Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 8 October 2025
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture and Food
Supports for Private Advisory Providers Delivering Advice on Nitrates and Water Quality Improvements: Agricultural Consultants Association
2:00 am
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The agenda for today's meeting is to examine the supports and resources need for private advisory providers delivering advice on nitrates and water quality improvements. The committee will hear from officials from the Agricultural Consultants Association, namely, Mr. Tom Canning, consultant; Mr. Owen O'Driscoll, consultant; and Mr. Noel Feeney, consultant. Tá fáilte romhaibh. Before that, I need to go through the note on privilege.
I bring to witnesses' attention that those witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that a witness has a full defence on any defamation action for anything said at the committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected to not abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside of the proceedings held in the meeting of any matters arising from the proceedings. The witnesses' opening statement has been circulated and members have had an opportunity to read it. I will give them two minutes in which to do a brief synopsis of it.
Mr. Tom Canning:
I thank the Chair and members of the Oireachtas committee for their kind invitation and the opportunity to present the case for the support of the private agricultural advisory service providers in Ireland, who have made a significant contribution to the development of agriculture over a long number of years and continue to make that contribution. We believe that we have a very positive contribution to make to the future development of agriculture ,while at the same time providing accountability and value for money for the EU and Irish taxpayer.
We are all members of the Agricultural Consultants Association, ACA. Noel Feeney is based in County Roscommon, Owen O'Driscoll is a consultant in County Cork and I operate out of County Cavan. The ACA is the representative body for private agricultural consultants. We are the largest advisory support network for farmers in the country. In total, based on the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, scheme figures provided by the Department of Agriculture this year, our members provided BISS services to 64,500 farmers as against our counterparts in Teagasc at 41,000. We have over 200 professional members employing over 400 farm advisory system, FAS, approved advisers in the network through 169 offices stretching throughout the country. We are not funded directly by the State. We are funded from contributions made by our members and that is the sole source of our funding as of today.
We are here as volunteers. We act in a voluntary basis. There is so much happening in our industry that this kind of voluntary effort is not sustainable in the long term. Our organisation and members provide the same services as those provided by Teagasc. The range of services we provide can be read in the document provided to members. The key thing is that-----
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Canning but we are running behind and I am keen to give members an opportunity to speak on this issue.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The witnesses are welcome. I am going to be pretty quick and there will be sharp questions. Going by the ACA's presentation, there is a problem with farmers getting information on nitrates that was promised by the Department. When was that information to be given in case farmers went over their nitrates limit each year? From the presentation, that was not given to agricultural consultants on time. Will one of the witnesses elaborate on that?
The Department gave out a contract to agricultural consultants which seemingly was not paid. Will the witnesses elaborate on that? My understanding is that taxpayers are paying for all of the research by another group. The guide to how to do nutrient management plans, NMPs, is available but the members of the ACA have to pay for it and it is costing them €300,000 a year. Why is that?
ACA members are assisting farmers with their applications for all of the schemes, including the nitrates derogation, TAMS, BISS, and the complementary redistributive income support for sustainability, CRISS, scheme. ACA members are doing at least 50% of applications and up to 68% in some schemes. Is the Department engaging with them on a constant basis? Has the ACA a central fund for training and things like that?
In relation to water quality, which way do the witnesses see that going? What way to we need to go forward on it? We know the amount of amount of funding that goes to other planners such as Teagasc. We know what taxpayers are giving. As for the ACA members' fees and those of other groups - we will not call them competitors because everyone is looking after farmers - are they in line, even though they are getting substantial funding?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What is late?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Were they accurate?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. What needs to be done there?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I forgot one thing. Am I correct in saying that at the moment, a planner's licence is at risk if he or she verifies that slurry was moved but a farmer has not done what he or he said he or she would? A text comes to a farmer and not to the planner. Planners have to take the word of the farmer. Is the Department threatening that or is that just hearsay?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Are texts the solution?
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Okay. Keep going on contracts and nutrient management plans.
Mr. Owen O'Driscoll:
The Deputy is correct in relation to the NMP system. The NMP system is funded by the State. Teagasc is running the system and we are paying hundreds of thousands of euro each year to use that service. It is a mandatory requirement and is a tool we need to use. We ask the committee to review this and see whether we should have to pay for it-----
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is paid for by the taxpayer already.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Keep going.
Mr. Owen O'Driscoll:
We got a report done by Jim Power on recalibrating the advisory services. Everyone has been provided with a copy of it. Members can see the structure on one of the tables in it. It is about the knowledge transfer. The Government has its policies and it wants to implement them. That money funds State research whether it is to Teagasc or the colleges. That State research goes into the Teagasc head office at Oak Park for filtration and utilisation.
That goes down through the advisory services through experts and specialists. Teagasc will have specialists within it to decant this information and give it to the Teagasc advisers, which goes down to the farmers. On the other side, we, as advisers, do not have a knowledge hub to filtrate this information down through specialists to our advisers. There is, therefore, a break in the knowledge transfer going from the research to the farmer. What we have in the middle is basically a hub for which we need to get funding. That would be a direction.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry; Mr. Canning; we have to let the next man go.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am going to yield somewhat and tell the witnesses to carry on answering Deputy Fitzmaurice's questions, and then maybe round up at the end as to what the one big ask would be if they were in our shoes when we meet the Department on this issue. I was going to ask the same questions, so they can finish answering his questions in my time and then maybe wrap up with-----
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The contract.
