day, it is a great opportunity for us to respect that and appreciate the work women do in our sector.

Ms Rose Mary McDonagh:

I am national chair of the farm business committee and the first woman in the role. It was a significant challenge. I am in my fourth year and to get that was a brilliant opportunity. There are as many women helping out in the day-to-day running of farms as there are farmers. They provide huge support. TAMS for women in farming presents a significant opportunity for women who want to make improvements or invest in their farms. There is a 60% grant rate. We acknowledge that bringing this in was a great achievement by the Government. We are looking at the fine detail and the terms and conditions that will make it as easy as possible to avail of. It is for women between the ages of 40 and 65. It represents a great opportunity for many women to use TAMS and invest in their farms.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses covered a lot of the areas in which I am particularly interested. One of the recommendations in the commission's report is on reducing fossil fuels subsidies. There are no alternatives in many different areas. It is difficult to see silage being done with an electric tractor, although it might be possible. It is difficult to see whether the fleet of lorries on the road would have the power to do it. It would be wonderful if that was the case and maybe at some point it will be the case but in the meantime, we have to deliver and produce food. I am interested in the alternatives the witnesses say could be there with biofuels such as HVO. I am interested to see the witnesses are looking towards the beet ground for generating it. Are there other options such as offshore or other options for generating biofuels?

Home heating must come into the picture as well. Lots of the same challenges will be hitting householders and they will find it difficult to switch to an electric solution. Biofuel might be an alternative for them. What are the views of both groups on that?

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

The Deputy made a very good point. Technology has not reached the point where we will get silage harvesters or tractors that will run on electric batteries. It is just not possible at the moment and we are a while away from that. We probably need to consider land use. Mr. Drennan advocated funding for growing rapeseed for rapeseed oil. All these measures we are talking about will require funding but one critical point is the availability of land. It is an issue about which we are very concerned. If we look at what farmers have already engaged in with regard to reducing emissions, we estimate that if we were to increase forestry and tillage land, which would be similar to growing rapeseed, we would decrease the amount of grassland by something in the region of 8% or 9%, which would be a significant challenge for and cost to our sector.

One of the areas we mentioned in our submission earlier is around biomethane and injecting gas into the grid. The Government has been coming forward asking us to adapt all of those further measures along with the measures we have or are currently adopting and working on, but there is a substantial cost around this. We have not seen any initiative coming from the Government providing funding. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, had been advocating this for quite a while but we are not seeing the funding. That is a huge concern for us. Once you change from one system to another, it is a lifestyle change but it also involves a huge financial cost with all the risks and concerns around that. My colleague may want to add to that as well.

Mr. Karol Kissane:

I thank the president. I guess I will add a little because I am looking at renewables as well as working with Ms McDonagh on the farm business. We hope we can engage more with the Government on looking at policy around where anaerobic digestion, AD, can move to within the country. There is AD in many other countries, especially in Europe. You can see it in Denmark, for instance, or even just go across the Border to Northern Ireland and see the AD industry there.

The blueprints are there to see how AD can work. We would be of the opinion that it is now time to engage to see how this can move forward and whether there is a possibility of an AD industry happening here within the State. If it is to happen, as the president outlined, can we produce that biomethane at a reasonable rate that can be injected into the national grid? Can it help to decarbonise the gas network? Can it help our colleagues in road haulage? Can they use some of that biomethane?

There was reference to the cutting of silage, etc. New Holland has methane-driven tractors developed at this stage. I am not sure of the cost and how far down the road it will be before they will be in mass production but if we can have something like that here within the country, we can farm and take diesel out of the equation in agriculture. As we stated in our earlier submission, chapter 13 of the report mentions the equalisation of duties and taxes across all different oils and fuels, including diesel, and suggests that you would bring MGO or agricultural diesel up to the same level as unleaded petrol. At the moment-----

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of the time. I have another question as well and I need to get the road hauliers' view on it as well.

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

On the torque of the alternative fuels and the torque of electric in pulling a tractor, there is no torque. Electrical batteries for the bigger vehicles have been produced. I am thinking in particular of Tesla in America. Millions upon millions have been invested in it. They have developed the battery and they have developed a truck that can go but it cannot bring the weight. They have not got the torque. They have not got the structure to keep it charged within the country. The distances cannot be covered. That would be similar to us going to far-flung places in Europe. We will not do it. I will bring Mr. Jackman in on the technology side of it.

