Legal Aid
10. Deputy Paula Butterly asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to outline the proposed changes to the legal aid scheme; how these proposals are consistent with the programme for Government commitment to restore legal fees; to clarify the extent to which relevant stakeholders were consulted prior to the publication of these proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35591/26]
I thank Deputy Butterly for her question. I fully recognise the crucial role played by legal practitioners in the effective administration of justice and, equally, that the criminal legal aid scheme is fundamental to upholding the constitutional and human right to a legal defence. The whole purpose of the reform of the criminal legal aid fee structure in the District Court is aimed primarily at improving efficiencies, speeding up case resolution and reducing unnecessary adjournments, while also ensuring fair remuneration for legal practitioners.
It is proposed to replace the current appearance-based sliding scale with a flat fee model. For cases in the District Court, regardless of the number of appearances, a generous set fee will be payable to solicitors. The proposed reform is intended to make the system work better for all concerned by making it more efficient, reducing unnecessary adjournments and speeding up case resolution. The new flat fee will be set at a rate that provides for full restoration of the so-called financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, cuts in line with the programme for Government commitment. I will, obviously, be reversing those cuts and restoring fees from 1 July as well.
My Department carried out a review of more than 350,000 District Court cases that took place during 2022 and 2023. A number of issues were identified during that review that I simply had to address. I am engaging extensively with relevant stakeholders, including legal professionals. Officials from my Department met with the Bar Council and the Law Society in May, July and October 2025, and again in March 2026. I offered further meetings and I will continue to engage with them.
I welcome the Minister’s comments. I want to frame this as an opportunity to get reform right, to strengthen our justice system and to ensure, as the Minister said, that it works fairly for everybody. Nobody disagrees that change is needed and we all recognise that there are inefficiencies in the current system. Reform, though, must be done carefully and in a way that protects the core principles of justice. I know the Minister agrees with this point.
The move towards a flat fee model in the District Court may appear at first glance to be a practical and streamlined solution. It does promise efficiency and simplicity. If we look at it a little closer, though, we begin to see the risks that come with oversimplifying something as complex as criminal justice. Not all cases are the same. Some are straightforward and can be resolved quickly, while others are complex, sensitive and require significant preparation, repeated engagements and time in court. Treating those different cases as though they are identical does not create efficiency but an imbalance.
I also have to take into account that the number of criminal cases in the District Court has decreased. Notwithstanding that, however, expenditure on criminal legal aid in the District Court has nearly doubled, from €19 million in 2015 to €37 million in 2024, despite the number of cases having decreased.
The review I looked at identified a series of structural issues in the administration of justice in the criminal legal aid scheme. For example, payment per appearance incentivises additional adjournments. I think this is just clearly the case. If we compare cases in the District Court that are not funded by criminal legal aid to those that are, we can see that there are many more adjournments in the latter context. Additionally, multiple certificates granted for related cases increase costs and complexity, multiple solicitors are assigned in the same firm for related charges and a highly complex payment processing system creates a significant administrative burden. I would not introduce this scheme if I thought it was going to undermine the rights of individuals to a fair defence.
I repeat that all of us recognise the inefficiencies that do exist and that there is scope there for reform. However, let me guide the Minister toward a practical example. In County Louth, my constituency, we have the drug treatment court, which has proved to be a very effective and successful operation for those people appearing before the judges. It involves statutory and non-statutory stakeholders, and the model of flat fee-only appearances could have a detrimental effect on the drug treatment court because it is very complex. It is about reforming and giving a person another opportunity to live a very successful life, and the flat fee-only appearance rule would possibly jeopardise the situation. If we get the balance wrong, there will be consequences for the person before the courts and the hard-fought outcome hoped for may not materialise. We also risk discouraging solicitors from taking on legal aid work and creating gaps in access representation.
I thank the Deputy.
Will the Minister have further engagement with the key stakeholders and take on board their concerns before he brings forward these proposals?
I have had engagement with the representative associations. In fact, I wrote to them previously saying I was available to meet again if they wished to do so. I have no doubt that I will hear back from them.
In terms of what the Deputy said about the provision of legal aid, it is a very competitive business among solicitors. I believe we are not going to lose that level of competition because of the reform I am proposing.
The Deputy gave an example of what happens in the drug treatment court, but the report I considered from the Department identified that the weighted average of the number of appearances for cases with criminal legal aid is five, while the weighted average of the number of appearances for cases without criminal legal aid is just over three. Something is happening, therefore, when cases with criminal legal aid are having many more adjournments than is the case with those that do not. I think this proposal will make the system much more efficient and help the administration of justice.
Court Procedures
8. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration considering the rights of victims and survivors of sexual offences, if he will consider a ban on the use of counselling records as evidence in criminal trials; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35579/26]
As the Minister knows, the issue of counselling notes being used in gender-based violence trials has been a massive issue for survivors. Even the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, GREVIO, has talked about this being an instrument of secondary victimisation. The Minister was forced to amend his own amendments to legislation in this regard because he came back with something that just was not satisfactory. I have only caught sight of the amendments he is proposing, which will be a hearing on a real risk of an unfair trial in the interests of justice or where it is relevant to an issue in a trial. There will still be the chilling effect for survivors and raw records being passed on to judges and defence teams.
I thank the Deputy very much for her question. I am committed to trying to ensure that the situation that operates at present, where counselling notes are routinely provided to the legal team of an accused, comes to an end. I brought forward proposals to the version of the miscellaneous provisions Bill on Second Stage and I am going to come forward with even further amendments in terms of that legislation. I have listened to what people in this House and some of the important stakeholders have said, and I am going to introduce a statutory form of non-disclosure for counselling notes.
The Deputy’s question asks that I should ban them completely.
In listening to people, be they in this House or stakeholders, I also have to listen to the Attorney General and the advice I have received. The unambiguous advice I have received from the Attorney General and the advice that important stakeholders in this area have received is that a total ban on counselling notes would be unconstitutional. It would be very detrimental to the interests of survivors of sexual abuse if I was to introduce legislation that got me some plaudits here but was struck down by the courts within a year as being unconstitutional, so I will not do that. However, the proposals I am bringing forward will create a statutory form of privilege that will ensure that the only time information or documentation evidencing a counselling note is provided is if that note evidences something that is in the interests of justice and without it, there would be an unfair trial. I cannot categorise a group of evidence and say we can never look at that, which is what a total ban would effectively do. That would be unconstitutional. What I am introducing is that there will have to be a hearing and a judge will have to look at it. The only time that information will be disclosed is if a judge, having looked at it, says that is relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
I appreciate that the Minister had to go further than he was originally intending. He says he listened but he did not listen, for example, to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. I spoke to its representatives yesterday and cannot believe that the Minister had not even met them before tabling his amendments. This is the front-line organisation dealing with survivors and it did a huge amount of work and put forward a very detailed proposal. In that context, I cannot accept the suggestion that the Minister listened.
The Minister says that it would be unconstitutional but we could argue that point because there are other constitutional rights that do not seem to be taken into consideration here, such as the right to privacy, to healthcare and so on. If our Constitution allows the damaging and harming of survivors, then there is something wrong and the Minister should come forward with a proposal for a referendum. In Tasmania, for example, they have managed to outlaw this practice and notes can only be handed over with the person's consent. This takes into account the fact that some people may want to use their counselling notes. It can be done if there is a will. What the Minister is bringing in is similar to what is in Canada and it has not really reduced requests for access to counselling notes.
What I have to do here and what the House has to do, ultimately, is weigh up an area where there are conflicting rights. On the one hand, there is the right to privacy, which is an absolutely essential right, and on the other hand there is the right to a fair trial, which is also an essential right. Neither right is absolute but I have to ensure that I balance both of them. The legislation I am bringing forward and the amendments I have tabled will significantly tilt in favour of the right to privacy but it cannot make it absolute.
I hear what the Deputy is saying with regard to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. It sent a submission to me, which I did consider. I have engaged with people across the board but, ultimately, I have to do what I believe is in the best interests of the public and survivors while also recognising that there has to be protection for a fair trial. The proposals I am bringing forward will achieve that and, if this legislation is enacted, we will be in a position a year or two later where it will be much more seldom that counselling notes are disclosed in criminal trials.
The right to a fair trial includes the complainant as well. Does the Minister agree? I am assuming he does but that is never factored in. Gender-based violence is becoming a completely unpunished offence in this and other countries. That is the reality. Only 5% of people disclose to anyone or report it to gardaí. Why does the Minister think that is the case? It is because things like this remain on the books and are routinely used in our courts.
The Minister said he listened but one would think he would at least meet the group to discuss its proposal, into which it put a lot of work. Has he listened, for example, to the therapist who had her front door knocked on by four gardaí looking for counselling notes? How is this in any way just? The Minister used the phrase "best interests" of survivors. He could have laid down a much higher bar than he did. For example, it is very broad to say "interests of justice" or "an issue in a trial". That can be interpreted in so many ways and it is not dealing with the central issue, which is that people are having to choose between therapy and a trial. Nothing is going to change with this proposal.
I disagree with the Deputy when she says that sexual offences are unpunished offences.
They are.
That is not correct.
Only 5% report.
Every day of the week we read in our newspapers about people - men - being convicted of rape and serious sexual offences. That is happening consistently within the criminal justice system. Part of the consequence of that is that it should provide, and I hope it does, strength to other survivors and victims of sexual offences to know that if they come forward, they will get justice. I also know that An Garda Síochána is much more effective now in dealing with these complaints than it was ten or 15 years ago.
My job is to ensure that I provide as much support as possible for individuals to travel through the criminal justice process. I also have to take into account, however, the requirements of a fair trial. I agree that a trial requires consideration of interests. Of course, the interests of survivors, victims or complainants in a trial must be prioritised but I cannot completely negate somebody who is being accused. If there was a person whose political views Deputy Coppinger agreed with-----
The Minister obviously does not understand the importance of this issue.
-----who was being prosecuted, she would be the first to criticise conditions that made a fair trial not possible.
Gender Recognition
9. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will clarify that an applicant for naturalisation who has changed their name through a gender recognition certificate does not need to show use of that new name for two years in order to have the name appear on the certificate of naturalisation; if he will ensure the naturalisation process is informed by the Gender Recognition Act 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35578/26]
I want to raise a flaw or a gap in the naturalisation process in the context of the Gender Recognition Act. I have been contacted by a constituent who last year changed their gender and name through the Gender Recognition Act. That process allows a person not just to register a change of gender but also to alter their name. They are a citizen of another EU state, working and living in Ireland. They applied for naturalisation but cannot progress that application because of the rule that people must be using a name for two years.
