I start my first Oral Questions as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine by wishing Deputy O'Donoghue well in his role as agriculture spokesperson for Labour and Deputy Kenny as agriculture spokesperson for Sinn Féin. Deputy Mac Lochlainn, who has left because he has an engagement, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, will work on all things to do with fisheries. We look forward to having a constructive relationship, with them holding us to account and us doing our best. We will debate the issues that matter for the betterment of the farming and agriculture sector in this country, which is so important. I thank Deputy O'Donoghue for his question. The economic sustainability of family farms is a key priority for me and for the Government. Sustainability is a three-legged stool, involving environment, economic and social aspects. If any of those is out of balance, the stool falls over. The economic stability is just as important to keep all three in balance. My Department closely monitors the trends in agriculture costs and prices, with the Central Statistics Office producing agricultural input and output price indices on a monthly basis. Arising from geopolitical events, the economy generally has experienced significant price inflation in recent years, including inflation fuelled by supply chain disruption and rising energy costs. Agriculture was not immune from this inflation and, as a result, the agricultural input index peaked in November of 2022. It should be noted that costs have decreased by about 20% since their peak, but I absolutely acknowledge that that peak was very high as a result of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and the knock-on implications relating thereto. I acknowledge that they remain relatively high.
Sentiment score: 0.12
As the Deputy outlined, volatility is a significant issue. The volatility in input and output costs was reflected in family farm income. Following record years for income in 2021 and 2022, incomes fell in 2023. However, estimates for 2024 and the forecast for 2025 are more positive. Teagasc estimates an average increase of 49% for 2024 - admittedly from a low base - with all sectors estimated to have experienced gains. In 2025, average family farm income is forecast to rise by a further 22%. I will continue to support farmers through the €9.8 billion CAP strategic plan and via specific supports where required. One of the four missions of Food Vision 2030, our stakeholder-led strategy for the agrifood sector, is for viable and resilient primary producers with enhanced well-being. This places primary producers, our farmers, fishers and foresters, at the core of that strategy.
Sentiment score: 0.23
The points raised by Deputy O'Donoghue illustrate some of the other challenges we face in this sector. At its heart is the challenge relating to succession. Income is also a key issue - the income the next generation of young male and female farmers can expect to attain. It feeds into their decision as to whether they want to take on the farm or not. That is why Food Vision 2030, our overall guiding stakeholder-led strategy, is focused on: improving the competitiveness and productivity of primary producers; increasing the creation of value and distributing it fairly; introducing greater diversification in production systems and incomes; and improving the social sustainability of primary producers across areas such as generational renewal, gender balance, health and safety, mental health and well-being, and wider rural development. All of us on the ministerial team in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine will continue to engage with our stakeholders to ensure the long-term economic, environmental and social sustainability of the sector.
Sentiment score: 0.33
I thank Deputy Kenny and look forward to working with him in the term ahead. I thank the Deputy for raising this really important issue about which there has been a lot of concern - I absolutely understand that - for farmers who are working on peat-based or carbon-rich soils. There has been an element of misinformation or misunderstanding of what the GAECs are. I am happy to have the opportunity again to put on the record of the House that GAEC 2 is a baseline requirement under the CAP regulations for the protection of carbon-rich soils. It is legally required to be put in place for 2025 as part of the basic income support for sustainability. On the question posed, extensive consultation has taken place over the past two years with stakeholders about the land area to be subject to the conditionality and how it is to be controlled. The proposed approach is that, where a parcel has a 50% or greater overlap of carbon-rich soils, then the parcel is a GAEC 2 parcel. To apply a different threshold than 50% would either bring far more mineral soils into the standard or leave too much peat soil outside the protection of the standard, meaning it would probably not be acceptable to the Commission. While there is no consensus among stakeholders, I believe this percentage strikes the right balance. There is concern around 100,000 ha of mineral-rich soils coming in. We have to use the land parcel identification system, LPIS, at the smallest controllable area to reference. If we did not use the 50% carbon-rich peat soil element, we would be in a position where could bring in 880,000 ha of mineral-rich soil. Nobody wants that. This is a practical approach that meets the baseline conditionality of what we want to do. On the inclusion mineral soils, the conditionality requirements must be controlled at a land parcel level. Trying to isolate parts of the parcel where activities can or cannot take place is not practical and would be difficult to control from both a farmer and administrative perspective. A clear, parcel-based approach, based on well understood maps, is a fair way to ensure that we get the required protection in place and farmers have no uncertainty as to the requirements. It is in all our interests for farmers to have certainty. This is why we are waiting for a response from the Commission.