I keep referencing being an island nation. The reason we refer to that is that although gas may be used in tractors here and may work, the exhaust of gas is the same as the Euro 6 emission level. On top of that, on an island we must think about shipping. We cannot put a range of battery trucks on a ship because the toxicity alone if one went on fire would kill the passengers. You cannot put out a battery fire on a ship; you have to sink the ship. It has to be submerged. With hydrogen, likewise, the development of the hydrogen from the oxygen costs a lot of money - Mr. Jackman will go into that - and that is not here yet. The amount of it we would need, with the bigger tanks and the infrastructure of travelling with hydrogen, makes it difficult. Plus, with the bigger vehicles, the leakage of hydrogen is higher. They tell you that it is easier to put out the fire, but what if you see ten hydrogen trucks in a row and one of them goes up? There would be a big security risk for the safety of the people on board and for the ship itself. Coming and going to and from an island, there is a challenge because the inert nature of diesel is so much safer.

There is a new buzz going around that we might develop synthetic fuels. The cost of that is very high - Mr. Jackman will tell the committee about that - and they are not available yet either. On the HVO suggestion, we are mindful of the needs of farmers. What we suggested would be a rotational crop. It provides natural nitrogen for the soil, I believe, in its growth. Mr. Jackman or Mr. Nolan will fill the Deputy in on the technicality of what HVO is, and on synthetic fuels.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Briefly, as we have to move on to the next speaker.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe I could ask another short question instead of that answer.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will forego that response. One of the areas where there is common ground is that in farming, you often work on your own. When you are on the road, you are often on your own. Public health, well-being and loneliness are major issues. Are there any views on what can be done to tackle this?

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

I have said where we are at over health. It is not really front of line with us but I would be cognisant that we discuss the fear of a health issue coming up. In addition, the rate of suicide has gone very high. I would be conscious that if we see any signs around that, we would act. We do not have that incidence, thank God, except very seldom.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there any view from the IFA in that regard?

Ms Rose Mary McDonagh:

All I would say is that in farming, there is a very high suicide rate. I totally agree with the Deputy from the loneliness point of view. There have been a few initiatives along the lines of discussion groups and knowledge transfer groups. They are good from the point of view that they will bring a cohort of farmers together in a certain area or sector and they have a discussion point. It becomes an opportunity for them to meet, discuss and learn something from other farms. Those discussion groups were a good idea and they should be continued.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to move on to the next speaker. I call Deputy Michael Healy-Rae.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the two teams led by their two presidents, Mr. Eugene Drennan of the IRHA and Mr. Tim Cullinan of the IFA. I have tremendous respect for both organisations. I have been a member of the IFA for all of my adult life, and I am glad to be a member. I am a lifelong supporter of the work the IRHA does.

First of all, I will acknowledge the day that is in it by talking about women in farming. I want to acknowledge one woman whom I have never forgotten. I do not know whether the committee can see this. I always keep a sod of turf in my office. The reason the sod of turf is there is that if you forget where you came from, you do not know where you are going to. My grandmother cut turf barefoot in the bog at home. That was how they survived at that time. Her husband became disabled. She was the farmer. She was the woman who kept things going. It was her ability, her brains and her hard work cutting turf barefoot with a sleán that got us going out of the ground. I never want to forget that. That is why there is a sod of turf in my office and it will always be there as long as I am here.

Yesterday, I raised with the Taoiseach the land tax on zoned land. I have great concerns about this 3% tax. A number of farmers in Kerry have come to me. They are farming and want to continue farming. Their land may be zoned and may be suitable for housing, but these are people who are milking and growing grass. They want to keep farming. They are not interested in housing. The rest of the country and all of us are, of course, but farmers who want to keep farming and keep milking cows should not be taxed out of existence because the Government wants to force them into doing something they do not want to do. Of course a person who is hoarding land and not using it should be hit with the tax and should be forced to make that land available for property to built on because it is badly needed. That is an issue I would like to see the IFA being strong about. When land is being valued and transferred, I have this lifelong view in my head that a farm - I do not care if it is worth €100,000 or €100 million - is not yours. You do not take it with you. I have never yet seen a person taking a field into a coffin and into the ground. All we are is custodians of the land. We have it for a while. We try to make a living the best way we can. We try to improve it and then we transfer it on to the next generation. When I hear people talking about land being an asset and a farmer being worth a fortune because he or she has a fine farm and it is worth a lot of money, I say it is not because he or she is not selling it.

If you are not selling it, it is not worth anything. You are just using it, the same as you would use a shovel to go to work, or a JCB to dig a hole. You are using it for a purpose. When you have to transfer your land in an orderly way, you have to be careful about taxation. Therefore, we need to make sure the environment is made as easy as possible to transfer from one generation to another.

On the subject of diesel, I have had a high carbon licence for 35 years to allow me to sell fuel. This affects the two sides. We saw what the Government thought of farmers when it did nothing for us on agri-diesel and the rebate scheme. I am terrified at what is coming down the road when I see how they are tinkering with the VAT rate and how they want to do away with green diesel. Whether it is for a loading shovel or a tractor, they will want to make you use white diesel. If that is allowed to come in, it will be a disaster. We cannot allow that to happen, because common sense will have to prevail. You cannot put white diesel in vehicles that are only used in yards and for farming and forestry purposes.

