3. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if his Department will re-examine how peatlands and mineral rich soil lands are designated for good agricultural and environmental condition 2, GAEC 2; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13671/25]

Sentiment score: 0.26

I welcome the Minister and all his colleagues here and wish them all the very best in their term in office in the Department of agriculture. My question is on GAEC 2 and how peatlands and mineral-rich soils are being designated under that scheme. As the Minister knows, the proposal sent to Europe is that if a parcel of land has 50% or more of peatlands all of the parcel will be considered as peatland. This is very unfair and will have a really detrimental effect particularly in areas along the west coast and in the north west.

Sentiment score: 0.09

I thank the Minister. It was pretty much the reply I had expected. To be honest, I do not agree. The parcel is well understood, everyone knows what it is and it is there for several other schemes, but in GAEC 8 and GAEC 9 relating to Natura 2000 lands, for example, one can red-line out the area. There is no reason that cannot be done when it comes to peatlands as well. There is no reason we cannot come up with a solution to designate the peatlands only and leave the mineral-rich soils apart from them. This is going to have a detrimental effect on people, particularly those on smaller holdings. Consider the farmer who has 25 ha or 30 ha and 50% of that is peatland. All of that is designated. Another farmer, perhaps in another part of the country where there are much larger holdings, could have a larger portion that is peatland and yet none of it would be designated as peatland because the farmer has a larger portion of mineral-rich soils. A scheme needs to be brought in that will protect the carbon-rich soils without creating a situation where we disenfranchise farmers on smaller holdings, which is what this approach will do.

Sentiment score: 0.18

I understand that and I take the Minister's point but at the end of the day, there are issues, particularly in my part of the world, with people in rural areas finding it difficult to get planning permission. If their lands are designated, what will happen if they are in GAEC 2? Will that be an issue for them? There are also serious problems for farmers with ambitions to expand their lands or grow their holdings. They need reassurance on the future value of that land. They need to get reassurance around all of those issues to make this palatable for farmers. Many farmers, particularly in the west and north west, are organising public meetings. They are annoyed and upset that this will be another designation that is detrimental to their future. We need to bring in schemes and measures that show farmers there is a future in agriculture and do not make it more restrictive and close it down. I want to work with the Minister on this. We all want to get it across the line, but what is being presented is scaring farmers. That should not be happening.

Sentiment score: -0.05

5. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the way his Department will address the increases in the cost of production of milk in order that these costs are not passed on to consumers in supermarkets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13672/25]

Sentiment score: 0.01

This relates to the increase in the cost of production, particularly in the milk sector. The dairy sector stated last week that it had serious issues and was going to have to pass the high cost of production on to the consumer. The dairy sector, which has been important for Ireland, especially in terms of exports, will be looking at what happens tonight across the water, given exports of Kerrygold and how Kerrygold is the second largest selling butter in the United States. The threats that come from all of that are serious.

Sentiment score: 0.08

I suppose it goes back to the old adage that the farmer is the one person who pays a retail price for his or her inputs and takes a wholesale price for his or her outputs. That is the crux of this issue. The cost that farmers have to pay for fertiliser, feed, diesel for the tractor or whatever is constantly climbing, yet they see their margins getting tighter and tighter. This is the issue at hand. While new markets will assist, we need to be going for the top shelf. We need to make sure we are getting the top price for the very high-quality product we export all over the world. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case. We need to work harder to make sure that we can come up with innovative means of reducing the cost for farmers as much as possible while also increasing the price they get for the product they produce. Too often, it has been the case that the people in the middle make most of the money. It is the farmer that takes all the risks, gets up at night to make sure the cow calves and looks after the lambs. The farmers do all of that work, yet they take the least when it comes to the squeeze in the market.

Sentiment score: 0.13

Yes. I am aware that there has been a slight improvement in that input costs have decreased from what they were when the war started in Ukraine. That was really the time that we saw them skyrocket through the roof. The market has settled a little but farmers are still paying very high prices, particularly for inputs such as fertiliser. While I accept that it is not the Minister’s job to set the price of anything, a greater effort needs to be made to ensure that we not only market our projects to get the best price for farmers but also assist the industry to achieve the lowest input costs for farmers so they can increase their margins. I am referring in particular to the costs of feed and fertiliser.

Sentiment score: 0.15