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

The point that is being spun is that a saving has been made, and that we could do X, Y and Z if only we were prepared to. I cannot spend somebody else's money which is due to that person under GLAS, ANC or any other scheme simply because he or she does not present a paying order in the relevant calendar year. If the order arrives in January of the following year, I am still obliged to pay it.

One of the more difficult schemes here is TAMS, which most people would accept is a hugely successful scheme under a wide degree of headings, affecting tillage, horticulture, dairy, young farmers etc. A range of grants are available across a broad spectrum of activities. There are about 12,000 approved applicants. Of these, only about 3,000 have presented for payment. There are 9,000 outstanding. We have to try to anticipate the level of payment presented in any given year, and we have to provide against that. As such, looking at the accounts for 2017 one sees that we provided a certain amount for TAMS, but much less was drawn down.

In certain quarters, that is being presented as a saving. It is so such thing. That is money that has not been paid in the calendar year in question, but may come due the following year. We cannot spend the same money twice. That is a very important point. That is deliberately misrepresented to people as a failure of the Department. I believe that, on the contrary, it is a reflection of our ability to negotiate with the Department of Finance that we get provision against our full contingent liabilities, although they may not all crystallise in a given 12 month period.

The Senator also raised the issue of the skimmed milk powder. This was a matter which was discussed at the Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is important to make the point very clearly that the 390,000 tonnes of product overhanging the global market for skimmed milk powder constitute a huge damper on prices. The Senator's question seems to be based on the premise that the Commission should continue business as usual. Business as usual would exacerbate the difficult price for the product. What we have secured in our interventions in this negotiation in the European Union is assurance that if circumstances change, so can the approach of the Commission. There is agreement across Europe that this is the appropriate way to continue at the moment, but it can be kept under review.

This was originally presented by the Commission as a long-term approach. We did not want that, and in the debate we managed to change it to a short-term approach for what we believe is a short-term problem. This does not in any way mean walking away from the instrument of intervention as a policy principle. I repeat, there is a glut of 390,000 tonnes, which has a value of nearly €600 million even at the depressed prices for skimmed milk powder, overhanging the market. The Commission is probably the biggest global player in skimmed milk powder prices. That overhang on the market is of itself a damper on global dairy prices. Contrary to what the Senator is asserting, the change in the Commission's approach is an effort to ensure that this does not continue to be a major depressant on global dairy markets. Our intervention has managed to ensure that it is only a short-term intervention for what we hope is only a short-term problem.

Senator Boyhan asked why I addressed four issues. Four issues were notified to the Department, but I am quite happy to address some of the other issues that were raised. Many Members referred to the fodder crisis. The reality of the crisis is that if one looks at some of the online platforms where agriculture produce is traded, and refine the search to fodder and Connacht, it will be seen that there is an active local market in fodder trading. That has always been a contingent part of agricultural activity in those regions. There have been individual farmers whose normal practice has been to buy in fodder at this time of year, either locally or hauled further distances. The Government did not want to cut across that process in our response. The last time I looked was a week or ten days ago. I do not want to give any commercial operation a plug, but on the individual platform which is widely used for trading in this area there were 199 registered offers for fodder in Connacht. I did not look at northern counties like Cavan, Monaghan or Donegal. In Connacht alone, I found 199 people offering fodder for sale locally. That was taking place across Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo, Galway and Roscommon.

Senator Mulherin asked about the feedback from the stakeholder groups, Teagasc in particular. The feedback recognised that there were localised problems, not a blanket fodder shortage across the north west. Their best estimate, based on the feedback from their regional offices, was that approximately 300 farmers were affected. As we have said, we do not want to cut across the local trade in fodder, which has always been part and parcel of the farming community in that region. Where there is a necessity to haul fodder distances of more than 100 km, we will provide a subsidy towards that expense.That is a reasonable response. In truth, depending on the individual farm organisations involved, what was being asked for was going up and up. We were asked to haul, buy, pay for and distribute it and give a meal voucher. We made an appropriate response to the fodder crisis and it has been recognised as such.

There has been a significant overhaul of the Teagasc training module. It is right and proper that it should have happened. Previously there was the Teagasc green certificate,. but farming is now big business and farmers need to be appropriately educated and qualified as it is a rapidly changing environment. The concept of lifelong learning is embraced everywhere else and there will be a response in the training offering, including agriculture-type apprenticeships and also a reconfiguring of the green certificate in terms of what is being delivered, which is really important.

Senator Victor Boyhan spoke about other things Teagasc needed to do and the necessity for product innovation. As part of the response to Brexit, we announced an €8 million food innovation hub. One of the reasons is we have 80,000 tonnes of cheese going to the UK market. If that market were to go belly up, we would need an alternative product as the market for cheddar cheese is mainly in the United Kingdom and Ireland, with some being exported to the United States. There are no large markets for it elsewhere. There is, therefore, a need for product reconfiguration. The food innovation hub would serve to assist the industry in that space.

Senator Michelle Mulherin mentioned the weather crisis as a contributory factor not just to the fodder crisis but also in slurry management. There is an important message in that regard. We have just concluded the renegotiation of the nitrates action programme and the derogation. I appreciate that the new requirements are much more onerous, but we have to move to an alternate view where farmyard manure and slurry will not be seen as a problem but as a resource. We must explore how we can get the maximum return from them rather than seeing them as products that must be disposed of. They really have a value. All of this is tied with climate change. Last year there was a significant upward lift in the amount of artificial fertiliser we were buying. We could displace some of it if we were to have appropriate management of the slurry resource. Part of it could be along the lines of anaerobic digestion because one is not losing nutrient value; one is creating energy and will still be left with the same nutrient value in the residue. We need to explore these possibilities. Certainly, anaerobic digestion is one element.

Senator Victor Boyhan instanced it but I also want to tie it with Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn criticism of the Government, including the Fine Gael Party, for its support for the CETA and the TTIP. We live or die by trade agreements. Our membership of the European Union has opened the door for the agriculture industry in all of its manifestations. Whether one is a hill sheep farmer in County Donegal, a dairy farmer in the Finn Valley or a suckler cow farmer in the west, their produce is available in 180 countries around the world. Why is that the case? The answer is we have trade agreements. The EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement is an important one. In the coming weeks I will travel to Canada to discuss a trade agreement because the Irish agrifood industry has determined that Canada is a market in which it sees opportunities. Mercosur is a real challenge for Ireland, but trade is a two-way street. We cannot say we want to trade in all markets but that others cannot have access to any of ours. "Globalisation" is almost a dirty word, but this is the most globalised agrifood economy in the world and we are able to be successful. Hats off to the agrifood industry. Those involved in it are brilliant at seeking out market opportunities to sell our products.