I thank the Deputy for her question and would appreciate it if she would send on the details of the case because I was not able to identify the issues on the basis of the question. It is a complicated issue and I just want to give the Deputy the following reply.
Under the Irish legal system, a person’s name is the name by which they are known or which they commonly use. For most people, evidence of their name is most commonly provided and accepted in the form of a birth certificate, which, for example, may be supported by a marriage certificate in the case of a change of name on marriage. The name by which a person is known by is acquired through use and repute. Where a person seeks to use a different name acquired through use and repute in the naturalisation process, my Department requires evidence that they have been using that new name for a period of at least two years. I am sure the Deputy can appreciate that establishing a person's identity is a critical part of the immigration and naturalisation process.
I want to stress that this two-year requirement is not contained in, and does not arise from, the Gender Recognition Act 2015. Rather, it reflects a broader administrative practice. It is important that a person seeking naturalisation is properly identified so that, among other things, appropriate checks can be undertaken. It is also important in establishing their new status as a naturalised citizen that it is done in a name that they are known as. Use and repute is a critical, non-statutory method for proving identity, particularly when a person changes their name outside of marriage or civil partnership. It acts as a bridge between social identity - who people know a person as - and legal identity - who a person’s documents say they are. When proving identity at any stage of the naturalisation process, the citizenship division in my Department requires evidence that a name has been used consistently. This is the bedrock of proving a person’s identity while also helping to protect against identity fraud. I understand that some other Departments are currently reviewing their requirements for use and repute for two years where a person is in possession of a gender recognition certificate.
Again, if the Deputy sends on the details to me, at least I will be able to consider the matter in the context of what has actually happened.
The problem is that the use and repute clause is not applied for a marriage certificate, for example. If somebody submits a marriage certificate saying they have now changed their name, it is recognised immediately. So, it can be done but it is not being done in the case of a gender recognition certificate. When people obtain a gender recognition certificate, it is assumed that it can be used straight away. There is nothing said about a period of time that must elapse first. This needs to be looked at in the naturalisation process because my constituent has been forced to cancel their application for citizenship and has lost their fee. They do not want to carry on with obtaining an important State document with their old or so-called dead name. It will be another year before they can have a passport in their new name. This has serious implications for transgender people who are constantly having to explain their gender when they interact with the State, services and so on.
It causes difficulty as well when travelling. This is something the Minister needs to look at.
If the Deputy sends me the details, I will be able to look at the issue. The naturalisation process is different from the process, say, for obtaining a marriage certificate. At the heart of naturalisation is the need for the Department to be able to identify the person who is seeking Irish citizenship. It is an essential part of the naturalisation process that people in my Department go back and examine the past of the individual seeking Irish citizenship to ensure that what he or she is saying is correct. There are factors that could preclude a person from achieving Irish citizenship. Let us remember Irish citizenship is not a right but a privilege we give to individuals based upon an application process.
On the issue the Deputy raised, it is important to emphasise there is nothing in the Gender Recognition Act that undermines or affects her constituent. The issue is the necessity for identification. If she sends me the application details, I will have them considered. Ultimately, even if the matter cannot be resolved, her constituent will be able to apply in a year.
I accept what the Minister is saying about needing to check out a person's past. I have helped many people with their naturalisation applications. However, if a person has been investigated and has demonstrated a change in gender and name under the Gender Recognition Act, surely the process is simple enough. It should not take two years. There is an anomaly and it should be reviewed. The Gender Recognition Act was meant to be reviewed in any case to also allow for recognition of non-binary status. That change was recommended and indicated. This is something that will impinge on many people's lives. As far as I know, we still recognise trans people in this country. We should allow them, if they are naturalised, to move to their new name as quickly as possible.
The use and repute test is used across the board in the Department. It is not targeting any particular group of individuals. It is not too much to expect, when it comes to assessing identification, that people are able to satisfy the Department that their name is the name they have used for two years and how they have been known by repute for the same period. As I said, I will have a look at this case if the Deputy sends me the information in respect of it.
Court Accommodation
7. Deputy Paula Butterly asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the current status of funding allocated for essential repair and flood remediation works at Drogheda Courthouse following the recent flooding that resulted in the transfer of District Court sittings to Dundalk Courthouse in January 2025; the timeframe for completion of those works; the total amount of capital funding allocated for courthouse repair, maintenance and flood prevention works nationally in 2025; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35785/26]
I apologise for the confusion I caused earlier. Will the Minister outline the current status of funding allocated for essential repairs and remedial works at Drogheda Courthouse following the flooding that resulted in the transfer of District Court sittings to Dundalk Courthouse in January 2025? Will he also indicate the timeframe for the completion of those works, as well as the total amount of capital funding allocated for courthouse repair, maintenance and works nationally in 2025?
I acknowledge this is an issue of concern to the Deputy. I understand the flooding that occurred at Drogheda Courthouse on 13 January 2025 resulted from burst pipes. Following the completion of initial repair works, a walk-through inspection of the facility was carried out during the week commencing 20 January 2025. It was agreed at the time that the facility could reopen to the public on 28 January, noting that certain areas, including courtroom 1, would remain unavailable. Further works to courtroom 1 were completed in April 2025 and it became fully operational on 2 May 2025. That marked the completion of all repair works.
As the Deputy is aware, Drogheda Courthouse is part of a seven-courthouse public private partnership, PPP, bundle, which was delivered under a 25-year concession period. Drogheda Courthouse was the first of the projects to be handed over in June 2017 on a landmark town centre site beside the River Boyne. The total cost of the PPP contract covers the design, construction, financing and, importantly, maintenance and repair of the facility. Those costs are met through a single annual unitary charge, which represents a composite payment for all services provided under the contract. It should be noted that the risk and costs of the repairs fell under the ownership of the PPP company, not the Courts Service. The entity that paid for the repair works was not the State but the PPP company.
The total capital funding allocated for courthouse capital works in 2025 amounted to €9.74 million. The total cost of the PPP contract is quite significant but, as I said, the State did not have to pay for it. I cannot give the Deputy an exact detailed breakdown of the charge because it is commercially sensitive and is protected under the terms of the PPP contract.
I thank the Minister for that update. I was aware that courtroom 1 had opened. As the Minister noted, Drogheda Courthouse is a modern building that opened in 2017 as part of a €9 million investment designed to serve the growing and busy county of Louth. Yet, in the space of 12 months, we have seen repeated problems, most recently with courtroom 1 as a result of burst pipes in the roof. However, that is not the only issue. Anyone going into Drogheda Courthouse today or tomorrow will still see buckets around the place and on the stairs. For this to be happening in such a modern building, the question must be asked whether we are investing in and building these structures properly. The investment in our courts is really important. How can we avoid having buckets lying around a modern facility?
I am disappointed to hear buckets are being used in Drogheda Courthouse. As already noted, it was built in 2017 on a landmark town centre site. If there are defects in the building, the owner or the constructor is liable for those defects. There is a recognition that any defects in the building must be fixed by the PPP company. It has done that and has paid for those works. If there are ongoing difficulties in respect of the courthouse, the company will have to meet that liability as well.
It is essential we have courthouses that are adequate and appropriate. That is necessary not for the benefit of judges or lawyers but for the benefit of people who are going through the administration of justice and seeking access to justice. I will ask my officials and the Courts Service about Drogheda Courthouse. Any issues with it need to be resolved immediately and the entity responsible for paying for that is the company that built it and from which the State is contracting it.
In County Louth, we have the good fortune of also having Dundalk Courthouse, which is an amazing facility that is potentially underused at times. Many of my former colleagues tell me the courthouses at a regional level across the country are in dire need of repair. Will the Minister outline the programme of repair and maintenance at a national level and how quickly those works can be facilitated?
The courthouses of Ireland are very interesting buildings. Last Friday, I was in the courthouse in Armagh, which is very similar to the other courthouses we inherited from the British around the country. Some of them, because of their antiquity, are in need of significant work, but their antiquity means most are protected structures. I know Dundalk Courthouse well. It is a very fine building in the centre of the town. It has a wonderful location in terms of generating business for the surrounding community.
I have funding within the national development plan for the construction of new courthouses. It is an important part of my programme to ensure Courts Service facilities around the country are suitable. We have built many fine new courthouses over the years. I think particularly of Castlebar, which has a very fine new courthouse. Many of those buildings around the country were designed very effectively. There is money there to build them but when it comes to ancient buildings, there are issues in terms of what can arise.
Question No. 11 taken with Written Answers.
Legal Aid
12. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to provide an update on his Department's engagement with the Law Society of Ireland and other stakeholders ahead of the changes to the operation of legal aid at the District Court; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34694/26]
Will the Minister outline his or his Department's engagement with the Law Society of Ireland and other stakeholders in advance of the changes to the legal aid system operating in the District Court?
I am told by many there is unease in relation to the possibility of an exodus of those who engage in the system. We want to see it streamlined and efficient and getting the best bang for our buck but we do not want to see backlogged courts and it causing more hassle than it needs to.
I thank Deputy Ó Murchú for his question. I certainly do not believe that there will be an exodus of our criminal law practitioners from the legal aid sphere as a result of the reforms I am introducing. As I said earlier, it is a very competitive sector. There are highly efficient and professional solicitors providing services to persons accused of criminal offences. I believe that will continue. I would not propose the reforms if I thought it would not.
I looked at the criminal legal aid scheme and I am fully aware of the importance of the scheme in terms of protecting the right to a fair trial and ensuring individuals accused of serious offences have adequate protection. My proposed reform in the District Court is not intended to reduce the cost to the State in providing criminal legal aid. Instead, it is about improving efficiencies and reducing unnecessary adjournments while still ensuring fair and sustainable remuneration for legal practitioners. As the Deputy knows, it is proposed to replace the current appearance-based sliding scale with a flat fee model for cases in the District Court, regardless of the number of appearances. A set generous fee higher than the fee at present will be payable to solicitors. The new flat fee will be set at a rate that provides for full restoration of the FEMPI cuts in line with the programme for Government commitment.