On the subject of public transport, from Brosna to Ballinskelligs and from east to west, we do not have public transport or the type of transport that is available to other people. We have to be very careful about a lot of the airy-fairy ideas we listen to every day of the week in here. Common sense will have to prevail when it comes to issues like that.

When it comes to forestry, I have expressed my disappointment day after day at different committees and in the Dáil. We have not had such a lack of confidence in the forestry sector since 1946. That was the last time forestry was on the ground the way it is now under the present Minister, from whom I expected greater things. The confidence has gone out of it. You cannot get a felling licence. You cannot get a thinning licence. You cannot get permission to make a road. The whole thing is in a shambles. Everybody will tell you that. Foresters see the two-tier system with regard to Coillte and what they are doing. Are we interested in forestry and growing trees, or are we interested in making money for people abroad? I know what I want to do. I want to see forestry being owned by farmers, if a portion of their land is suitable, so that it will provide some income for them or their families in the future.

I will move on to the Irish Road Haulage Association because I want to cover another couple of subjects. Hauliers are being treated like criminals. When a person gets up in the morning and gets into a lorry, what are they doing? They are doing a thing that if it were not done, the rest of us would starve. They are keeping the wheels of this country going. This is an island nation. I have yet to see food falling out of the sky and onto the shop floor. It is delivered in vans, be they big, small, medium, or articulated lorries. These are the people driving through the night. Whether they are bread men, milkmen, or bigger transport people, they are delivering the food we eat. When we talk about how it is going to be delivered, we need to understand that there is no battery yet that will take between 10 and 40 tonnes over the county boundary. It is not there. It does not exist yet. There is no battery yet that will work a loading shovel in a quarry. We need to crush stone to build roads. We need to crush stone to make bricks to make blocks. We need to make ready-mix. You cannot do that with batteries. The sooner people in the Dáil cop on and realise that, and the sooner we give up the nonsense of thinking we can do it, the better. If we all blindly agree with this nonsense that we can manage without diesel, then we are going to starve, we will not have a house, we will not have a road and we will have nothing. We cannot manage without it. The most effective and efficient thing you can have in this world is a properly maintained and serviced diesel engine. That is a fact. If you take a battery car and the damage done to the environment to make that battery car, it is probably the most damaging thing you can have. Why would you scrap a perfectly good diesel engine to get a battery car that you can only go for a small journey in before looking for power? Where is the power coming from? We are producing less and less electricity, at more of a cost and we are telling everybody we should be using more of it. That is more madness and more insanity.

I will turn to Brexit. It has caused many difficulties for people, and none more so than the people in the IRHA. I thank them for their service and for what they do. Of course I want to thank the companies, but I also want to thank the drivers. I want to thank the mechanics who keep the wheels turning and have to work odd and unsociable hours in bad weather when breakdowns happen. Who goes out and gets the lorry going? The mechanics do. I thank the people who are working in the offices who organise the hire purchase and so on to keep the wheels rolling. Every one of these people is to be thanked, but do they get thanks? No, they do not. When you are out on the road, you can have a lorry pass a test only to be pulled into the side of the road. The hair stands on the back of my head when I pass a roadblock and see a haulier being pulled in.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is over time.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will finish with this because it is an important point. They are being treated like criminals, but they are not criminals. They are driving perfectly safe lorries. People should know what they go through - the mental torture they go through - because of what they are threatened with and the upset it causes. It is not as though I am trying to promote unsafe transport. Nothing could be further from the truth. It makes no sense to me that a vehicle which has passed a test can be pulled into the side of the road by people who will go through it like a dose of salts. You could have passed it the day before.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are a little over the Deputy's time. Would he like the witnesses to reflect or comment on any of his contribution?

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have more to say, but I always take the Chair's guidance.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know he does.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being a little passionate about these subjects.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know how passionate the Deputy is, but Deputy Canney still needs to contribute. I will let the witnesses comment on some of Deputy Healy-Rae's points.

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

In the first place I would like to know the bog the Deputy got the turf from. It is a fine solid black. It took no rain. It has no brown in it whatsoever. It has a high heat content and I would think it is very efficient. He might give us the name of the bog somewhere along the line.

Deputy Healy-Rae touched on a few subjects. Our perspective on the effort to be carbon-neutral, if not carbon-zero, is that this is what we have to work with at the moment. It is the supply line. If we are overtaxed, that is double and triple taxation on the populace. The Deputy touched on forestry. One important thing is that as well as the modern high-value exports in areas like pharmaceuticals, life sciences and medical products, we also have the cheap and cheerful. We cannot forget it. I refer, for example, to the supply of big concrete beams or forestry materials into the UK. That market is now shot. We must try our best to keep that competitive edge.