Sentiment score: 0.12
There was extensive analysis of this by officials in my Department and engagement with farm organisations over past two years on trying to come to a solution. This is the most practical approach. It will have no direct impact on a farmer's daily activity on that land. I take issue with the statement that this will have a detrimental effect on farmers. In response to the Deputy's specific question about how we adjudicate on what is in and what is out, it can lead to an inference that it is important to be out. It will not actually make a material difference to farmers' day-to-day activities. Due to our negotiation with the Commission - we hope it will approve the proposal that is with it now - that day-to-day activity can continue. It allows ploughing and reseeding to happen. It allows for the maintenance of existing drains and even for new drainage in line with existing planning requirements. This is not the figure. It is only a baseline requirement for the single farm payment. That is what is required here. GAEC 8 and GAEC 9 use the LPIS as a small controllable area.
Sentiment score: 0.08
I agree because what is being presented is not what is reality. The Deputy used the word "designation", so I am not surprised that farmers are petrified. This is not a designation. It is a baseline requirement for applying for a single farm payment, or the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, scheme, as it is now known. Of course farmers would have concerns on that but a planning authority would not know whether a land parcel is in or out of GAEC 2. It will have absolutely no impact on somebody applying for planning, whether it is mineral soil or the peat element. The same rules apply for planning for the sceptic tank, for example. Someone does the subsurface T test to determine whether there is peat. That is completely separate to this. This is not a designation. I understand why farmers are petrified. I have seen videos from other political entities engaging in scaremongering, linking this with nature restoration and lots of other things, and playing on farmers' concerns. This is not that. This is not something that, in the years to come, will have a significant impact on farmers. This will not have loads of farmers in breach of this in years to come because I have made sure that the process that has gone to the Commission will allow day-to-day activity to continue as normal.
Sentiment score: 0.02
I agree. Everyone is concerned about what will happen with the tariffs from the United States and the impact they will have on our agrifood sector. America is our second biggest market. We export €2 billion worth of agrifood and drink products to there, with butter and dairy being a key component of that, the butter market alone accounting for nearly €500 million. Of the 59,000 tonnes of butter that the EU exports to the US, 51,000 tonnes comes from Ireland. It is the pride of our Kerrygold brand that it is in such a premium position in the US market. This is why, next week, I will travel to the United States on an agrifood trade mission to meet political representatives in Washington, Irish agrifood companies and American companies that engage with us greatly. To make sure we can offset the worst impacts, we continue to engage at European level with our counterparts as well. The Tánaiste, as the Minister with responsibility for trade, has dealings with the Commissioner. With my role in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels, we continue to make every point about the direct impact that tariffs and countermeasures could have on our agrifood sector. On the specific question, as the Minister for agriculture, I do not have a role in setting or controlling prices for any commodity, but working with the Minister of State, Deputy Grealish, I have responsibility for working on new market development and trade, making sure we open more opportunities for Ireland, continue to enhance the markets we are in and grow the value added in those places, and continue to seek new markets so that we are never dependent on one individual market. This week is a good example, as Brexit was before, of why we do that. As part of its role in supporting the sector, however, my Department monitors developments in prices received and costs borne by Irish farmers. The Central Statistics Office reports on a monthly basis agricultural outputs, trends and prices paid to farmers for their produce, and agricultural input prices paid by farmers for purchases of goods and services. Over the 12 months to January 2025, the overall agricultural output price index, which is prices, rose by 20%. The first monthly indications for 2025 are positive, with output prices rising by 2% compared to the previous January and input costs falling by almost 5%.