I have to point out that part of the reason for my reform is because of a review conducted by my Department in respect of cases conducted in the District Court. On foot of that review, it was apparent to me that reform was required. It is also apparent that if we pay somebody per appearance, it is going to incentivise additional adjournments. Research was done that established that in cases where there was criminal legal aid, there would be five appearances where there was criminal legal aid and three where there was not.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I understand the argument the Minister is making. It is my understanding there are a considerable number of adjournments on the basis of the gardaí and the State itself. The fear is that we will have a number of solicitors who are not willing to engage with this system. We will obviously have those who need representation but beyond that, I am told that in many cases involving legal aid, and when the solicitor is given a sufficient amount of time, due diligence is done and this facilitates, when it makes best sense, guilty pleas or whatever, so we are not necessarily clogging up the courts more than they need to be. The Law Society and others will accept there should be nothing that gives an incentive in relation to solicitors demanding more adjournments on the basis of pay but I am told it generally happens on the basis of the State, whether that is due diligence not being done beforehand, issues in relation to evidence, etc. I ask the Minister about his engagement with the Law Society and the other stakeholders who need this to work.
There are obviously a variety of reasons for adjournments of a criminal trial in the District Court. What is concerning me is the fact that if we have short adjournments, they have a very negative impact on the efficiency of the system because cases are listed every two weeks, every three weeks or however long it is on a continuing basis. If we are paying a person per the number of appearances, that is going to incentivise the adjournment. These reforms will have a positive impact because when it comes to applications for adjournments, practitioners will take into account whether or not they are going to be ready for the hearing or the next stage of the trial at the adjourned date proposed. People will be much more careful about agreeing to an adjourned date in circumstances where they do not think they will be ready on that date. There is a benefit to it.
In terms of engagement, I have had very good engagement with the Bar Council and the Law Society. I have received submissions from them and offered to meet them again. I will happily meet them again.
I welcome that the Minister will meet them again, particularly as the Law Society and many of its members, some of whom have contacted me, have stated they are incredibly worried about this. I agree with the Minister that we all want to see our courts system work as efficiently as possible. We have all seen that for too long justice has been denied. We have all seen cases which have taken an extraordinary length of time to make their way through the District and Circuit Courts. However, in a previous answer, the Minister said his Department reviewed more than 350,000 District Court cases, which took place between 2022 and 2023. I would like to know the detail and how that was done because that would seem like a significant amount of work to do. I call on the Minister to meet again with the Law Society. We all want a system that works. We do not want to see courts more backlogged than they are.
That is correct. There was a detailed review carried out by my Department and what it established was that there were a number of structural issues which needed to be addressed: first, payment per appearance incentives adjournments; second, multiple certificates were granted for related cases which will increase costs and complexity; third, multiple solicitors assigned in the same firm for related charges; and, fourth, a highly-complex payment processing system creating a significant administrative burden. The review found that cases with criminal legal aid take an average of 313 calendar days to complete compared to 133 days for cases without. The weighted average appearances for cases with criminal legal aid is five, while the weighted average appearances for cases without criminal legal aid is just three. While cases with criminal legal aid take significantly longer than those without, the outcomes are similar. This is a system that needs to be reformed.
Question No. 13 taken with Written Answers.
Policing of Events
14. Deputy Joe Cooney asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the Garda resources that have been allocated to County Clare in respect of major events scheduled for 2026, including a tournament (details supplied); whether the staffing required for such events is being drawn from within the existing Clare-Tipperary division complement or from other divisions; the steps being taken to ensure that high-visibility community policing in County Clare is not diminished during periods of major event deployment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35405/26]
I raise the issue of resourcing gardaí in County Clare for the Irish Open in September. This is a huge event coming to County Clare and it will bring tens of thousands of visitors to our county. I ask the Minister what additional resources both human and financial will be made available by his department to Clare Garda division for this event.
I thank the Deputy for his question. The organisation and deployment of policing resources for major sporting events is an operational matter for the Garda Commissioner and, indeed, local Garda management. As Ministers, we have no role as such in operational decisions, however, I am assured that the resourcing of policing requirements for high-profile sporting events is fully considered within the overall context of the needs of the relevant Garda division. The Garda Commissioner keeps the distribution of resources under continual review and we engage regularly with him to ensure An Garda Síochána has the resources it needs to keep our communities safe. The Commissioner is committed to ensuring the policing needs of the Clare-Tipperary division are fully attended to, notwithstanding the obvious demands the hosting of the event referred to by the Deputy will place on An Garda Síochána.
As the Deputy knows, An Garda Síochána has extensive expertise in policing major sporting events, including previous large-scale sporting tournaments. I am sure he recalls the Irish Open was played in Lahinch in County Clare in 2019. There was a significant Garda presence and operation which helped the tournament run quite successfully and smoothly.
An Garda Síochána has a proven track record of successfully policing multiple large events on the same day. We see that particularly with GAA events, which take place in multiple locations around our country on the same day and, indeed, at the same time. Garda management will, as always, undertake a thorough risk assessment and put in place an appropriate policing plan tailored to the specific event, ensuring public safety and the security of all attendees.
I am satisfied An Garda Síochána has the necessary expertise, training and resources to discharge its duties in relation to the event the Deputy referred to, which is to be held in the Doonbeg golf resort in September of this year.
I thank the Minister of State. I congratulate everyone who has helped to bring this event to County Clare. It will provide a major boost to the local economy, particularly during the shoulder season of the year, but it will also place additional pressure on Garda resources, especially in west Clare. Gardaí will have to be reassigned from other duties, including community policing, to deal with crowd management, traffic and public safety. That will have an impact on communities across Clare that would normally rely on those Garda resources. Can the Minister of State assure me that this event will not affect Garda resources allocated to County Clare in 2026? Will the organisers make a financial contribution towards policing and public services? Will the overall cost to the State for this event be fully covered?
I previously mentioned that the previous Irish open which was staged in Lahinch, County Clare, in 2019 was a successful event. I also put on the record that in 2019, President Trump visited Clare, in 2023, President Biden visited Clare and President Zelenskyy visited there last December. Those visits were all successfully policed and properly and appropriately resourced by An Garda Síochána at the time. The expertise and knowledge are in the organisation.
The Deputy asked about the recovery of charges relating to the policing of non-public duty events. The recent report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the 2023 appropriation accounts for Vote 20 - An Garda Síochána examined the cost of non-policing events. Ensuring value for money is a priority for the Department and the agencies under its remit. The Garda Commissioner is the Accounting Officer.
There is also a possibility of a visit this time by President Trump who owns Doonbeg golf club. We saw in previous visits the scale of the operation required for a presidential visit, including road closures, major security arrangements, co-ordination with the US Secret Service and the redeployment of Garda personnel from across the region. An Garda Síochána in Clare simply cannot do this with existing resources without causing serious disruption to normal policing services across the county. Rural communities in Clare, where there are already concerns about response times and Garda visibility, would feel the impact sharply. Can the Minister of State give an assurance that if President Trump were to visit Clare, none of the cost of the resource burden would fall on the existing Garda allocation for the county? Does the State carry the full cost of such a visit, even where it involves a privately owned business such as Doonbeg golf club? Communities across west Clare should not lose out on day-to-day Garda services because of a high-profile international visit.
I reiterate that President Trump, in 2019, and President Biden both visited County Clare and the visits were policed accordingly. In the Clare-Tipperary division, which the Deputy knows well, 661 gardaí were assigned to that division as of March 2026, which is a significant body of people. Every Garda division wants more and has its hand up for more gardaí to be allocated to it.
The Deputy is concerned about the resourcing of the Clare-Tipperary division being left exposed while the policing of this event takes place. When major events are policed, gardaí from neighbouring districts are asked to attend and are pulled into the adjoining district to police them. It will not be the case that everyone in the Clare-Tipperary division will be sucked over to Doonbeg to police that event.
Court Procedures
15. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will consider changes in legislation in relation to the use of character references in sentencing hearings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35581/26]
My question relates to character references. We have seen a spate of them recently from former TDs, many of whom seem to be hanging around the Fianna Fáil party. They do not have any understanding of how damaging this is to the victims of these crimes. Why are we still allowing character references from people who have absolutely no expertise in anything to do with any of these crimes? It is an outrage.
I thank Deputy Coppinger for her question. As she will be aware, the law was recently changed in this area in respect of sexual offences. Under section 14 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Trafficking) Act 2024, it is now the case that people who want to give character evidence about a person convicted of a sexual offence have to do so either by affidavit or in the witness box. It has to be done on oath or affirmation. That is a positive change in the law.
Deputy Coppinger's question seems to ask why this is ever necessary. As I said previously, sentencing is one of the most complex aspects of a judge's function. The judge has to deal with the nature of the offence and its impact on the victim when determining the sentence. However, the judge is also sentencing the offender. It will be the case that the judge needs to know something about the offender for the purpose of imposing a sentence. For instance, I am sure if a person were convicted of causing criminal damage to an American plane in Shannon, Deputy Coppinger would believe that person should be entitled to have some character evidence adduced for them at the trial. We can never say we should rule out any form of character evidence because it is essential for a judge to understand the offender in order to impose a sentence.
However, certainly in respect of sexual offences, including rape, people who want to give character evidence have to do so by going into the witness box or by affidavit. There is a lot to be said for extending that to other serious offences.
We are not talking about writing a reference for a mother who took a packet of nappies because she is living in poverty. In most cases, these references are from relatives or former school principals who knew the offender 20 years ago, or from a GAA football manager or whoever. In the case of child sexual abuse and gender-based violence, they should be banned entirely because the people who carry out such offences are absolute master manipulators. They have groomed people, including adults and children, and fooled relatives. We have seen cases of femicide where the perpetrator fooled the entire family of the victim. No solitary thing can be believed about these people. No one knows what they have done in private, behind closed doors, in such a personal crime as child sexual abuse or gender-based violence. In a trial relating to two sisters, the last word was given to references for their brother who had already been found guilty of abusing them from relatives of the brother who knew nothing about him. The references need to go. They are very confusing and damaging.
I agree with Deputy Coppinger when she says abusers and people responsible for gender-based violence are manipulative. I met Naomi Long last Friday. She is the justice minister for Northern Ireland. She asked me to read the report about Katie Simpson's murder. I read it. It is a harrowing example of someone - the person responsible for her murder - who fooled the PSNI. It showed the level of manipulation that can exist.