Another challenge is from the Windsor Framework. If there are green lanes, we do not know where they are going to take us. As I said at the start, with the Windsor Framework we must separate the political from the commercial. There are two differences. It is great to have it, and I congratulate everybody who was involved in it. However, on the commercial side, if we are to have fairness and equivalence in Ireland to match the EU criteria, as Deputy Durkan said, we need balance and equivalence. It is not there if there is one pear-shaped side of the country. It will put us out of sync for our exports because we cannot get backloads. It is all over the place.

Another point in Deputy Healy-Rae's statement was that we should take a step-by-step approach and deal with what we have now. That is as we have outlined. I will not go back into it again. Let us take the next step in five or six years, when we are at the next deadline, and see where we will be then. For now, we need surety of costs and surety of supply. We need to be as green as we can, but we cannot be getting taxed out of existence before these events happen. None of our taxation, including all we have paid in carbon tax, has come back to incentivise our industry. Where has all the money gone that was collected under the 2 cent NORA levy? Millions were collected over the years and millions will be collected from this one.

The National Oil Reserves Agency, NORA, is a very wealthy body and it has had a huge turnover over the years. Where is the money? Where has it gone? We do not have but we have been charged through the nose because of the outburn of diesel and it is back in so that is alright.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay Mr. Drennan-----

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

On the criminality on the side of the road, we are in big discussions with the RSA, on that, the double DOE, test and on the approach at the side of the road and on conforming to the EU on the protocols of that.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Drennan. I will let the IFA come in.

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

The Deputy raised a lot of issues and the first point I want to come back to is the green diesel and he is correct that we cannot operate in farming or in heavy machinery in any areas without an adequate supply of green diesel and that is critically important to the sector going forward. The point about food deliveries is correct, that cannot happen without infrastructure, trucks and fuel supply. Another important point the Deputy raised is around the forestry and I would like to put forward a proposal because we now have numerous problems in forestry. The licensing issue is still a major problem. As the Deputy rightly stated, there is afforestation licensing, thinning roads, harvesting the forest, and we have a serious problem with ash dieback. We have asked the Minister of State to come to a forum. We organised a climate summit in early January and brought all of the actors in the chain together, which proved to be a very successful day. I am asking the committee members for their support in asking the Minister of State, Senator Pippa Hackett, to come to a forestry summit. We will organise this but it is very important to have Coillte, and departmental officials present at that summit as well. We need to everyone come together. This has been going on for long enough now. We have a potential fund of €1.3 billion, we want to see where that is at, we cannot continue having investment funds coming in with the potential of being able to draw down the premiums which is in place for farmers. I would like to put that proposal this evening. The Deputy mentioned a very important point around Brexit and I want to make a point about the Brexit Adjustment Reserve, BAR, fund. We have put numerous proposals to the Government on this looking at diversification in several sectors within agriculture and, to date, we have had no response. I would appreciate any help from the committee in that area also.

On the land zone tax-----

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, briefly please as others need to come in.

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

Ms McDonagh is an expert on this and I will hand over to her.

Ms Rose Mary McDonagh:

I do not know if I am an expert but the residential zoned land tax has been at our committee for the past year. We welcome the comments of the Taoiseach earlier. I will read the words he used because it sounds like we wrote them ourselves:

"It is reasonable for farmers to say, 'This is my farm. I own this land. It has been in my family for generations and I don't want to develop it. I want to continue to farm it.'"

That is exactly the point we have lobbied on for the past year. We have put a huge amount of work into it. At this stage we need a legislative change that will actually allow farmers to farm their land. There was previously an exemption in the vacant site levy so we need an exemption in the residential zoned land tax. Every time we make this point, politicians come back and the Government line seems to be that there has been a section built into it where the farmer can go in to de-zone or ask for the zoning to be changed. That is not happening on the ground and we have been told at council level that it is not working. We need legislative change that farmers would be exempt.

There is also another issue there in the sense that when the maps are drawn up all that is in the legislation is that the councils have to publish the maps. There is no onus on the council to notify landowners that they are in the scope of this tax or that they are caught up in it. As the Deputy rightly said, 3% of market value is penal because that is a lot more than the value or the income that has been received from farming. Notification needs to be sent to anybody who is caught up in this but the bottom line is that farms, farm land and farm families need to be exempt from this, similar to the vacant site levy.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now go to Deputy Canney.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I say one thing on that?

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Michael Healy Rae is already way over time so he will need to be very quick.

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

I want to know the name of the bog.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be one second, a Chathaoirligh. It is about Mr. Cullinan seeking support in asking the Minister with responsibility for forestry to come before a forum. I would like to put my tuppence ha'pennyworth in and I know that members such as Deputies Doherty and Durkan would be supportive of this as well. I would like to put my shoulder to the wheel on that issue and of course with regard to-----

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Deputy Healy Rae wants to make a proposal, he can do so and one of the other Deputies can second it.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make the proposal on behalf of the president who suggested it, if that is acceptable to the Cathaoirleach.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the proposal.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Canney has seconded it as has Deputy Durkan. Does anyone dissent? No, that is fine. Can Deputy Healy Rae come back to the committee with a wording for that proposal?