Mr. Tom Canning:
What happened in relation to the contract is that we were awarded what was called an informal environmental survey contract with the Department of agriculture, which amounted to about €5 million to complete that contract, including payment to the farmers. The Department did not fulfil that contract and as a result of that, our members and our association had invested in training and the employment of specialists to train and provide support service to our members. Indeed, some of our members employed additional graduates to take on board this additional work. However, when that contract was not fulfilled, we were left with a hole in our finances within our own association of over €300,000, which is a significant cost that each and every one of our members now has to bear. We are taking about €1,500 per adviser on top of the additional costs they have had to bear. As well as that, we were getting some small supports in terms of the promotion of organics, in terms of forestry and in terms of the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES. That was withdrawn in 2024. In effect, we are left now without any State supports whatsoever throughout 2025.
When I look at the future in relation to the new nitrate regulations here and the protection of water quality, and this is going to answer part of Deputy Fitzmaurice's question, the real situation is that we seem to be hanging our coat on two key programmes: one is the agricultural sustainability and support advisory programme, ASSAP, and the other is the water EIP. We have been excluded from that programme to date. That is a major part of the next strategy on improvements to water quality and that is going to continue in the future. Therefore, for another five years, potentially, we, as private agriculture consultants servicing 64,500 farmers in the country, are going to be excluded. Those 64,500 farmers are going to be denied access to critical information in terms of implementing mitigation measures and, at the end of the day, achieving the objected we all want in improving water quality.
In comparison, in terms of looking at the structure at the moment, we operate commercial businesses here. We have to compete against Teagasc. We charge the same fees as Teagasc. We provide exactly the same services. Yet the Teagasc advisory service gets a subsidy of €27 million and an additional €14 million in fees that it brings in, which equates to €621, according to the Jim Power report. That is slightly outdated; that is from 2019. Those figures have even increased significantly since then. That is additional supports that we have to compete with in the private sector. It really is not a level playing field, and that is our argument here. We are not here to knock Teagasc, however. We are here to sell the positives that we can bring to this. What we can bring to this is a pool of dedicated, experienced, professional, qualified people but above all, trusted professionals in our own local areas who farmers within our areas can easily access and can trust - I will stress trust - in the advice we are giving them in the longer term to improve the sustainability of their farms.
Mr. Noel Feeney:
Deputy Fitzmaurice also asked the question regarding Department engagement. Yes, in fairness, we do have regular Department engagement, especially with the BISS section in Portlaoise. Members of our committee and council meet its representatives quite regularly on updates regarding the introduction of the scheme each year and on how, say, entitlement transfers are progressing, etc. In fairness, they are quite good in giving us the information. We also have regular meetings with the ACRES section in Johnstown Castle. We know there have been issues with ACRES since its commencement in 2023. Again, we have contact with people on a regular basis there. Mr. O'Driscoll would be involved in that. Mr. Canning, of course, is involved with engagement on a continual basis through water quality and nitrates. There is regular engagement but as our colleague has outlined, it is all on a voluntary basis. We are not paid to be there. However, we are representing over 64,000 farmers and we have to give them the best possible service that each of us can provide to our clients. The most important thing is those farmers with whom we are all concerned.
Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
After meeting the witnesses, we will be meeting the Department. What is their big ask?
Mr. Tom Canning:
There are four key asks in relation to this. As Mr. O'Driscoll already mentioned, we need funding for a knowledge hub, if you like. That is key to it in terms of feeding that information back. There is a disconnect, as Mr. O'Driscoll said, in terms of the research and the information coming back to our members.
Second, and critically important, is technical support. Teagasc has that structure where it has technical specialists in each of the areas. We will take the example of nitrates where it has somebody there to back it up. The goalposts are moving constantly, and we are facing into an ever-changing climate here. We are 100 days out from new nitrate regulations on 1 January. We still have not clarity on that. We need to be prepared for that, and we need the technical backup support for our members in order that we can answer the key questions very quickly because they are urgent questions.
Third, we need specialists who can organise and focus training that meets the specific needs of the five regions in which we operate. Without that, we are certainly disadvantaging the 64,500 farmers with whom we are dealing.
Fourth, we are looking for the publicly funded tools like the nutrient management planning system now. We are going to be forced into using an AgNav system under the new nitrate regulations here as well that are coming in.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Canning. I call Deputy Cooney.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for coming in. We appreciate the great work they are doing for the farming community. I have two questions. What gaps are there in the provision of access to knowledge for farmers due to the State's exclusion of independent agricultural consultants from the water quality programme and the EIPs? How many applications have been made to the Farming for Water EIP 2024-2027 so far? Do they believe they will hit our targets if the current model continues? What do they believe would happen if private advisers are permitted to prepare plans on behalf of their clients?