Deputy Coppinger suggested we simply ban any form of evidence being given in respect of an offender. That would be problematic. As I said, an important part of a judge's function is to understand an offender. There will be varying degrees of manipulative or malign offenders. There will be people who deserve much longer sentences than others and for there to be some graded assessment by a court, it needs to know something about the offender. The alternative is to have mandatory sentences, as we do for murder, so the judge does not exercise any discretion.
I was particularly talking about sexual and gender-based violence because it is a particular type of personal crime. These people fool judges as well. Let us be frank. Judges are not exactly top of the class.
These references are designed to get people off. In the case of the two women I spoke to - and I know them - there were suspended sentences after character references were submitted.
I want to ask about this oath of affirmation. Where was the oath of affirmation for the person standing in the witness box when Jim Glennon, a former TD and a personal friend of the Minister, wrote a character reference for a person who had images of child sexual abuse? We all had to wait a week or so to find out who the former TD was. He did not stand up in the witness box, so it does not seem like the oath is being applied. Former Deputy Marc MacSharry wrote a reference for a property developer who terrorised children. This seems to be a plague within Fianna Fáil. A former Ceann Comhairle wrote a horrific reference as well and has never apologised to the victims, despite being asked to do so.
The Deputy may want to live in a country where guilt by association operates, but, fortunately, we do not live in such a country. If somebody the Deputy knew did something inappropriate or improper-----
They have.
-----I would not hold her responsible for it.
I am not.
We do not live in a country where there is guilt by association. To answer the question, the reason persons did not get into the witness box in the past is because the law has now been changed. If you want to give character evidence in respect of a person convicted of a sexual offence, you now have to do it by going into the witness box or on affidavit. The benefit of doing it that way is you can be subject to cross-examination, which means that the counsel for the DPP will be able to question you on the content of your evidence. My view is people should be entitled to give character evidence in respect of an accused but that they have to be prepared to stand over it. That is why sending in letters which are informally written or without substance is improper and inappropriate.
Questions Nos. 16 to 33, inclusive, taken with Written Answers.
Law Reform Commission
34. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if, following the Law Reform Commission’s 2026 report on compensating victims of crime, he intends to establish a new statutory body to administer victim compensation; the timeline in which such a body will be established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35608/26]
The Law Reform Commission published its report on compensating victims of crime. Does the Minister intend to apply the recommendations in that report, particularly the one relating to establishing a new statutory victims compensation scheme?
I have read the report from the Law Reform Commission and the Deputy will be pleased to note I have already changed the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The change I have introduced is to remove the prohibition on damages being paid in respect of pain and suffering. That was recommended within the report of Mr. Justice Clarke but also in the ruling of the Blanco judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union that came out last year. We will have to reform the criminal injuries compensation tribunal. It is on an informal, non-statutory basis but I would like to see it put on a statutory basis. I would like to see it called the victims tribunal and I would like to see it apply compensation to victims of criminal acts, certainly covering pain and suffering, as it does now, but other factors will have to be discussed and considered.
Agriculture Schemes
88. Deputy William Aird asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine whether consideration is being given to allowing farmers who are currently below slurry storage compliance requirements to access support under the targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, specifically for the purpose of achieving compliance; the pathways available for young qualified farmers and newly established farm partnerships in such circumstances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35068/26]
I welcome the significant investment that this Government has made through TAMS in supporting farm modernisation, improving environmental sustainability and assisting farmers to meet regulations. However, I want to raise a practical case that is happening on the ground and causing real frustration for young farmers and new farm partnerships. A qualified young farmer operating a newly established family farm partnership recently looked for a TAMS grant to upgrade slurry storage and bring the holding into compliance. However, the application was ineligible because the holding was non-compliant.
The Deputy has gone past his time. The Minister to respond.
This means a farmer is being asked to meet a standard before being allowed to access the support needed to reach it. Those willing to invest to comply are unable to access supports required to do so.
I thank Deputy Aird for raising the important matter of TAMS and the specific case of a constituent he has come across.
TAMS provides grants to farmers to build and improve a specified range of farm buildings and equipment on their holdings. All investments supported by TAMS 3 must be linked to climate, environment or animal welfare. To date, almost 2,500 applications for nutrient storage investments with a proposed grant aid value of €55 million have been approved. The investments made under this measure are an important tool to support the sector in improving water quality and underline the Government's commitment on this issue.
For these investments relating to farm nutrient storage, applicants must provide details of their compliance with nutrient storage requirements as laid down in SI 588 of 2025, the European Union (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2025. Accordingly, applicants who do not have sufficient storage capacity to comply with these requirements are not eligible under TAMS 3 for slurry storage related investments.
In respect of applicants who have not had livestock previously, I confirm that they are eligible to apply under TAMS for storage facilities. I also confirm that new entrants to farming who, as a consequence, did not have any livestock over the winter prior to applying are eligible to apply for slurry storage, as they are currently compliant with the required minimum storage amounts. In addition, farmers who currently out-winter all of their stock, assuming they are compliant with out-wintering requirements, would be considered compliant and be eligible to apply for slurry storage.
It should be noted that, from 1 October 2028, the slurry storage capacity requirement for dairy cows of 0.33 cu. m per week will be amended upwards to 0.4 cu. m per week. Farmers who currently have sufficient storage capacity on their holdings will continue to be eligible to apply under TAMS for farm nutrient storage facilities to bring their holdings into compliance with the amended regulations for a maximum of two years after 1 October 2028.
The Minister knows that the farming community accepts the importance of improving storage capacity, and the farmers understand the need to protect water quality, reduce emissions and ensure holdings are compliant. I accept that significant progress in this area has been made through TAMS, especially with enhanced supports for young, trained farmers and new entrants.
However, situations like the one I have outlined to the Minister highlight a gap in the practical application of the scheme. This is especially the case for smaller family farms, holdings in transition to the next generation and newly formed partnerships, who can find themselves in a position where the old infrastructure means they are below compliance but the capital cost of reaching compliance is next to impossible, as the Minister knows, without the support of TAMS. What is needed is a workable pathway to achieve these standards.
Is there scope within TAMS for future schemes to consider targeted measures specifically aimed at bringing storage compliance standards, phased approaches for farms actively working towards compliance, and clear eligibility routes for young, qualified farmers and newly established partnerships in these circumstances?
The Deputy must conclude. The Minister to respond, please.
These measures are needed, and match environmental ambition and political delivery.
To answer the Deputy's question, and as I outlined in my original answer, there is provision for many of those new entrant farmers to be able to avail of TAMS in such circumstances. It is important to note that, at a high level, EU funds cannot assist in bringing a farm into legal compliance. It has to be legally compliant before it can access the funds. Where that deviates is where we have the agreed change around the increased ambition from 2028 onwards. As part of our negotiation on that, where the storage capacity for dairy cows is to increase from 1 October 2028, farmers who currently have sufficient storage capacity but will be ineligible because of that increased threshold will have two years where they will be able to avail of TAMS to support them in that space.
There are plenty of caveats there to try to get around the issue. The particular issue the Deputy has highlighted is probably because it is a farm partnership, so it is not a new entrant farmer as such, which the Deputy described it as, but an entering into of a farm partnership. It is one I will discuss with the Deputy maybe offline afterwards.
The objective should be to bring farmers into compliance through investment and engagement. It should not be to exclude those who are trying to do the right thing but are limited by financing conditions. I welcome the update from the Department that it is considering additional flexibility on targeted measures, but the Minister knows quite well that there are thousands of people out there from an older generation of farmer who would buy hundreds of cattle but would not buy a load of concrete. The next person in line for succession wants to upgrade that farm and be compliant, but they are being told that they are not getting anything because of the sins of the previous person who was running the farm.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that is wrong. The Minister and everyone else will be getting that throughout their constituencies. I ask the Minister, if he can at all, to please revisit this and look at it again. We are trying to encourage young farmers to farm the land and they want to do it. The Minister is correct, in that if you had no stock or anything like that previously, you would qualify. I know people who are doing it. I ask the Minister to please look at the person that is taking over from his father or whoever it may be. As the Minister knows, down through the years, you had great farming fathers and the son would come along and might not be as good but they would want to improve the farm. I ask the Minister to please have a look at it.
I will talk to the Deputy about the specifics of this case afterwards because it may be the farm partnership that is the impediment here. New entrants to farming who did not have any livestock the previous winter are eligible to apply for the slurry scheme on that basis. That is probably an anomaly in one way. We have no shortage of farmers applying for TAMS. We had 8,000 applications in the last tranche. I got an increase in my capital budget for TAMS of €88 million for this year, but demand is off the charts.
That is no good to the farmer who cannot get it.
From that perspective, it is there for the many who do and can avail of it. On a general level, you cannot have a situation where you are applying for TAMS to make yourself legally compliant when you are not compliant. That is the challenge of it, but new entrants can do it. If it is a partnership, maybe that is the challenge on this one.
Question No. 89 taken with Written Answers.
Animal Diseases
90. Deputy Natasha Newsome Drennan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to provide an update on the TB action plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35742/26]
Question No. 90, in the name of Deputy Newsome Drennan, will be taken by Deputy Martin Kenny.
This question relates to the TB action plan. I would like to get an update on it. The new rules came in last month. A lot of farmers and farm organisations have been critical of the level of communication they have received from the Department in regard to the new rules, how it is set out, the new categories and all of that. We need to see very clear communications to ensure that farmers know they are going to be able to fit into this programme. Everybody in the country, particularly everyone in the farming community, wants to see TB eradicated.
I thank the Deputy. I am aware of the financial and emotional impacts and challenges for Irish farmers, their families and rural communities presented by a bovine TB breakdown. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in bovine TB levels nationally. To address these high disease levels, I have undertaken extensive engagement with stakeholders and farm organisations to agree measures to tackle them.
I launched the Bovine TB Action Plan: Addressing Bovine TB in Ireland in September. It includes five measures and 30 actions underpinned by scientific research, evidence and veterinary expertise. Those five pillars are: to support herds free of bovine TB to remain free; to reduce the impact of wildlife on the spread of bovine TB; to detect and eliminate bovine TB infection as early as possible in herds with a bovine TB outbreak and avoid a future outbreak; to help farmers improve all areas of on-farm biosecurity, and only this week I opened and launched a €6 million scheme whereby farmers would be available to avail of practical supports around fencing off badger setts on their holdings and raising water troughs as well; and to reduce the impact of known high-risk animals in spreading bovine TB.