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach. Will I give the wording now?

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, the Deputy can come back to the committee secretariat. It is nearly 9 p.m. so we will move this along.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I came to the meeting with certain questions I wanted to ask but we have floated right across the spectrum of agriculture challenges, road transport and so on. The one issue that comes out of the debate is that the Commission on Taxation and Welfare produced a document that is so high level that it frightens everybody because it mentions everything that can be done. What we do not have is a concrete pathway on how we will achieve it. The same thing is going on with the climate action plans. We are making decisions to do things before we have the alternatives in play. This morning in the Dáil I raised the issue of the closure of Shannonbridge and Lanesborough power stations when they had ten more years of life left, yet we went on to pass legislation to put diesel generators into one of them and into someplace else to back up our fuel. To use the parlance, we have put the cart before the horse lots of times. The biggest problem I have with all of this taxation and what will happen is, if we increase the cost of diesel for the farming community because it is not an environmentally friendly source of energy, the farmer will have to take that on board but the problem is the farmer cannot add it on at the end of the day because he is a price taker and has to take whatever price there is. We see what is happening with sheep at the moment. What is also happening in road haulage is that their costs are going up so Mrs. Bloggs or Mr. Bloggs in the shop will have to pay more or else they will opt for a cheaper variety of food of lower quality. We are setting out policies that are supposed to improve the lives of everybody and protect the environment but what we are doing is - there is a word I want to use but I cannot.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We know the word you mean, Deputy Canney, keep going.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not doing this right. It was mentioned that a ship would have to be sunk if the battery of a truck within it went on fire and I was thinking of the last time I went to Holyhead, which was a grand trip. I would not like to have to try to ditch that on the way over if a fire started on it. If that is the reality, that is the reality. The rapeseed oil proposal needs to be developed and that is a positive. Mr. Cullinan said he has so much land and if some of it was used for tillage, how do we produce the food? That is where organisations such as the IFA need to come together to see how we can come to the table with solutions. Likewise when we had the beet industry in this country, we had a lot of tillage. We had mostly rotational crops in the land and that was right across where I live and now I barely see a plough, never mind a field being ploughed, because they have all gone to beef or sheep. We had a beet factory in Tuam and it was a great employer but all of that is gone and it is history. The most important thing about it is that mistakes were made in that decision. I believe we are continuing to make the same type of mistake by having a knee-jerk reaction and saying we have to do this, we have to stop this, without having an alternative in place.

The witnesses might wish to comment on that. In seconding the proposal to have a forestry forum, I believe that the stakeholders in this country, who are the people running food production in this country right across the board, have a responsibility to come up with solutions. If we rely on policies, they will never see the light of day.

As for wind turbines and so on, what I have seen in the past 12 months is investors coming in, talking to farmers, signing them up and creating huge divisions in communities, with people getting scared as the process goes along. There is the concept of having green energy and how we will have lovely birds flying around the place and everything green. We end up with neighbours not talking to one another. Having that kind of thing going on is the worst scenario of all. We are closing our eyes to it and allowing the investors, no more so than in the forestry, to dictate everything. We put in place the policies, they take it over and we become the pawns in the game. We are at a crossroads if we are to sort climate action and meet our targets in that regard. We are blindly following a target without looking at the consequences of it.

Before anyone responds, I want just to acknowledge the fact that 16.5% of the witnesses are female, namely Ms McDonagh, who is from my constituency. Well done to her.

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

Absolutely, and we are always trying to ensure diversity in our organisation. I have an excellent colleague beside me from County Galway.

The Deputy started off with a point about pathways and how we achieve them, and he is right. We need better planning from our Government. We have to decide what we will do with land. Will we use it to produce food or fuel or a combination of both? I return to where I started: we have to find the right balance here. The climatic conditions, soil type and so on that we have in this country are driven towards producing top-quality food. We do that in abundance and we are very good at it.

The other point the Deputy made is amazing. We have heard what happened in Bord na Móna with the bogs. The Government decided that we would cease harvesting turf and now it is putting in diesel generators. That is astounding. The Government does not have the right plan. There is a responsibility on it to come up with a proper plan. As I have said from the start, we acknowledge our responsibilities in respect of climate and climate change and we are working on them. The Deputy commented that farmers are price takers. Legislation relating to a food regulator is being taken through the Dáil by the Minister, Deputy McConalogue. It is high time for this. It has been kicked around long enough. We need to see that because we cannot continue to be price takers. We have to know where the margin is going in the entire food system. That will be critical into the future.

As for the Deputy's comment on wind turbines, it depends. It is very important that their location does not impact rural communities or local communities. There will be challenges in that area.