Mr. Owen O'Driscoll:
To put it in context, the EIP programme provides €50 million to €60 million to be invested where farmers can do measures to help water quality. It is a great concept. The issue is that we, as private advisers, are not allowed to prepare plans for our own farmers. We know the farms; we know the systems and we know how to get the optimum benefits for farmers in these areas and we are not allowed at the moment. We are excluded from the EIP programmes. We are also excluded from the ASSAP, which was the initial one. In the Timoleague catchment, I have possibly 60% or 70% of the farmers in that area to whom I provide information and advice, and I have no interaction with the ASSAP team. Therefore, we need is to be involved at an ASSAP level and an EIP level so that we have consistent messaging. One person could be saying go left and the other could be going right, so we have to avoid that confusion. Again, we met Ted Massey from the Department's nitrates division last week and we brought this issue that we need to be part of the EIP going forward as part of a sixth nitrates action programme, NAP, regulation, which is here and forth.
I am not sure of the figures because we do not really do the plans. A client with whom I have dealt for 30 years might come into me and I have to send him or her to Teagasc to do an EIP plan, which makes no sense in my view. I cannot answer to the figures. If we had access to doing plans, we would know straight away off the tops of our heads that we could do A, B and C for a person's farm because we have known all these farms for 30 years and more. Therefore, the knowledge is what is missing here in the link.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is not good for the farming community then if that knowledge is missing or lacking and the ACA's members cannot carry out those works.
Mr. Tom Canning:
What is critically important is that we need to show leadership. It is vitally important that we are delivering a clearly focused, professional and consistent message to the clients we are dealing with here.
As I said, we feel that because of the disconnect, that consistency and that clarity are not being delivered on.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
And the witnesses are disappointed it is not being delivered, I presume.
Mr. Tom Canning:
Not only are we are disappointed for our own members, who are left out of the loop in this and are not being recognised for the contribution they are making, but, more importantly, our 64,500 farmers are also disconnected from that flow of information, as Mr. O'Driscoll has outlined.
Mr. Noel Feeney:
Also, as part of the question the Deputy asks, it is important to remember that over the years private advisers have built up a close relationship with their clients. We are now advising their children who have taken over the farms. We talk about EIPs and water quality and, as we are all aware, a lot of this involves complicated paperwork and complicated science that has to be applied to each farm. After our being in the position of having the many years of relationships and trust we have built up with the farmers, all of a sudden someone else is coming in and that trust just might not be there. To gain the proper end result we all want, we believe it is not a proper delivery system. The trusted adviser should be involved in dealing with those farmers.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have one other quick question. I know my time is nearly up. What does the comparable agricultural knowledge transfer system look like in the rest of the EU? Is it delivered by the state or by the private sector? Do the witnesses believe the EU would look at the system in Ireland as being fit for purpose?
Mr. Tom Canning:
It is a good question. We are very lucky in Ireland. Of the 125,000 farmers who applied for BISS this year, 105,000 engaged with the advisory services, which is the highest level of engagement of any advisory service throughout Europe. However, most of the advisory services throughout Europe are provided through private consultancy services such as ours or commercial businesses, where often there is a conflict of interest. We have spoken to Inge Van Oost in DG VI on a number of occasions and she is extremely positive about the support here for the knowledge hub we are talking about and about the involvement of the private advisory services in the development of Irish agriculture. That message, however, has appeared to fall on deaf ears until now. This is not the first time we have been lobbying in relation to this or that we have spoken to this committee. One of the recommendations that was made by the committee's predecessor, its fourth recommendation, is that the resources should be made available not only to the State but also to private advisory services here to deliver a consistent clear message in terms of nitrates and water quality improvement.
Joe Cooney (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for their time.
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for coming in. To go back over this again, how many members does the ACA have and how many people do they employ, roughly?
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
So, privately, they represent 64,500 farmers.
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Right. It was stated that the ACA makes a payment to Teagasc for the data.
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Well, that is the first thing I would recommend has to change because Teagasc is a semi-State body.
We will go back to ACA's organisation. There are codes of conduct within its organisation, so everything is transparent from top to bottom. What is the problem then? This is not ringing out right. There is something wrong here. The witnesses represent 64,500 farmers. My Teagasc adviser and I were doing training last week, only the other night. As regards the service he provides, one of the schemes now is blackleg vaccinations, which involves testing of silage. Not only did he go through the schemes and where we are at, but he gave us the bags to go home to test the silage and drop them into his office. They will be left into a lab for us. That is the service provided. If there is anything wrong in my agricultural portfolio, I can ring him. As for this thing of importing slurry, when a farmer gets a text message, it is lost. If you do not ring him there and then, all of a sudden it is forgotten about and the whole thing is upside down. There has to be a connection. There has to be interlinking. If the farmer gives permission for his data to be automatically shared with the person who is his adviser, it is a no-brainer. This, to me, is not adding up, Chair. Where are we going? How will this change? If the Department says no to this, water quality and everything else will not change for the farmers.