The aim of the action plan is to reset the TB programme by putting in place measures necessary to tackle the current disease situation. On 13 April, a number of changes were introduced to animal testing and animal movement requirements under the bovine TB programme to reduce the transmission of bovine TB from cattle to cattle. I recognise that this is a big change farmers and is the first real manifestation they are seeing of the new plan in action. I thank in particular the marts, which have tried to help in communicating this new understanding. Those changes on 13 April include: the removal of the post-movement test option for all cows and for males over 36 months of age; all dairy cows moved into a breeding herd now requiring a 30-day pre-movement test; a 30-day pre-movement test for contract-reared heifers; the gamma interferon, GIF, test in large breakdowns of breeding herds; and a restriction on the sale of exposed cohorts where GIF testing is carried out in larger breeding herds for a period of time.
I thank the Minister. I appreciate all of that and that there is work being done. The marts have been central to this because that is where a lot of farmers are coming into the situation. They are unaware of what category their cattle fall into when they are going to the mart, and that is a big issue because then they do not know who can buy them. A lot of farmers are finding it very difficult to navigate this whole process. Farm organisations have been very critical of it. The Department was supposed to set up a dedicated helpline that farmers could contact. My understanding is that they are getting no answer to any of the calls they make to that helpline. There is an issue in respect of that and I think it needs to be addressed as quickly as possible.
Farmers selling cattle are unaware of who can buy them and what category they fall into, and it makes them very reticent and concerned about the whole scheme and how it is going to work out for them. The risk of TB is a serious problem for a lot of farmers, particularly when they are in an area where there may have been a number of reactors on farms around them and they are very concerned about it. Of course they want to work with a system that will eradicate TB but they cannot do so if they do not understand it and if it is not clear and concise. That needs to change.
Being clear and concise is important. Change is a challenge for everybody but we had to change our approach. The approach needs to be targeted, and that is what this is. We have to recognise where the key challenge is. A reduction in bovine TB levels in breeding herds, especially in dairy herds, is a key element in driving down bovine TB levels nationally. I think of the constituency and the region that the Deputy represents, where it would be predominantly sucklers and not as much dairy. The purchase of breeding heifers from high-risk dairy herds and bringing them up to the Deputy's area, where there might be low-risk herds, has been a contributor in the past to the spread of this disease in a significant way. These changes are all based on science and are targeted.
The Deputy is right, in that there was much criticism of some parts of the plan last year. I met a lot of resistance here to tackling the area of risk categorisation, but risk categorisation of the high-risk animal is the right thing to do. The simple fact that we started talking about that all last summer is indicative of the reduction of numbers we had, which I will outline in supplementary.
I am not disagreeing with the Minister in that regard but the difficulty we have is that farmers who want to play ball and work with the system are finding it very difficult to do so because they do not understand it. It is not clear. The Minister said that being "clear and concise" was vital. It has not been made clear to farmers and they are very concerned that they do not know what impact this is going to have on them. That special line that was supposed to be set up needs to be working properly and farmers need to be communicated with. The Department has all the information. It knows every farmer and what their herds are. It knows what categories they fall into. It needs to communicate that across the board to everybody so that, similar to the marts, everybody is clear on where they stand. I know that the marts are vital to this but we should not be in a situation where the Department of agriculture is implementing a strategy and depending on what are private entities - the marts around the country - to communicate what that strategy is. We need to have another way of doing that. That is the difficulty people have. Everybody wants to co-operate and work with this. We just need a bit of clarity around it.
The helpline is up and running and has been since the middle of April. Communication has been a key part of everything I have done here. I will counter somewhat the Deputy's point that the message is not getting through. I refer to the encouraging progress of recent months in reducing bovine TB levels. Over the 12 months to 3 May, the herd incidence was 5.42%, down from 6.29%, the number of herds restricted was down by just over 5,400, or 14.8%, and the number of reactors was over 35,400, down 15.71%. We have seen significant reductions in herd incidence and reactor numbers in the past year. I believe that this reduction nationally is due to the combined efforts of all stakeholders in supporting farmers in reducing risk of bovine TB in their herds.
I am confident that the changes I have introduced will help drive the disease down further but I have no doubt that the discussions we had last summer, notwithstanding all of the reaction I got to them, made farmers in low-risk areas ask questions about what the risk category of the animal they were buying was. That is a conversation that needed to happen and it has definitely fed into these numbers.
Beef Sector
112. Deputy Martin Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps his Department is taking to reverse the decline in volume of beef exports to the EU and the UK; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35477/26]
I want to ask the Minister about the declining volume of beef exports, particularly to the UK and the EU, over the past 12 to 18 months and the impact it is having on the sector. It is very clear that many farmers out there are not producing to the same level they had been.
We also have the situation in regard to the Mercosur countries when it comes to beef, particularly. There is talk of banning beef from Brazil coming into the European Union as of September. That should happen now, not in September. I would like to get the Minister's remarks on that.
Ireland exported almost 458,000 metric tonnes of beef in 2025. It is an absolutely colossal figure when we think of the scale of the industry and what it is worth to our overall economy. Although the volume of exports was lower than in recent years, the total value of primary beef exports increased by €542 million, or 17%, to reach a record €3.6 billion, according to the Central Statistics Office, CSO. Whereas volumes to the UK were 6% lower in 2025 compared to 2024, the value of those shipments grew by more than €274 million, or 19%. Similarly, the value of consignments to other EU markets increased substantially by almost €313 million or 21% in 2025, while volumes recorded a modest 2% decline relative to 2024. The UK accounted for 46% of Irish beef exports by value and 42% by volume. Other international markets accounted for 11% of export volume but 5% of total value.
Food Vision 2030, the industry-led strategy for the agrifood sector, aims to increase the value of agrifood products, including beef. The ambition is to build on sustainable value growth by supporting agrifood exports and continuing to develop market opportunities at home and abroad. The figures clearly indicate the success of Food Vision 2030 in achieving that.
I have ensured that farmers can continue to improve the competitiveness and productivity of their suckler, dairy beef and mixed enterprises through a record level of national and EU co-funded supports. I am providing over €83 million in direct targeted supports for the suckler sector in 2026. In addition to the ongoing suckler carbon efficiency programme, which is worth over €51 annually to participants, the national dairy beef weighing scheme is currently open for applications and the 2026 beef welfare scheme will open in mid-August. The dairy weighing scheme, which supported 18,300 farmers last year, has a budget of €4 million in 2026. The beef welfare scheme, which supported 24,500 farmers last year, has a budget of €28 million in 2026.
I appreciate that the value of products has gone up because prices have gone up. The price that is returned for beef internationally, particularly for higher quality product, has increased over the past number of years. That is because of a reduction in the number of cattle across Europe and many other parts of the world. It is creating that buoyancy in the market. The reality from an Irish perspective is that the amount of beef we produce has actually gone down. We need to look at that. I am not saying why that is. I do not know what the situation is or where we are at here. In the lamb market, we see a similar thing. I have met with people and I know the Minister has met them as well, namely, young farmers who want to get into lamb. Even the factories are asking what the future is going to be because production is going down. We need to be looking at how we are going to maintain that level of production.
The other point I want to get a view from the Minister on is in regard to the beef that is coming into the European Union from Brazil. Some 100,000 tonnes of product was imported, most of it beef, in the last year from Brazil. If the European Union is saying there is a problem with it, why are we waiting until September to do something about it? When it came to implementing the Mercosur trade agreement, they were able to do it provisionally immediately rather than wait. Why do we have to wait for this?
I welcome the removal of Brazil from the list of approved countries. It is a result of the pressure that my colleagues on the Council of Ministers and I have been bringing to bear. In January, we had a meeting with Commissioner Šefčovič, the Commissioner for trade, Commissioner Hansen, the Commissioner for agriculture, and Commissioner Várhelyi, who is responsible for animal health and welfare. We made it very clear to them, and we have always said, that the sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, food safety standards of beef coming into Europe are non-negotiable. The challenges around Mercosur were environmental in terms of our difficulties with the agreement. From the perspective of food safety, antimicrobial resistance and so on, that is non-negotiable in Europe. We saw products being found and recalled. We now see this move being made, which is very important and I strongly support.
Why wait until September?
The removal from the list has been done straight away. That is how that process works. It is a clear indication to the Brazilians that the standards of they have been bringing in, and that we have highlighted in terms of our concern with them, are not acceptable here. Product being found here that has traces of antibiotics and beyond is not acceptable to us and will not be into the future.
I thank the Minister. I understand that and appreciate there is work being done by an awful lot of people across the European Union from the Government here and other governments in Europe, as well as farm and consumer organisations, to look at all of this and to recognise that the product that has been coming in from Brazil is way below standard. The big problem with it all is traceability. There is no traceability whatsoever in Brazil when it comes to the production of beef. A person can buy antibiotics or hormones across the counter and administer them to the animals and there is no traceability as to what they have had. It is open season. I know there have been suggestions that beef is going to come in from particular factories or farms that comply with European standards. The problem is that there is no way of judging or guaranteeing it. I welcome the European Union accepting that point and removing Brazil from the list.
However, I understand that product is still going to come in from Brazil until September. That is a problem that needs to be dealt with. We really need to accept that Irish farming is under pressure and beef production is absolutely vital to the Irish rural economy.
On the Deputy's question regarding the decline in the volume of beef exports to the EU and the UK, there are a few parts to this. It is a dynamic situation. Farmers vote with their feet in terms of the workload and the return they are getting for that work. Some of them change enterprises because they will get a better return for that. The increase in beef prices last year will make some farmers who had stepped back look at beef production again. I am determined to ensure that the good beef price, which increased last year, remains high for them so that they can continue to do that.
The UK will always be a really important market to us. Almost 50% of our beef goes to the UK. Europe, our nearest neighbours after that, is obviously a key market as well. We have worked really hard in my Department to open new markets in third countries, with a particular focus on south-east Asia and beyond. The Deputy dismissed somewhat the early figures I highlighted showing the increase in the value of the return on that, but that is real for farmers because we have pursued the higher value markets. We do not want to be fighting with Brazilian beef on commodity markets around the world, and 90% of our beef that is exported is not. We go for the higher value markets because of our traceability and our Origin Green quality assurance scheme, which farmers and food processors have bought into. That is delivering the real return here and will continue to do so into the future.