Mr. Kissane is our expert in renewables. He might want to make a quick comment.

Mr. Karol Kissane:

I understand what the Deputy Canney said. It is an issue I highlight to farmers when I talk to them, and what they mention these days is not so much wind energy. What I get across my desk is probably more along the lines of solar and even the hope of anaerobic digestion. Farmers should be conscious of signing up to deals whereby somebody arrives into their area and is, for want of a better word, a developer trying to put a large land bank together. The question has to be asked: who is that to benefit? Is it to benefit the farmer, the locality or the person putting the land bank together? From that point of view - and this refers back to what I said earlier in reply to Deputy Aindrias Moynihan - we hope we will be able to engage with the Government and the various Departments to put policy in place to make sure that anything that develops as we move forward - and I know that solar is developing at a good rate at the moment and that AD may come - is farmer-centric and community-centric and there for the good of all society in order that if we are moving towards more renewables on land, the way in which it is worked is for the benefit of all and not just for the benefit of the few.

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

As the Deputy was so to the point and brief, I will be brief. I will bring to his attention two things that are relevant.

I refer back to the figure we gave earlier, that only 24,000 vehicles are doing 87% of the lifting. That is the supply chain, the basis of cost of goods here and a multiplier of inflation. If we were to tax that in, it multiplies up along. It is very necessary for us to be carbon neutral or to get to the carbon plan as best we can but not to be taxed out of it. What we are being taxed for is not there, so that would be very unfair.

My colleague, Mr. Jackman, will tell the Deputy about two issues. One is the size of the batteries that would be needed and imagining having them on a ferry. The other is that there are two incorrect, or not quite right, proposals in the document. As was said, here is the basis on which we start off on the planning and setting whatever we are going forward with, and it should be right. I will ask Mr. Jackman to comment.

Mr. Paul Jackman:

What we have heard tonight on this side of the table, and what many Deputies have acknowledged, is the essential nature of diesel and its role. As the Deputy said, what happened in the Dáil today, with diesel generation being allowed back in one of the old plants that were decommissioned, is a reality. There is no getting away from it. I will give the committee an example. An electric truck that weighs the same as its diesel equivalent will do 100 km before its batteries need recharging. For every extra 100 km you want from that truck, you have to put an extra tonne of batteries on board. That is the reality. A truck that will do 400 km will be three tonnes heavier. That is the scale of what is involved.

What needs to be put on record is that on page 370 of the report that has us all here tonight, a presumption is made that the misalignment of the excise on diesel and petrol is the reason our diesel car sales are so high. In 2012, however, nearly 80% of our car sales were diesel cars; in 2016, it was 70%; in 2017, it was 65%; and, in 2022, it was 22%. The logic on page 370 is, therefore, turned totally inside out because here we have a 75% reduction in diesel car sales as a percentage of the total, with no realignment of the excise. That argument is therefore out the window.

On the same page there is a statement that diesel emits more nitrous oxide than petrol. As Mr. Drennan said earlier, there is 87% in the N2O emissions from a diesel engine from Euro 1 to Euro 6, which is what we have now, so that is another nonsense. Elements of the premise of many of the arguments for the realignment of the excise are, therefore, totally incorrect. Private car sales being so low as a percentage of the total means that an increase in tax, on top of the 40 cent to 50 cent increase per litre coming because of carbon tax, will land only on the commercial sector, which is dependent on diesel, as we have all reiterated tonight and as many Deputies have agreed. That cannot be allowed happen because it will land on every citizen in this country. It will not steer us away from diesel. We have no alternative. That has to be the message here tonight.

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

It will land through taxation on the individual receiving the goods.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses to the committee and thank them for their opening statements and the answers to the questions so far. I will try not to be repetitive in that regard.

I will begin with the IFA. Its opening statement mentions the proposal by the Commission on Taxation and Welfare for equalisation on the levy on excise duty and that agricultural diesel be the same as marked gas oil. The association states that the proposal would, at today's prices and rates, see an extra 50 cent per litre added to the price of agricultural diesel. Will the IFA clarify something it has mentioned previously?

Are there no alternatives to agricultural fuel at this point? What does the horizon look like in that regard?

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

The Deputy is correct. We highlighted the price differential. It is a sector with very low margins. It would be a significant challenge for the sector. The price differential is critically important for the sector. We have discussed the fact that there are no alternatives at the moment. High-powered machinery is used by farmers and, similar to the situation in respect of trucks, battery power will not work. As we mentioned, there are tractors that are running on methane fuel. The point was made before the Deputy came in that it comes down to the Government strategy and plan in respect of all this and how it will be achieved. We, as farmers, are willing to adopt further new measures. The Deputy is correct, however. It all comes back to having a proper structure, plan and funding because this involves substantial changes in farming practice and how we develop our businesses. If farmers are to develop biomethane plants, they will have to invest millions of euro in that process. Until we see proper proposals and a plan from the Government, it is very difficult to engage in new technologies.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What would a proper plan look like from the point of view of the IFA? What would need to be included in it to encourage the necessary investment - the large numbers to which Mr. Cullinan referred - in alternatives? The horizon is clear in terms of climate change and the need for all sectors to do their bit. The agricultural sector is ready, willing and able to step up but it needs to know what the pathway is. What needs to be done? What are the components of that plan that would need to be shown to farmers to encourage them to make that type of investment in methane plants?