Sentiment score: 0.26
That is why new markets and continuing to grow our market share in existing markets is so important. Our job in the Department of agriculture is to meet all of the regulatory requirements of other countries so that we can can gain market access and trade there. It is then up to the Irish food processors and food companies to see that the price they are getting for Irish farmers’ produce is the best they can get. The more markets they have open to them, the more opportunities they have. Not filling a market that we open with produce straightaway is not a sign of failure. My Department has achieved by giving a range of options so farmers’ produce can yield the best possible return. At the heart of Food Vision 2030 is getting the greatest return for our produce and adding value. At present, the current trends for dairy farmers are positive with regard to input and output prices. Milk experienced a significant agricultural output price increase of 33% in the 12-month period to January 2025. In the same period, the price of agricultural inputs fell by 3.7%, with notable reductions in the prices of electricity, feed and fertilisers.
Sentiment score: 0.52
The value of agricultural output rose by 8% to €12.2 billion in 2024. This was driven mainly by a 17% increase in milk prices as milk accounts for one third of the value of agricultural output overall. These trends can change, however. As we know, there is considerable volatility in the sector and this presents a really big challenge for our farmers and food industry. My Department closely monitors the trends, reflecting the volatile nature of input and output prices in the agrifood sector. The overall strategy, Food Vision 2030, has four interlinked missions at its core, one of which is ensuring the resilience of primary producers. A number of actions have already been taken to improve the position of farmers in the supply chain in recent years: increased market transparency reporting, including the reporting of the weekly selling price for drinking milk; the introduction of the Agricultural and Food Supply Chain (Unfair Trading) Regulations 2023; and, obviously, the establishment of the Agri-Food Regulator, which is another key element in bringing transparency to the system and ensuring fairness in the relationship between the primary producer, processor and retailer.
Sentiment score: 0.33
I thank Deputy McGreehan for raising what is a really important point. The recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in Hungary, Slovakia and Germany have highlighted the ongoing threat posed by the disease to Irish livestock. FMD is present in large parts of the developing world, causing major losses to livestock farmers and presenting a continuous risk of spread to parts of the world that are normally free from the disease, such as Ireland. My Department has comprehensive contingency plans in place to deal with FMD, covering suspect cases, confirmed disease outbreaks and the question of how we would eradicate the disease following an incursion. Simulation exercises are carried out by my officials and the plan is updated as and when needed. My Department is carrying out an ongoing public awareness campaign to highlight the risk of foot and mouth disease to Ireland. This includes posters at airports and ports to raise vigilance. Livestock owners in Ireland are advised to implement biosecurity measures to mitigate the risk of an outbreak of the disease in this country. Furthermore, anyone coming from an FMD-affected region should avoid entering a farm for 14 days following arrival in Ireland to prevent the risk of contaminated clothing, footwear, vehicles or equipment coming into contact with livestock. Any vehicles bringing livestock or horses from Hungary, Slovakia or any other affected area to Ireland should be thoroughly disinfected. Officials have carried out a communications campaign for type 2 transporters - that is, people authorised to transport animals - in this regard. I can confirm that there have been no movements of FMD-susceptible species, namely cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, buffalo and camelids, into Ireland from any of the impacted areas in the period since 1 January 2025, which is the potential risk period. Within my Department, preparations are ongoing to heighten our preparedness for all eventualities and to ensure a prompt and effective response to any suspect FMD case. I thank the Deputy for raising this. I understand she is doing so based on the experience of people in Louth had at the time of the FMD outbreak in 2001. We never want to experience that again. The Deputy should rest assured that if, God forbid, there is another outbreak, we stand ready.
Sentiment score: -0.00
On the point on our island status, I have collaborated very closely with my counterpart Andrew Muir in Stormont, who has responsibility on his side of the Border, be it in respect of avian flu, the potential risk of FMD or, as the Deputy mentioned in her original question, bluetongue. Bluetongue is prevalent in England and is it a very major concern for us as we head into the time of year when its risk of spread by midges increases. The island of Ireland is one epidemiological unit. Diseases and animals do not know where an invisible border is and therefore we work very closely with our counterparts. To take the example of avian flu, our response was very much co-ordinated. We both issued a housing order at the same time, mindful that some of the outbreaks were very close to the Border. What happens in one housing unit could happen in another. I will address the other points in my response to the Deputy’s supplementary question.
Sentiment score: -0.06
I understand the historical nature of the issue and respect the fact that the Deputy is raising it almost 24 years since the outbreak in 2001, which had a dreadful impact on the whole country but particularly on the Cooley area. I take on board the points the Deputy raised. The matter has an historical nature. I am aware that there were legal cases.
Sentiment score: 0.04