Animal Welfare
With the permission of the House, we will go back to Question No. 91 in the name of Deputy Ó Muirí.
91. Deputy Naoise Ó Muirí asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide an update on the upcoming report and recommendations of the high-level dog control stakeholder group, particularly in relation to upholding animal health and welfare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35779/26]
Thank you for your forbearance, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. My question relates to the review of legislation for dog-breeding establishments that is currently under way in the Department.
I thank the Deputy for raising a really important issue which we all take really seriously. Animal welfare is a key priority for me as Minister and for the Government. My Department has lead policy responsibility within Government for animal welfare and we take it really seriously. I am committed to the policy that animal welfare standards are vigorously applied in a fair and even-handed manner and remain committed to the continued robust enforcement of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, which provides a modern framework for regulating and applying standards in the area of animal health and welfare. My Department keeps the Act under review in light of key developments in the areas of animal welfare, the law and having regard to the practical lessons learned from operating the Act.
Responsibility for all policy and legislation in relation to the Control of Dogs Acts and the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 transferred to my Department on 1 June 2025 and 1 August 2025, respectively. This fulfilled a programme for Government commitment, on which I was part of the negotiating team. I was keen that we would get a more consolidated approach to this area. It was to bring a coherent approach to dog control issues by ensuring all legislation and policy in relation to the control of dogs, dog welfare and dog breeding establishments rested with my Department.
Local authorities retain responsibility for operational and enforcement matters. Inspections of dog breeding establishments are carried out by dog wardens and by my Department.
With the transfer of functions, I took over responsibility for the dog control stakeholder group, which Deputy Ó Muirí highlighted. It was established by the then Minister for Rural and Community Development in March 2024 to review the Control of Dogs Acts and the Dog Breeding Establishments Act. Its remit is to consider policy and legislative matters in relation to those Acts, including any need for legislative change. The stakeholder group comprises members with a broad range of expertise, including academics, veterinary surgeons, local authorities, farming interests, charities working in the field and animal welfare experts. I expect to receive the report from the group shortly.
I thank the Minister for the update. Ireland is a nation of dog lovers and dogs hold a cherished place in our homes, well ahead of cats. However, it is clear we are playing catch-up on legislation on dog breeding. Dog breeding in Ireland is a growing industry. It is important to say that responsible small breeders do maintain very high standards, but as the sector is growing so too are animal welfare concerns. The Oireachtas agriculture committee heard last month that the number of dogs being put to sleep grew by 10% from 2023 to 2024. Even more alarmingly, this figure increased by 93% compared to 2022. This is a huge growth in the number of animals being put to sleep. The scale of abusive treatment is very concerning and we need to recognise it. This is a lucrative industry. We cannot leave it to look after itself, to self-regulate and to undertake its own enforcement. We have to get ahead of the issue.
I thank the Deputy. I will not fall into the trap of pitting the dog against the cat and which is more popular. I have Sammy, my collie, at home who keeps any cat away. The general public absolutely expects and demands of us the highest animal welfare standards. It is something I am passionate about. Coming from a farming background, I was raised, and I am raising my children, with the approach that if we treat animals well we will treat humans well. A society can be judged on how it deals with issues such as this. There are many different ways to do so. There is policy and enforcement, and the need to change policy as well. I look forward to receiving the stakeholder group's report. I am reviewing all legislation on dogs and I will be guided by the recommendations. At the same time, I am also due to bring the heads of a Bill on dog breeding establishments to Cabinet imminently. This is another area of work I am determined to progress.
It is good to hear the Minister and the Department are taking the issue seriously and I look forward to hearing the recommendations of the stakeholder group. The set-up is a bit unwieldy though. The Department is responsible for annual inspections of breeding establishments but local authorities, such as Dublin City Council, are effectively responsible for enforcement. This creates a bit of a disconnect and a risk of issues falling between the Department and the local authorities. Local authorities may not perform their responsibilities to the same standard across the country. Has the Department considered merging responsibility for inspection and enforcement centrally, either under the Department itself or another agency that would take overall responsibility for inspection and enforcement as required?
A big change that happened with this Government, which was laid out in the programme for Government, is that all of the various elements of dog control have been centralised from previously being across three Departments, including in the former Department of Rural and Community Development. The programme for Government committed to taking this element from that Department and bringing it back to the Department of agriculture because we have responsibility for animal welfare. Local authorities are the employers of dog wardens and have the system in place. We work really closely together with them. I do not see an impediment to how we move forward and improve things further with the current structure.
The dog stakeholder group was set up under the previous Government by the previous Minister at the Department of rural affairs. It has a body of work to do, which it has almost completed. There will be legislative change coming out of its proposals and I look forward to receiving its report. I am not waiting for that in the meantime. I will bring the heads of a Bill to Cabinet imminently to improve welfare standards and strengthen enforcement in relation to dog breeding establishments. I am continuing this work because animal welfare and the protection of our dogs are so important.
Question No. 92 taken with Written Answers.
Animal Diseases
96. Deputy Edward Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine for an update on the bovine TB eradication programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35737/26]
I thank the Minister for this debate on TB eradication, which I welcome. In an earlier response, he mentioned that new TB measures came into place in April. I am anxious to understand the status of the new rules and their implementation.
I thank Deputy Roche for raising this important matter. The bovine TB programme has been a key priority for me since I took office. I am very aware of the financial and emotional challenges for Irish farmers, their families and the communities in which they live when there is a bovine TB breakdown. It is a difficult disease to control and eradicate, as we know, but it can be done and has been done in other countries.
I launched the Bovine TB Action Plan: Addressing Bovine TB in Ireland in September 2025, following extensive engagement with stakeholders. It includes five key pillars and 30 actions underpinned by scientific research and veterinary expertise. On 13 April, a number of changes were introduced to animal testing and animal movement requirements. These include the removal of the post-movement test option for all cows and for males over 36 months of age; all dairy cows moving into a breeding herd requiring a 30-day pre-movement test; 30-day pre-movement testing for contract-reared heifers; the introduction of mandatory gamma interferon test, known as GIF testing, in large breakdowns of breeding herds, which will apply to herds with a restriction on or after 13 April 2026; and a restriction on sale of exposed cohorts where a GIF test is carried out in larger breeding herds for a period of time, and this will apply to herds in restriction on or after 13 April 2026. These changes were introduced to reduce the transmission of bovine TB from cattle to cattle. A reduction in bovine TB levels in breeding herds, especially dairy herds, is a key element in driving down bovine TB levels nationally. In simple terms, every measure in this is there for a reason. It is backed by science and it is targeting where the spread of disease has been the biggest contributor.
I also established a new bovine TB helpline for farmers who enter a new TB breakdown. This helpline will provide practical support and advice to farmers on the bovine TB breakdown process. This week a new on-farm badger biosecurity scheme has been opened for applications. I have put €6 million towards it to support farmers with simple practical on-farm interventions, such as fencing off badger setts and raising water troughs. These will have a significant impact and I am financially supporting farmers to make these interventions. It will put a bit of power back in their hands as well because farmers regularly feel pretty powerless when it comes to a potential bovine TB outbreak.
I get it and I absolutely understand the compassion the Minister has for the emotion, distress and anxiety an outbreak brings to farmers. Sometimes it could be dairy herd. In particular I would like to understand vaccination schemes and programmes. I know we have a vaccination programme for the badger. Are we looking at, or are we anywhere near, a vaccination programme for herds, particularly dairy herds? If there is an outbreak in a dairy herd it is financially crippling and the consequence might be that the farmer might not return to dairy. I am anxious to understand whether this is a plan going forward and how it might impact farmers themselves.
The difficulty is with identifying whether a vaccinated animal tests positive; animals that test positive and vaccinated animals cannot be differentiated. Some research has been done and we have collaborated with research projects on vaccination in the UK and beyond. Vaccination masks the presence of the disease and we need to find it to eradicate it. All of my measures are about identifying it and seeding it out. When I speak about the focus on breeding stock, it is because 6%, give or take, of our herds in the country have it. A lot of these young maiden heifers were sold to low-risk farms, so unbeknownst to those farmers they had brought in a high-risk animal, which was then seeding the disease. We need to identify these animals earlier in the initial herd and get them removed so they do not spread the disease. This is happening because we do not have one test that is 100% foolproof. The annual herd skin test that farmers are familiar with only has 80% efficacy.
One out of every five that goes through that tests negative but is positive, and that has been a key contributor to the disease. When we layer on the blood testing it increases our efficacy to over 90% but we do not have something that is 100%.
The €6 million fund for preventative measures is most welcome. The compensation ceiling for someone with a pedigree in-calf cow, which we know the value of, is €3,000. Are we revisiting that because they are taking a huge financial loss, as well as the emotional loss and the upset caused as a consequence of the outbreak on that prize animal? I would like to understand whether that is something the Department will consider revisiting.
I thank the Deputy for his comment on biosecurity measures. It is fencing off a sett and keeping cattle back. It is not about keeping the badger back in from the cattle. The cattle nose in around the latrine where the sett is and that has been a considerable cause of the spread of disease. Having that practical measure where farmers identify the sett and fence it off will make a difference as will new water troughs. It was important to support farmers in those efforts.
We just finalised the tender process to increase staffing in the area of wildlife control. Most farmers affected by bovine TB only want to talk about wildlife. They are convinced that is it. This planned approach is identifying all elements of the cause and spread of infection. There is residual infection in herds as I referenced earlier. There is cattle and wildlife transmission, and we are addressing all parts of it. I received a record amount of money in the budget last year of €157 million for my new bovine TB plan. That was based on working towards eradication and turning the dial on the increased numbers and bringing them back. All of the focus of that money was to be on reducing the instances. It was not open to me under the conditions of that to open up compensation and ceiling caps. I would like to revisit it. I understand the challenge, but I have to focus the money I have on reducing that disease.
Questions Nos. 94 and 95 taken with Written Answers.
Agriculture Schemes
97. Deputy Naoise Ó Muirí asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the rationale for the exclusion of domestic dwellings from the TAMS solar scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35778/26]
My question is about the removal of domestic dwellings from the TAMS solar grant process. What is the rationale for the exclusion of domestic dwellings from that solar scheme and will the Minister make a statement on the matter?
The targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS 3, provides grants to farmers to build, improve, or both, a specified range of farm buildings and equipment on their holdings. The solar capital investment scheme, SCIS, is one of 11 schemes within TAMS 3. The number of applications and the level of funding provided to date under a number of TAMS 3 schemes, including the solar capital investment scheme, have far exceeded expectations. To date, a substantial proportion of the total TAMS budget, more than 20%, has been spent on SCIS alone. In order to ensure that the available budget for TAMS is distributed fairly over the remainder of the CAP strategic plan programme period, it is necessary to limit the number of approved applications in recent tranches by applying ranking and selection criteria. In addition, in respect of SCIS, it is also necessary to concentrate the funding on on-farm consumption only. However, it is important to highlight that farmers can seek support through the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, for the installation of solar systems in respect of their domestic dwelling. The SEAI business grant is also available to the agricultural sector, including farmers, which is a further option for those keen to explore renewable energy generation.
In simple terms, I negotiated an increase in my capital budget last year and got €88 million for TAMS this year and next year. It is for the entire CAP strategic plan, so I have to manage the budget available to the end of 2027. I could accept every application that comes in now and not have any TAMS available in 2027. I cannot do that to farmers who need increased slurry storage or who want to invest under farm safety measures. There is a lot more than just the solar element to it. You see the significant drain on resources. I would love to be able to change that percentage and make it bigger if it were there, but this is about policy priorities and trying to design them. The SEAI is there from that perspective as well.
It is positive that there is such demand for TAMS 3 and all the measures in it. It shows farmers are doing their bit in terms of energy and the future. Uptake of renewable energy programmes and mechanisms is hugely positive. Putting them through the SEAI for domestic is an opportunity lost. Maybe the solution is for the Minister to get his hands on some of that budget from the SEAI and move it to TAMS. Farmers are busy men and women. They have a lot to do. One application to cover all of this is still probably the most efficient way to do it. I go back to the fact that there is huge demand. It is positive that farmers are engaging and taking up the scheme. I ask it to be considered that a bit of that budget be moved across to fulfil that.
People will think I put the Deputy up to that question because he is singing my tune. The Department of agriculture and farmers have proved there is a demand to try to make their farms less dependent on fossil fuel energy. We have proved that if I have more money, I can spend it on that. This is in the context of an increased capital budget. The reason more people are disappointed now is that more people have applied. The average number of applications under TAMS 2 was approximately 3,000 per tranche. In the most recent application it was over 8,000, which was a massive increase in demand. You can see how resource heavy it has been on the overall TAMS budget. A total of 6,000 applications were received under SCIS and 3,425 approvals were issued allowing farmers to proceed with their investments. A total of €31.5 million was issued to farmers since payments commenced in June 2024. It is attractive and that is what made it very popular. There is no doubt that if we had more money we would spend it. If the SEAI wants to give me a slice of that budget or any other, we would spend it in that area.
That would be positive. I have heard from farmers that the farm home can account for nearly 70% of electricity used, particularly those who are farming dry stock. Removing their homes from the process effectively means the TAMS system does not fulfil their needs. Another way to do it might be to get the SEAI to earmark some of its own budget or have a clear heading for solar PV for farmers or a little more than the €1,900. In reality it is probably more for a farm building. I ask that we encourage ongoing uptake of TAMS and try to make sure domestic is covered in it, so it is efficient for farmers to get their entire job of work done at once rather than having to go through two processes.
The challenge is that if everything is a priority then nothing is a priority. I have 11 headings under TAMS and I have to try to manage that. It is the targeted agricultural measures scheme. When demand far outstrips supply something has to give. On that basis it felt fair to me that a residential house be taken out as opposed to farming activity. The intensive energy user on a farm benefited most from being able to apply for TAMS. It is a targeted agricultural measure. There are other ways for residential houses to get in there. I take the point that it would be better to have one central application process. I like that we were able to support farmers in reducing their energy requirements. TAMS is aligned to our climate and sustainability targets. That is renewable energy, but it is also low-emission slurry spreading, support for organic farmers, farm safety, increased slurry storage and improved water quality. All of those things are in the mix with TAMS, so it makes it competitive when demand is high.
Wild Fires
93. Deputy Barry Ward asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the actions he is taking to prevent wildfires and encourage preventative measures by landowners as we enter the summers months; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34394/26]
143. Deputy Barry Ward asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the position regarding any actions he is taking that seek to prevent wildfires, particularly any engagement he is having with State agencies as we head into the summer months; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34395/26]
Will the Minister underline the actions being taken to prevent wildfires and encourage preventative measures by landowners as we enter the summer months?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 93 and 143 together.
My Department implements a number of measures annually to raise awareness of fire risks among forest owners, managers, farmers and other land managers.
My Department monitors fire risk throughout the fire season in conjunction with Met Éireann and communicates high-risk fire weather phases in advance to the forest sector and other relevant stakeholders, including local authorities via fire danger notices. This enables preparedness and readiness of key equipment and personnel ahead of fire outbreaks. In the year to date my Department has issued two such notices. In 2025 my Department issued nine fire danger notices. Fire danger notices may be viewed on my Department's website.
My Department maintains a website with relevant information on fire risks, prevention and specific guidance on responsible use of fire by landowners. My Department also provides specific wildfire safety advice to the general public via the whole-of-government Be Summer Ready campaign. My Department also co-ordinates on fire management with the European Union and other member states via the European forest fire expert group and also via the FORRISK forest risk facility coordinated by the European Forest Institute.
It is an offence to cut, grub, burn or otherwise destroy any vegetation growing on any land not cultivated between 1 March and 31 August in any year. Landowners found burning illegally could face fines, imprisonment and single farm payment penalties, where applicable. My Department monitors for activity closely and fires on agricultural land are investigated in relation to basic payments, or BISS, eligibility. My Department has no role in prosecutions under the Wildlife Act 1976.
That clearly outlines the work that comes under and the responsibility of my Department regarding wildfires and the challenges in that space. As I said, it is one of those issues that crosses more than just my Department.
We are always asking responsible landowners to act as custodians of the land and to act responsibly by following the regulations as set out by the Minister in regard to burning and taking those preventative steps. However, at the same time they are also exposed to the risks created by the actions of others with limited protection or recourse. In places like the Cooley Mountains we can see how quickly fires can take hold. There have been incidents where multiple gorse fires have broken out in a matter of hours. They have stretched the local fire services and threatened homes, farmland and forestry. These are not isolated risks. It is something the communities in north Louth have experienced directly. That is especially concerning and it is why I wanted to highlight there is a pattern in some of these fires. Too often they are not accidental but started deliberately and it is the landowner who tends to have to bear the burden of the financial cost. Very often when these fires are started, whether accidentally or intentionally, we have issues where people come on to land and set fire to bales of hay during the year and then disappear. If the fire brigade is called out its staff do their job and I recognise the services of the Louth fire brigade, which is absolutely exceptional in dealing with these fires. However, then the bill comes to the landowner and they are pursued by the fire services to pay a bill for something they were not responsible for in the first place. There is a perception in Louth that the financial and emotional burden can be unfair on landowners even when they have no role in causing the fire. That sense of injustice is deeply felt and landowners are doing their very best, as the Minister knows, day in, day out. We clearly need a more balanced approach.
I do not disagree. The Deputy articulated very clearly how her constituents in the Cooleys, and people in many mountainous areas countrywide, are deeply affected by wildfires that happen for a variety of reasons. Obviously some of what she described is criminal activity with very serious consequences for our wildlife, habitats and countryside and needs to be dealt with. It is important to recognise landowners may carry out controlled fires on uncultivated land from 1 September each year to the last day of February. This is only allowed if it is done in a controlled manner and provided the landowner follows the correct safety procedures. Uncultivated land is land that is not normally farmed or managed. That controlled burning is probably something that happens less now, for a variety of reasons. Farmers are older, there is less generational renewal on our hill farms and it is work for younger farmers but if that scrub and uncultivated land is not cleared it can be a tinder box at a dry time of the year. There was an official fire danger notice issued only a few weeks ago and I was struck this had been necessary after the wettest winter we have had, a very wet early spring and before we are even really in the summer. It goes to show how quickly, with climate change, our land can dry with a very drying wind and the risk that creates for the high-risk period we are in. It is about enforcement of very clear rules where there is bad practice but also about supporting people so they are aware of the rules and what they can do in that important period.
I thank the Minister. The irony is not lost on me that the rain is bucketing down outside yet we are talking about fire notices but it is an important conversation to have. We have to be summer ready, as he rightly said. This is about protecting our farmers, our communities and our landscape. It is about ensuring those who act responsibly are not left to carry the consequences of those who do not. In Louth, even a small number of fires can have a disproportionate impact. We have a landscape that is very close to our communities and our communities are very close to their landscape and their nature. It is actively farmed and widely used for recreation. That is why taking preventative actions, getting the message out and educating people who come into our areas to enjoy the landscape so they are very well aware of the damage they may cause, whether accidentally or intentionally.
I again thank the Deputy for raising what is a really important issue. Sometimes we do not talk about these facts until after an incident when it is too late and the damage has affected our landscape, wildlife and farmers. It comes back a little to the relationship between landowners in the area and members of the public who maybe live in a more urban setting and love to share that amenity. That is where the Be Summer Ready campaign is really important. Obviously farmers are well aware, as custodians of the land, of what needs to be done, what their responsibilities are and what the penalties are if they are acting on the wrong side of the law but the public have to be acutely aware their actions have very real consequences. A lot of this is about communication and ensuring we communicate very clearly the risks and hazards people might not be as aware of, how quickly these fires can take off and, as the Deputy said, how they have a disproportionate effect on an area. I again thank her for raising those points.
Agriculture Supports
98. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the long-term measures being developed to protect farmers and horticulturists from fertiliser market shocks, including price volatility and supply disruption; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35766/26]
125. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to outline his strategy in ensuring stabilisation of fertiliser prices and supply for farmers and horticulturists; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35767/26]
126. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to provide an update on the availability, cost and supply of fertiliser in the State due to the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34698/26]
Farmers and horticulturists are being hammered by the price of fertiliser and supply uncertainty yet again. The conflict in west Asia has driven up fuel and fertiliser prices and disrupted key shipping routes. Fertiliser bills have shot up and vital deliveries are in doubt for so many. Farmers feel little has been done since the last fertiliser crisis and are getting more and more frustrated. They are very reasonably asking what long-term measures the Minister is delivering to shield farmers from supply shocks like this.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 98, 125 and 126 together.