Mr. Tom Canning:
May I answer that one? I appreciate Senator Brady's sentiments. We have been lobbying, as I said, for quite a long time here. Before I was installed as president of the ACA a number of years ago, I met a Department official and I asked him the key asks he wanted to show that we were a credible organisation that it could do business with. There were five asks in that and we delivered on every one of them. We have been involved, as Mr. Feeney has said, in regular consultations with the Department of agriculture. Mr. O'Driscoll is a part of the consultation and strategy on development of the future for CAP. We have made a serious effort in relation to this. We are fully committed to agriculture consultancy work and providing the best possible service. Being honest, we find it hard to understand why we are not engaged more fully because we believe we are an army in waiting, a huge resource that could be used to the betterment of Irish agriculture. I think we will be needed because the challenges ahead of us are so great.
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I can assure the witnesses that when the Department comes in here, questions have to be answered. This is the reality from this forum.
Mr. Noel Feeney:
Could I add one more item to what my colleagues have said? If Senator Brady remembers, we spoke earlier about the reneged-on contract with the FAS scheme. Before we got that contract - Mr. Canning was president at the time and I came in after him - as an organisation, even to tender for that project and get it, we underwent a serious review of our administration etc. As members know, that is what you have to do when it comes to a public tender. We therefore have our house in order, so to speak, and, as my colleague has said, we are an army in waiting. The Senator asks what we are going to do about it. That is why we are here. We are looking for the committee's help.
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The ACA is providing a service. There is no cost on the Exchequer-----
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----at the moment from its services. Teagasc is a cost on the Exchequer. The ACA is dealing with twice the number of farmers Teagasc is dealing with. To be honest, this is-----
Mr. Tom Canning:
In addition to that, we have a proven track record of delivery across all the schemes and we have the figures here to back us up and to prove that. It is universally recognised within the Department and within Teagasc that we are needed in order to meet the future challenges this country faces. However, it is a mechanism and we are asking for the committee's help on the four key asks: the knowledge hub, the resources for training and technical support for our members, the public funding to be provided free of charge and, lastly, our involvement in water quality initiatives for the future.
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is fair enough and we will ask the Department.
Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The witnesses are all very welcome and it is great to see them in. What strikes me is that there is a huge disconnect, and the Department when it comes in here needs to be reminded that whether you are working for Teagasc or as a private contractor, we are all trying to achieve the same objective in terms of supporting farmers and improving environmental standards. It is unfortunate that that seems to be missing.
Could Mr. Canning expand again on the fourth and final ask, the involvement in water quality? Is the ACA involved in the derogation plan, for example, and what level of information is it missing? I know that the figures relate, so how does that impact, for example, the ACA's work and its ability to advise on water quality across the country?
Mr. Tom Canning:
Our key belief is in relation to nitrates and improving water quality. Proper nutrient management is a key element of that.
It is about chemical and organic nutrients being applied to land at the right time in the right place and in as environmentally friendly a way as possible. Key to that is a nutrient management planning system. We have worked closely with Teagasc in the development of that. Unfortunately, our members are having to pay for it. When we put this argument to the Department of agriculture, it said it is only costing us €5 for every client we deal with. However, when that is added up across our membership, we are paying €300,000 or more to Teagasc. That money could be used very effectively for the training and support we could provide for our members. We need additional support and recognition from the Department of the contribution we can make.
Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That software application is already built, having been paid for by the taxpayer.
Mr. Noel Feeney:
To respond further on the Deputy's question, we often hear about derogation farmers, an issue that gets a lot of publicity in the agricultural papers and so on, but there are 130,000 farmers out there and approximately 7,500 are in derogation. Perhaps there are a few thousand more on the surface. The rest of the farmers, whether suckler farmers or drystock farmers in Roscommon, Mayo or Cork, still have to adhere to the nitrates regulation. That involves your NMP figures and so on. That information is very important because people are, for example, importing slurry from piggeries. That is a very common occurrence in Senator Brady's part of the country, that is, Longford, Cavan and so on. As we all know, pig slurry is fantastic. You can apply it in early spring, mix it in the tank and so on. We need to know what a farmer is looking like at the start of the year, by March and at the end of the year with regard to his nitrate figures. Without that, they are bringing in slurry, which is importing nitrogen and phosphorous onto the farm. In addition, the national fertiliser database records all chemical fertiliser purchases. This information applies to every farmer and not just derogation farmers. Every farmer in Ireland is affected by this in one way or another.
Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is that critically important information available to, for example, a Teagasc adviser?
Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is not only affecting consultants' ability to function but preventing the State and the Government from reaching their water quality targets.
Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What level of training does the Department provide for consultants?
Mr. Owen O'Driscoll:
To come in on the training side, we must do CPD modules to become accredited FAS advisers. Teagasc advisers get five or six days' training from in-house specialists and have access to specialists throughout the year if there are changes. In the ACA, we are all volunteers. Sometimes we do webinars ourselves. A couple of us come together to educate our members. What we really need is support. We need to have the resources through a knowledge hub or an ACA specialist, which can then filter down to the advisers and then the 63,000 farmers. We must make a submission to the CAP consultative committee. That is very difficult for me when I am working and trying to run a business. We do not have the resources as a knowledge hub. It is very difficult. The three of us here are volunteers. We meet monthly as a national council. It is more difficult if you do not have access to supports and funds. That is the big issue. We have the knowledge and the ability. We just need a small bit of cohesion to make it work. We are best described as an untapped resource.
Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context
What is the association's ask of the Department with regard to slurry spreading and importing and exporting? Is it to get the direct message itself because the association represents the farmers?
Mr. Tom Canning:
Our direct message to our farmers is that slurry being imported must be used consistent and responsibly used and that they should check with their advisers. We need to check what their limits are through the nutrient management planning system and the information coming from the Department of agriculture. If that information is late or inaccurate, the farmer could potentially exceed his nitrogen or phosphorous limits and end up with a serious problem.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I need to move on to Deputy Aird. I remind everyone not to mention officials by name. Officials should be referred to by their office rather than their individual names.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I welcome all of the witnesses here today. We recently had a good briefing from their association. Most of the questions I would have asked have been asked by Deputy Fitzmaurice, Senator Paul Daly and everybody else. To go back to the history of it, I remember that, when I started off farming, I did not need anybody. I was able to fill out the forms when they came out, although there were very few to be filled out. I remember a form coming out because the weather had been so bad. I think we got £50 in old money or something like that. You filled out the form yourself and sent it back. At one stage, I had to get a peace commissioner to sign a form to say I was who I was and was farming where I was farming. We have gone well past that. As I see it, Teagasc and the Department of Agriculture before it were funded by the taxpayers of Ireland and carried out all of the duties farmers wanted at that time. More than anything else, it was an educational system to encourage farmers to go in for better grass management and all that sort of stuff because there were no handouts, good, bad or indifferent, at that time. Any schemes that came out were made so difficult for farmers to avail of that Teagasc was then set up, funded by the taxpayers of this country. On top of that, we had people like the ACA who decided they could provide a good service. Lads started going to these consultants, having heard this, that or the other.
Speaking with my former councillor's hat on - all of the other members were also councillors at some stage or another - what also played into the consultants' barrow was that planning laws were changed and continuously fought because the local authorities wanted studies and reports on this, that and the other. With all due respect to the gentlemen who are here today, all that cost money and led to their private profit. There was a business there and they homed in on it. I have absolutely no problem with that. However, I have had another problem all my life. When I started off in the council, it cost £500 to do a report. It is up to €5,000 for a report now and there can be 50 of the same report typed up by the same people sitting in Laois County Council attached to different planning applications but they cannot be used by anyone else. I am using this forum to say what I have always said, which is that it is an absolute disgrace. This is coming from joint thinking between the Department of agriculture and the planning authorities and it is totally wrong. They now want reports on the curlew and the hen harrier. You have to run around the field looking for hen harriers to make sure there are none there. What is going on is absolutely disgraceful but we will leave that where it is.
I am delighted that the association has spoken to Ted Massey and seems to be happy enough with what it got. I can see what the problem is here. I can see State funding being put into a partly State organisation. It has results it wants to keep to itself and does not want to give to the consultants. That is basically what the problem is. Where the problem lies is that if Willie Aird is doing business with any of the three gentlemen here, he will do business with nobody else. If somebody else is with Teagasc, he or she will be able to complete 100% of the nitrates form because he or she will have the data there to do it. ACA consultants have to send their clients to Teagasc to do it. Is that not correct? The ACA wants us to bring in representatives from the Department of agriculture and tell them that its consultants want the same information that is available to Teagasc. I get a text message about the nitrates or whatever it is but unless the consultants have all of that information, they cannot meet the deadlines that are in place. I accept all of that. It is something that has to be done. Regrettably and unfortunately, this is getting worse. You can also see the whole TB debacle and what that has cost the taxpayers of this country. We are now doubling and trebling the money going into that and putting in different conditions. We wait to see what will come out of that. That is another day's work but I am looking forward to being-----
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Go on Deputy, you should know.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In all fairness to the Deputy, the Government cannot say what is going to happen with TB. She might even have more knowledge-----
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy should know why the money is being provided.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy might have more knowledge-----
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
One speaker.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----than the Government because she works with animals every day. My point is that when we have the Minister or the officials - it will be Ted Massey who comes in to us as well, and a couple more people - sitting there, we just have to ask them if we can have joined-up thinking. That is all. The farmer will have to pay again if the witnesses are able to even buy the information from the State. I am not saying that is right or wrong, but they are certainly entitled to the information that is out there. I agree with them on that. They cannot carry out the diligent work they are doing on behalf of farmers if they do not have that. It is the decision of the farmer as to where he wants to go. That is the other side of it. I have to stand up for farmers and say that. It is not an either-or situation; they all give a great service. I can give everyone the history. We cannot deny how it all started, and every grant that came out. It gets worse after that. There is no farmer now who can do it.
Deputy Newsome Drennan is so good at getting at me. Maybe she is able to fill up the forms-----
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Thank you, Deputy. I need to-----
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----but no farmer I know is able to do the work.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----move on to Deputy-----
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Everybody should be sharing their information on the derogation-----
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy, every other member has stayed within the time.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----and that is hugely important.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I remind everyone not to name individuals and officials by name. They can be referred to by their offices-----
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
And Deputy Newsome Drennan should not be heckling either.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----but not by name.