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

If farmers were to develop proper biomethane production in this country, we would need the Government to be able to underwrite the price. There is no point in a farmer investing if that is not the case. To get these projects bankable, we will need to have a floor for the price. In that regard, I would envisage a commitment from the Government for 15 to 20 years to provide protection against fluctuations in the price of gas. There was an enormous rise in gas prices during the war in Ukraine but that price has come back down again. If farmers are to invest, they need certainty.

There is also rooftop solar, in which farmers are absolutely willing to participate. Under TAMS III, which has been announced, there is a €90,000 ceiling on grant aid for farmers. The problem, however, is the lack of proper infrastructure, such as a network of cables to carry that power into the national grid. That is a significant mistake. It is very frustrating that there are many livestock farmers who could generate new income from rooftop solar but they cannot currently get that power back into the grid. Those are some of the areas in which we need the Government to come forward with a clear plan and roadway for us-----

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not today or yesterday that farmers started talking to me about their frustration at the barriers preventing them generating solar electricity and feeding it back into the grid, which would be a way of keeping their farms viable, even though we are missing our overall targets in terms of climate change objectives. Mr. Cullinan gave the example of rooftop solar. Tomorrow morning, my colleague, Deputy Carthy, will launch a policy document in respect of solar energy and other on-farm renewables on behalf of Sinn Féin. The debate in that regard will be interesting. Deputy Carthy has done a significant amount of work on this and engaged with farm communities. He recognises and understands their frustration.

Mr. Cullinan referred to some of the impediments, such as the grid, cables and physical infrastructure. To focus on the tax element, however, is there any tax impediment to realising the potential of solar energy or other renewables in the agriculture sector?

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

Mr. Kissane might wish to take that question.

Mr. Karol Kissane:

There are a couple. This does not relate to rooftop solar. Current restrictions mean that if a farmer who wishes to develop land on the farm for solar goes over 49% of his or her land area in solar, that will affect some of the reliefs currently available to the farmer, such as in respect of transfers of land, retirement reliefs, capital acquisition reliefs for one's successor, stamp duty and other matters. There are restrictions in that regard. I agree with the Deputy. It is a matter we considered in our proposal. I have looked at it in the context of other areas. There is a lot of talk about diversification on farms. That is not just renewables; it is also other businesses into which farmers can move. The report of the Commission on Taxation has a significant amount of content on extra taxes but it is important that, in the context of encouraging and enabling farmers to move to a lower emissions model, it is ensured that the taxes and tax reliefs that are currently in place for traditional models will be reflected in the new farming models that farmers may take up.

I spoke to a farmer who set up a business a number of years ago. He was taking in green waste, such as hedge or tree clippings, and mulching it. The mulch was used as a fertiliser on his tillage land and some of it was purchased by his neighbours. He was hit with a significant rates bill because that activity was not listed in the annexe of agricultural activities. He has since ceased that business. It does not make sense for that to be happening while we are talking about trying to give extra and different income streams to farmers. I agree with the Deputy that, on the whole, the reliefs that are currently in place and the way farming is currently treated need to be reflected when it comes to renewables or any other diversification farmers may take on.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That uncertainty and stories circulating through the agricultural sector of farmers being hit with an unforeseen tax bill will probably unsettle people who may be considering taking the necessary steps we want them to take.

To go back to the equalisation of the levy on agricultural fuel, what percentage of the component cost does fuel make up in the context of agriculture? If the proposal of the Commission on Taxation were to be implemented and the price per litre of that fuel were to increase, what would that mean for the end product, namely, the food on supermarket shelves?

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

It is very difficult to put a precise figure on it but it would obviously add to the cost of food. Food inflation is running at 16.5% currently. We had a figure of in excess of 50 cent per litre. That should be considered in the overall context of the sector having exported €16.2 billion of food last year. That does not include sales on the domestic market. It would substantially increase the price of food. Nobody wants to drive up the price of food for consumers, particularly in the current situation. The Government needs to tread very carefully when it comes to equalisation. It would create serious problems for farmers on the ground, as the Deputy is aware. Farming is a low-income business, regardless. That is why those exemptions were in place. As regards the report of the Commission on Taxation, the Government needs to look at this in a positive light. It is critical that any of the positive measures we have currently are maintained in future.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Cullinan. May I ask a question of the IRHA?