Ireland is a relatively small market in respect of fertiliser sales and usage compared with many of our EU neighbours. No fertilisers are manufactured in Ireland, as the Deputy knows, and this results in indigenous fertiliser companies being price-takers. Those prices are dependent on global supply and demand. An estimated 35% of global urea trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, plus 45% of sulphur exports and a significant volume of the ammonia used in nitrogen fertilisers. Overall it has been estimated 25% to 30% of global nitrogen fertiliser exports pass through the strait. The wider region is estimated to account for 45% of global urea exports, 27% of ammonia exports and 47% of sulphur exports. My Department continues to engage with fertiliser importers to monitor supply issues and concerns. Fertiliser product continues to arrive although challenges in supply exist, especially in the case of urea.
It should be noted that many farmers and other fertiliser users forward-bought fertiliser earlier in the year.
In addition, the Irish fertiliser industry purchased significant volumes of product in advance of the full introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM. The national fertiliser database import figures show that fertiliser stocks increased significantly during the fourth quarter of 2025 with calcium ammonium nitrate, CAN, imports increasing by 55% and urea by 260%. Teagasc has a comprehensive information pack for farmers and their advisors, through a compendium of 20 fact sheets, to optimise the use of plant nutrients and to help farmers address the challenge of maintaining their farm outputs in the face of rising fertiliser costs and reduced availability.
One of the answers to this question is that we are reducing our dependency on artificial fertiliser because that is what we need to do in order to make our farming and food production system more robust on this island, particularly as we do not have domestic production of artificial fertiliser. The fact sheets supplied by Teagasc cover issues of soil testing, lime application, nitrogen usage, organic manures, fertiliser spreading and many other topics that will be incredibly useful for farmers. It is not just about what we spread on our land but also about the phosphorus and potassium, P and K, levels, acidity and composition of our land such that it can best take up those nutrients and be in the best condition to do so. This is where soil testing and lime application can, in the right circumstances and on the basis of those soil test results, make a significant difference. Depending on the type of fertiliser, increases in prices have varied. The price of CAN is estimated to have risen by about 20% since the beginning of March, while the price of urea has increased by as much as 60%.
My Department has no function in terms of fertiliser prices beyond the regulatory function of ensuring products placed on the market are in keeping with the fertiliser regulatory framework and that standards such as nutrient content are as described. However, I have continued to monitor the market situation given the negative impact that high fertiliser prices have had on farmers’ expenditure and profitability. I will continue to engage with my EU counterparts regarding the impact of the Middle East crisis on the supply and price of fertilisers.
I have raised this issue on a number of occasions. The question was very much formulated on the basis of what we are doing to build our resilience and address the vulnerability we have in this space, but as a short-term measure, I raised the need to invoke Article 27a of the CBAM at successive AGRIFISH Council meetings. This allows for the suspension of certain elements under certain set criteria. I believe we are in this crisis period now where fertiliser should be set aside as part of CBAM. I had the support of a number of other member states on this request. We pushed for it but the Commission, to date, has not been minded to avail of it. What Commissioner Hansen has pointed to very clearly is the introduction by the Commission of a fertiliser action plan, and that is due to be published next week, on 19 May. I expect that fertiliser action plan to have a very significant series of proposals around the cost and availability of fertiliser and how that will impact us. That is something we await. The Commission is very clear on my views about the impact the conflict in the Middle East is having on the supply and price of fertiliser for our farmers and the knock-on impact that can have on food production into the future.
It is hugely important to look beyond the immediate crisis and to set out a strategy for a more resilient supply. As the Minister said, the European Commission is about to launch its fertiliser security plan aiming at cutting dependency, boosting production and promoting alternatives. That is good and vital, but those solutions are going to take time to implement and farmers are under pressure in the short term. That will especially be the case next year. We are hearing that Russia, India and China, the main suppliers, will be looking to focus their supplies on their own farming sectors ahead of exporting fertiliser. That will really put pressure on next year. Is there a plan for possibly bulk-buying fertiliser? I note and welcome what the Minister said about CBAM. Possibly, at this stage, it is not really the time to be introducing CBAM, and I ask the Minister to press this issue further. Are there efforts to bulk-buy fertiliser to ensure there will be a supply for next year?
The Minister spoke about price increases, including the price of CAN having risen by 20% and that of urea by as much as 60%. In the context of his engagement with importers and sellers of fertiliser, has any work been done with regard to ensuring that these price increases are based on a lack of supply rather than someone trying to make a profit on the back of fears that are out there? How has the Minister’s engagement with the European Commission gone? It sounds as if it has not been utterly fruitful in relation to CBAM. What replies has he received?
In the previous question I posed to the Minister, he spoke in response about mid-April being crux time. We are well beyond that now. When is it believed that there will be a real issue? I agree with what was said earlier regarding our need to develop resilience. The Minister spoke about farmers engaging with their advisers. Where are we in relation to having a real alternative to fertiliser? I accept that the Strait of Hormuz issue has been caused by others and has little to do with us, but we have to ensure that we build resilience.
The fertiliser issue is having a huge impact globally. Even the WHO has said that it is going to have an impact on food production and could lead to global food shortages. This is a real issue that we need to deal with here in Ireland with regard to resilience and to finding alternatives. The Minister mentioned that work has been done on this aspect and I welcome that.
One of the alternatives I would like the Minister to note is that there is an awful lot of poultry production in the North at the moment. As he knows, poultry litter is a very good fertiliser, particularly in the context of the tillage sector. I spoke to a poultry farmer yesterday in the North at the Balmoral Show. He told me he is applying for planning permission, but to get it, he has to show that he can get a licence to export the poultry litter to the South to be spread. He has been doing this for the past five years from his poultry farm, but he is having difficulties getting those things sorted out. It is not just him. There are several others as well. It is quite a problem because they need to get co-operation North and South in this regard. I ask the Minister to consider sorting out this problem because it is a very good source of nitrogen, especially for the tillage industry but also for other sectors. It is very clearly available and something I would like the Minister to deal with. On the broader issue, we really need to get to grips with putting supports in place for farmers to be able to get the adequate amounts of fertilisers they need to be able to develop their industry.
The geopolitical uncertainty in the Middle East is the key driver of this problem. It has put pressure on fertiliser prices and affected the likely availability of fertiliser over the course of the year. As I said, the EU Commission is bringing forward a fertiliser action plan next week. It is anticipated that this plan will focus not only on short-term crisis support but also on structural measures to reduce EU dependency on imported synthetic fossil fuel-based fertilisers.
Turning to Deputy Aindrias Moynihan’s point, there definitely is not just a short-term reaction here. We need to learn from what is happening to ensure we are not back in this situation every couple of years whenever there is a conflict. In addition, there are proposals to provide a means of financially supporting farmers through targeted exceptional supports, which we also look forward to seeing the details of. It is expected that these proposals will contain measures to boost domestic production, promote sustainable practices and encourage the increased use of organic fertilisers and enhanced soil health to reduce dependency on synthetic products.
In the context of the blockages Deputy Kenny outlined, I am happy to talk to him afterwards about them. I am in Armagh tomorrow morning for a sectoral meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council, where I will be meeting my counterpart, Minister Muir. If the Deputy gives me further details, I will be happy to raise this with him tomorrow to see what the issue might be. I am not aware of impediments, they have not been raised with me, but perhaps the issue is on the Northern side. We can see what the situation is.
Deputy Moynihan referred to CBAM and that it is not the time to bring it in. Actually, inadvertently, CBAM has kind of been our friend in that because it was coming in on 1 January this year, importers front-loaded and this meant there was an extra stock of fertiliser in the country. The national fertiliser database gives us very clear information around where we are. Imports of CAN have increased by 55% and urea by 260%, so we are definitely aided by the fact that there is a lot more product in the country and the fertiliser industry continues to import more stocks. My Department is in very regular contact with the fertiliser importer to assess supply issues and address them. Obviously, we have made a point around Article 27a, which we will continue to articulate to the Commission as well.
Has the Minister looked at the possibility of moving towards green sources of energy? We do not have a supply of fertiliser manufactured here at home because we do not have the gas, but we do have wind. Has the Minister looked at the possibility of using that type of energy in the context of developing green ammonia plants here?
Second, there is a great opportunity in relation to recovered nitrogen from manure, RENURE, fertilisers, which have recently been approved. Europe should be looking at the possibility of becoming more resilient and self-sufficient, rather than having to reach out elsewhere, using those alternatives and moving away, as much as we can, from chemical options.
I ask the Minister to outline any progress made in relation to alternatives, be it supply or organics. When does he think we will have a crux in relation to fertiliser supply? Has there been any monitoring of prices and whether there is any price gouging going on? That would be utterly unacceptable.
The fertiliser database gives us good data in relation to where we are at. Fertiliser continues to be imported into the country and the database indicates that is sufficient fertiliser in the country at present. However, products such as urea may come into short supply. We continue to monitor the price as well.
To the broader point made by Deputy Moynihan about wind generation, one would not look at that in the context of Ireland alone. We will see what is in the European Commission's proposals in the action plan on fertiliser next week when it is published by Commissioner Hansen. We will see what the medium-term elements and supports are, but it is definitely a vulnerability for Europe that we are so dependent across Europe for this key component.
The Deputy made a point about RENURE. We supported the introduction of the RENURE measure, but it is not really of major benefit to us in its current form because of the lack of anaerobic digestion here. When the Deputy talks about us building our resilience, countries that have a lot of anaerobic digestion have digestate to go back out onto the land. From a water quality perspective, as well as our efforts to maintain the nitrates derogation, that would be greatly assisted if we had more anaerobic digestion in that space. That is where RENURE kicks in.
I presume the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is not going to let me back in.
Unfortunately not. I was looking forward to the Deputy's intervention.
Deputy Kenny, who does not even have a herd number spoke five times, and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will not let me in.
Well said.
Will the Deputy give me his herd number?
Will the Deputy come home and milk my cows this evening?
(Interruptions).
Order, please.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar www.oireachtas.ie.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.