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will heckle all I want when it comes to farming. The Deputy can try to stop me.
There is obviously a disconnect between the witnesses and the Department, and between them and Teagasc. There is €26 million a year going for the same advice the witnesses are basically providing. What are they spending that on? Those are questions that need to be answered. There is also the €80 million for research and education.
I go to the Department website to register my calves. I have a password to get in there and I put in whatever I want then log off, and nobody else has access to that information. It is my farm and my information, so if I decide I do not like the guy in Teagasc down beside me and I do not think he is doing the best for my farm and decide to go to a private company, I should be absolutely entitled to do that. With housing, there is room for everybody. There has to be room for a private entity here as well. It is the farmer's information, so if I decide to give that information to the witnesses and they have access to my account, who is the Department to say that I cannot pass it to somebody else? What is the disconnect? I can say, because I am in opposition, that it is all very rotten in Teagasc. If the witnesses can do it for cost and Teagasc is getting extortionate amounts of money, then there are questions to be answered as to where that money is actually being spent. I do not think the maths are going to add up on that one. They are definitely questions that need to be asked.
Mr. Noel Feeney:
I will make a brief comment. It is important for us all to realise that we are not here to knock Teagasc. Those in Teagasc are our colleagues in an advisory sense. As has been stated, Teagasc is getting vast sums of money, but we are not here to knock that. As we have said to members all along - and this is why we want their help - the bottom line is that our issue is not with Teagasc; it is that we want a level playing field from the Department.
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Absolutely.
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is room for everybody.
Mr. Tom Canning:
On the question about the farmer's information, you must authorise the transfer of information and our access to that if you change agencies. Say you change from Teagasc to us, then you must sign all forms to grant us access to that.
On what Deputy Aird said, every day we go out, we have to compete. We have to provide the best possible service. We are only as good as the last job we did. We have to maintain that standard. It is vitally important. We are facing an ever-changing environment in which we operate. We need to get that information delivered to us and our members have to be trained to be able to deliver the same standard and quality of service they have provided, otherwise we will not be able to compete in the market because, as I said, we are only as good as our last job. We need the resources for training, to keep that up to date and to be fed that information in order to ensure we are giving the best possible critical advice to our farmer clients.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Canning said that farmers should be paying the advisers; that I should be paying them.
Mr. Tom Canning:
-----and we need to have the same conditions in which we are paid. Every time I go to a training course, I have to pay for my costs. As Mr. O'Driscoll said, our counterparts in Teagasc get six days' allowance. They are being paid to be there; they are paid regardless. Every day I spend training comes out of the cost. It is a cost to my business.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If I asked a Teagasc adviser, he would say that the witnesses are earning five times more money than he is.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Newsome Drennan has the floor.
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The other side of it is that the witnesses are servicing more people than Teagasc. This is what I am saying about how the figures just do not add up. My husband uses Teagasc and gets on great with it. As Mr. Feeney said, it is not that Teagasc is not providing a service because it absolutely is, and I will be clear about that; it is about how exactly the funds are dished out. Teagasc is not here to make a profit or at least it should not be. The books should be even. When they are not, Teagasc goes looking for more money. We have to use the witnesses because Teagasc is not going to be able to keep up with the demand. It is as simple as that.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Healy-Rae is next.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is a bit confusing for a fella like me, but anyway. Like Deputy Aird, these forms and things that have to be filled out are very confusing for farmers and they should not be that way. It is a fright to God that fellas get fouled up. I have fellas who were advised to go into partnership. Since 2023, they have not been paid their ACRES money because they did so. They were advised by certain people to do that, and there is little help coming from that quarter now to get them out of the knot they are in and get the bit of money they are waiting for. The likes of me is chiselled about it every day.
It is hard to get the witnesses' story and digest it in a few minutes like this, but it would only be fair and reasonable that they should get the information from the Department and not through Teagasc. I cannot see that the witnesses expect to be trained given they are private operators. They were saying Teagasc staff are trained, but Teagasc is part of the Department. I do not know how anyone private could expect to be paid by the State. I must thrash that out myself a bit further. The witnesses should be getting the same information as Teagasc at the same time. The witnesses do a good job. They said that they have 55,000 customers.
I do not know how many clients Teagasc has but it is clear that neither of them could do the job on their own. We need more of these entities. I do not know if it is done the same way but how many do farmers require? They need any number of them, I suppose. Can the witnesses tell me how many farmers are in need of advice or anticipated as being in need of advice in the Twenty-six Counties at the present time?
Mr. Tom Canning:
As I said, 125,000 farmers applied for BISS this year; 64,400 applied through the private advisory service providers, 41,000 applied through our counterparts in Teagasc. I will make it very clear to the Deputy that we are not looking for our wages to be paid. We are simply looking for access to accurate, timely information, which we are getting to a large extent from the Department of agriculture through the MyAgFood system. However, we want to make sure that is consistently delivered.