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is way over time. I ask him to make it brief.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hear the comments of the witnesses from the IRHA. I am mindful of the fact that a ferry company in Norway is now banning hybrid cars and electric cars from boarding its ships because of the issues in respect of putting out fires. In terms of the trajectory, the manufacturers have come together to state that there will be no more diesel trucks in Europe by 2040. They have already signed that agreement. There are electric trucks. The various manufacturers are offering a wide range in that regard.

Where does the IRHA believe we are at? Will we see more aggressive use of electric trucks on the roads in Ireland or does the association think the issue of the battery and the fact the trucks have to go on to a boat is a massive impediment in terms of the use of EVs on an island in the future?

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

That is the point we are making. The safety aspect means they will not be viable here. They are not readily available at the moment anyway. The future lies in further developments in cleaning up diesel with new technologies. For now, we have the step-by-step approach, and if we get the supports we have just spoken about, we can reach our target by 2030.

On the solar issue, the impediment for hauliers is the buy-back from the ESB. The ESB has a system under which it will only buy back at the level we take in and we are graded. We have a lot of warehouses and sheds and many people are interested in solar, but there is the added cost of the solid-state battery to take in and hold any excessive charge. If the roof space is large, we are talking about quite a considerable investment in the battery on top of the solar investment. There is no incentive in terms of carbon credits or the ability to trade such credits. The incentives are not there in reality. We were going to look for a scheme similar to the one that applies to farmers but it is not viable because there is no real incentive.

I will ask Mr. Jackman to respond to the question on the way forward and the developments coming on stream in the context of Ireland being an island.

Mr. Paul Jackman:

Currently, the running costs of diesel and electric cars are actually quite close if you are getting the electricity out on the road. The advantage with the EV only applies if you are getting the power at home on the night rate. That is where you are scoring. As Mr. Drennan said, where we see transport businesses going is that their vans and local delivery trucks will become electric. They will have the infrastructure on site for temporary battery storage as well as solar or wind power and they will generate their own electricity. That is where they will get a return.

On the issue of doing the longer runs across Ireland as an island, the battery potential to do that will be available in 15 or 20 years' time. Given the limits on infrastructure and the pace of availability, it will be a very slow burn. We had a conference in Killarney last September and the main sponsor told us not to buy its electric trucks yet. I have also heard that from another manufacturer. They are not there yet and they will admit that openly to those who have a good relationship with them. They are not there yet.

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

The manufacturers that signed up to that agreement gave an ultimatum to the EU recently. They told the EU to make up its mind about whether it wants alternative fuels or diesel. They have no choice but to go diesel because they cannot make both. They cannot manufacture both because they cannot get the component parts. They cannot run the lines and they do not have the people to do it. It is not feasible. Germany has stepped back recently and admitted it will be diesel for the interim, if not the long term.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I usually give people the option of a second round of questions but I am mindful it is 9.30 p.m. and we have been here since 5.30 p.m. In that context, I propose that we draw to a close at this stage, if that is acceptable to everybody. Before I do so, however, I will invite our witnesses to make one final comment.

Mr. Paul Jackman:

In the document we are discussing, the basis for the differential in excise duty between diesel and petrol is defined by the authors. They point out that, when it was introduced, the rationale for this lower rate of excise duty on diesel was that businesses, particularly in heavy goods haulage, were reliant on diesel and had little or no alternative fuel source or transport modes available. The lower rate was a policy measure intended to protect the competitiveness of such businesses and we contend this is still the reality. In spite of all our aspirations, grand schemes and the mountaintop targets we are setting ourselves, that is still the reality on the ground. We are asking that the excise differential be maintained. Diesel car sales have plummeted, and when you put years on it, only the commercial sector will be reliant on diesel. Any change or increase in the excise duty is only going to hit the commercial sector and, potentially, the agricultural sector.

Mr. Eugene Drennan:

We need surety about where we are going. We need to know the direction for sure. We have outlined why there is only one way to go. We cannot keep hopping around between all the different suggestions. We need to comply with the ten-year plan for road freight. It has just been introduced by the Minister for Transport. That plan says that, in the medium term, the only show in town is diesel. We need that to come through because we have customers asking us for this, that and the other that is not available. We need the investment. We need surety because the repayment on a truck is across a five-year term and now it is being pushed out to seven years. We need surety around which way we are going.

Mr. Tim Cullinan:

As discussed, there is no alternative to diesel for the agricultural sector at the moment, so it is important that the price differential would continue for the future. All the current taxation measures are critically important to the viability of farmers and their ongoing production of food. We ask that they would continue into the future as well. I thank the committee for the opportunity to come in this evening to make our points on behalf of farmers.

Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you so much for coming here. Again, I apologise for running so late and for the vótáil. We are here at a very late hour and I really appreciate our guests' time and the effort they have put into this engagement. It is very much valued by the members.