We need to disseminate the latest information through the knowledge hub and through the training of our members to prepare them for the future changes to regulations, such as the changes on nitrates that will come into effect on 1 January. We are facing into a whole new CAP support system post 2027. On 31 December, CAP supports end and we will be in a new programme. We have to be able to help and advise the clients we are dealing with to be able to meet the challenges they face. There may be cuts in incomes and we have to look at a sustainable system in agriculture. Our primary job is to provide the best possible advice to achieve that.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Are the witnesses saying at this exact moment that they are short of information, or is it that they are not funnelled enough information, or the proper and full information?
Mr. Tom Canning:
We are getting clear information from the Department of agriculture. We need to ensure there are improvements made to that. As Mr. O'Driscoll said, we are calling for investment in IT resources to ensure that is delivered on time and is accurate as it possibly can be. We can get that information from the Department but we also need training to be able to deliver what is ahead of us with the changes in regulations. We have that information.
Mr. Owen O'Driscoll:
To follow up on Deputy Healy-Rae's question, we know we are a really good resource. We are an army of advisers out there and we can deliver to the farmers. For a small investment, you could create a much better messaging system to farmers. You could spend a small amount of money on a private hub to disseminate the information from the research. If the research went into the hub and the advisers were trained on all the new information for water quality, air quality and biodiversity, that would then go down to the 63,000 farmers. They are not disadvantaged versus the 43,000 farmers. That is the big difference.
It is not that we are looking for more money or more information. We are all volunteers and we are doing our best to keep the organisation together. We need support or it will just wander along. If that happens, that is okay but it will be a huge opportunity lost. For example, by not being included in ASSAP or the EIPs, you are excluding 50% to 60% of the potential clients who could be in those. That is what it boils down to.
Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
All we can do here as Deputies is ask for a fair playing pitch for all.
William Aird (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Department of agriculture feed into the information the Agricultural Consultants Association has? There are so many people there and the consultants have a huge amount of knowledge. I presume the Department looks for that knowledge on derogation and everything like that. The consultants have a whole lot of knowledge so I presume it looks for that knowledge.
Eileen Lynch (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank all the witnesses for being with us today. I find the situation quite incredible. I have been thinking about it for the last 40 minutes or so as it has been discussed and I cannot quite believe it. I echo the comments of my colleagues. We will be raising this directly with the Minister. There are so many things wrong with this. The consultants have spoken a lot about derogation and it is obviously relevant to Mr. O'Driscoll's part of the world in Drimoleague - derogation is important for Cork in general - in terms of the water enhancement projects that have been carried out in Drimoleague.
When we look at the nitrates action plan 6 and the new requirement of the habitats directive when it comes to retaining our derogation, is there not information there that the ACA, which is across the country, will be able to feed back into our proposal when we are looking at our derogation proposal? It seems to be incredibly short-sighted. We are not aware of the extent of the extension of time we are looking for with derogation in order to put a proposal together that fully includes the habitats directive, as has been requested by Commissioner Roswall. We know it will take an awfully long time to put that proposal together when we look at watercourses all across the country. Is there not a role for the ACA to also feed into that? There is a lack of ecologists, which is a whole separate issue. Is there a role for the ACA to feed in? Is it not incredibly short-sighted by the Department to treat the ACA in this way?
Mr. Owen O'Driscoll:
There is huge potential. We met the nitrates section last week. We would love to be part of the sixth water group. We have a lot of experience to bring to the table. The difficulty is that it will take time. We are all working in our own businesses. It is difficult unless we have a dedicated person we can feed our information to. That is probably a resource issue but we are limited by time. Certainly, there could be potential to create some sort of a conduit to get involved with it. We would be more than willing to get on board.
Mr. Tom Canning:
I was part of the agriculture water group until I stepped down from that group last December. I stepped down because of the final report that went to Europe on the retention of the nitrates derogation. It did not include one mention of the ACA or the private advisory service providers in Ireland, even though I had attended all of the meetings and made what I felt were very positive contributions. They were really positive contributions. We are 100 days out from the next round of the nitrates regulations. We do not know whether we will have a derogation.
The implications are there. Morgan Sheehy, a classmate of mine, estimated that one of the implications of losing the derogation in Ireland was a 22% reduction in stock numbers nationwide. If farmers want to retain their stocking levels as they are currently, it would require them to rent the equivalent of County Kildare in land area. The effects are astounding and there would be trickle-down effects on every single farm in the country. Yet, we are 100 days out. If we do not get derogation, how will we prepare the clients to be ready for it and deal with the implications of that? If we get it, will there be different regulations? If there will be different regulations to deal with, how will we advise our clients properly on this?
This is what we are talking about. We need the training. We need the access to that information so that our members can deliver a clear, consistent, professional message to the clients we are dealing with who are going to be impacted by the new nitrates regulations coming on stream.
Eileen Lynch (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I know the ACA met with Department officials lately but in the last 12 months, has there been any satisfaction from either the Minister or Department officials about what is essentially the ACA's exclusion from information? Obviously, it is not only of benefit to the ACA but also of massive benefit to its clients and the 60,000 plus farmers across the country it represents. It is truly incredible. There is the whole anticompetitive element as well when it comes to EIPs, which I was not aware of before today.
Has there been any progress in general? Farming is under pressure and is facing an awful lot of challenges. We should be looking at anything that can be done - particularly things like sharing of knowledge and access to information - at a relatively low price. It is quite cost effective as the information is there already. I cannot comprehend the exclusion.
Mr. Tom Canning:
We have grey hair for a reason. We have travelled down this road. As presidents, we have all made representations. We have gone with enthusiasm and positivity into every single meeting that we have attended here. We have a good working relationship with sections within the Department of agriculture. That is freely acknowledged. We have an excellent working relationship with our Teagasc counterparts as well. We are both critically important. We are looking for small asks. I remind members to look at that second last page and the four key asks we are looking for. By getting those supported, the multiplier effect in terms of the cost benefit to the Irish taxpayer but above all, to Irish farming, is absolutely enormous.
We need to fulfil that potential and this is really our last chance. The committee is the last hope in terms of getting that engagement and supporting us in what we are trying to achieve.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We will give a second opportunity to ask questions; three minutes each.
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have one question on the training, when it is rolled out to Teagasc. When a new scheme comes on board or anything like that, training obviously has to go with it. I cannot understand why you would not get the training. What has been said with regard to the training? Is it something like, "No, you are a private company, you are not getting it"? What is the answer when it comes to that? At the end of the day, you are just passing on information to the farmer, most of whom, as the lads rightly pointed out, do not understand most of what is going on. They need somebody like an adviser, whether it is Teagasc or the witnesses, to come out and spell it out in plain English to them.
Mr. Tom Canning:
Very quickly, I would say we are required to do complete CPD training modules, as Mr. O'Driscoll said earlier, to get our FÁS accreditation. We have had no structured, organised, professional CPD training other than that for the past two and a half years. Our members rely on ad hoc training that they have to fund themselves, taking time off work to attend it. At the end of the day, there is no joined-up thinking with regard to organised training across the board.
Natasha Newsome Drennan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Department should be obliged to give-----
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Deputy Fitzmaurice is next.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to go back to one thing, just to be clear. I am a farmer, moving slurry. My understanding, and I want clarity on this, is that if a farmer is moving slurry, the Department sends a text to the farmer and the receiver. If I put in a BISS application and I have a problem with it, it will come to me as the farmer and it will also go to the planner who filled it out. The query goes to them. Am I correct in saying that private planners do not get a text when that slurry is moving? Am I also correct in saying that, under what is being proposed at the moment by the Department, if a planner signs off on that slurry being moved, the weather becomes bad, it is not done and the planner does not have a bull's clue what is going on, because they signed off on the slurry being moved, they are liable to be struck off as one of the sanctions? Is that right or wrong? Where are we at with negotiations or when is it proposed that this will come in? That is a damning thing over your head. It is like someone else playing a game of football and you getting the blame for losing it.
Mr. Noel Feeney:
Deputy Fitzmaurice is correct. First, when we do a BISS application for a farmer and, two months later, maybe in the month of June, there is an issue with it, maybe after a satellite inspection, the Department will send us an email to say there is a client, herd number or whatever, and we deal with that situation.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The farmer gets it as well.
Mr. Noel Feeney:
Regarding the slurry movements, if you are moving that slurry to me as a farmer, we will get text messages, but if I am your adviser on the opposite end to take in the slurry, I do not get a text message. The farmer does. Maybe the farmer presumes we are getting the text messages but we are certainly not. We are blissfully unaware in a lot of situations that there is a movement of slurry. As Mr. Canning would highlight, there was a large number of unverified movements of slurry on the Department base last year. That is one of the reasons. In fairness, proper slurry movements within nitrates rules and regulations must be adhered to, but we are in the dark.
We also mentioned earlier on that we do annual CPD training. In the most recent CPD training, there was an issue on fraud, etc. Again, that is the insinuation that we have got from our most recent CPD training.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That the witnesses are carrying out fraud.
Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The last question I have is a quick one. In regard to the fertiliser database, what date does that have to have that filled by? Is there a risk that if a merchant does not put in what they got during the year until the end of the year, a farmer could then tip over on their nitrates? Is that risk there? Is it genuine?
Mr. Tom Canning:
Absolutely. That is correct. All farmers must declare their closing stock on midnight of 14 September by 15 October. That deadline is coming up very quickly. At the moment, we are finding that merchants are not, in all cases, recording the fertiliser purchases until the end of the year. We have to look at that and not take it at face value. We have to look at the receipts and the invoices that a farmer has for his fertiliser purchases to ensure that he does not go over those limits. It is not updated in real time.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Senator is one-----
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not need a question. I got my questions. Let Mr. Canning finish that, please.
Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North-West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Canning. I need to bring the discussion to a conclusion and thank the witnesses for the huge amount of information and the engagement on it. There is very clearly a mismatch between Teagasc and the witnesses and it is hugely important that the focus is kept very much on the farmer, the service they are getting and the information they are getting or not getting. We will be having the Department of agriculture and Teagasc in a follow-up meeting in due course and we will get a date and time agreed on that. I thank the witnesses for taking part today.
The next meeting of the joint committee is on Wednesday, 15 October at 3.30 p.m. and the agenda is anaerobic digestion. As there are no further matters for discussion, the meeting stands adjourned.