The previous question dealt with the CAP budget to some extent. A number of issues are very concerning for Irish farmers. Obviously, the budget being reduced is the big one. That is a serious problem because we need to see a decent budget in place for CAP to maintain productivity and to ensure we protect the family farm. The Minister mentioned generational renewal in a previous reply. There is talk farmers who are pensioners would not get any payments. That is a serious fear that farmers have. In previous generational renewal schemes, a lot of farmers found there was almost an exclusion order against them that they could not go near the farm anymore. That puts them off the possibility of entering into a scheme for generational renewal. There is a range of issues there on which I would like to get the Minister's position, including how strong we need to be as a State, particularly when we have the Presidency, to ensure we get a proper deal for Irish farmers.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 83 and 113 together.

The European Commission published its legislative proposals for the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy in July last year, as part of its wider proposals for the next multi-annual financial framework, MFF, covering the period 2028-2034. Discussions on these proposals are currently ongoing at EU level. Under the Denmark Presidency and the Cyprus Presidency the proposed CAP regulation has a number of thematic blocks in order to facilitate a structural examination of the proposals by the expert working group. However, an important issue under discussion currently concerns the transfer of CAP-specific provisions from the proposed national and regional partnership plan, NRPP, regulation and into the CAP regulation itself. This issue has been raised by several member states and the European Parliament to ensure CAP provisions are clearly reflected in the CAP legal framework.

The Cyprus Presidency has indicated it wishes to progress work on this matter as soon as possible. A revised text incorporating the transferred provisions has recently been circulated to member states and is currently under examination by the relevant Council working party. The progress in agreeing the revised text will influence the next phase of discussions under the Cyprus Presidency and will ultimately determine the stage the file has reached when Ireland takes over the EU Presidency in July.

While this work is taking place at working-party level, I engage very regularly with my counterparts from other member states on the CAP negotiations. In addition to monthly meetings of the Agri-Fish Council and informal contacts, I engage with other member states and ministers in bilateral meetings on a very regular basis. A recent example was my meeting with the Minister of Agriculture from Czechia, who was recently appointed to the Agri-Fish Council, en marge of the Agri-Fish Council meeting in February. I also welcomed the Finnish Minister for Agriculture and Forestry to Ireland in early March. The Ministers of State, Deputies Dooley and Michael Healy-Rae, and I engaged with her and her officials on our relevant portfolios. These engagements provide valuable opportunities to exchange views on the CAP proposals, better understand the positions of other member states and identify areas of common interest as negotiations progress.

Alongside these ministerial engagements, my Department is in regular contact with the counterparts across member states and with the European Commission as part of the ongoing work on the CAP proposals. Working collaboratively with my EU counterparts, European Commissioner Christophe Hansen and the European Parliament, towards a robust and workable CAP framework is an absolute priority for me and the Department in the time ahead.

Deputy Kenny is right when he says big decisions have to be made. Right now, the overall fund and a properly funded CAP continues to be a top priority for all of us to fight for. The Irish Government has clearly stated this is a top priority. It is not just me saying it but the Tánaiste, the Taioseach and others have said it. Beyond that, we will have decisions to make on how best we can support our farmers with whatever the final CAP budget is and on how that CAP can best deliver. I am determined to deliver simplification and on the structures with which we do that. I have concerns about the NRPP structure and specific requirements for social cohesion and different elements. On the one hand, you could say work out of the national pot but on the other hand, you could tie your hands in terms of how much flexibility you have in that regard. We see that in terms of the additional €45 billion proposed by Ursula von der Leyen in January, how much of that we will be available to access and deliver to where we need to deliver it in comparison to other member states. These measures are all ones we are working through and when we have the Presidency, we will have to make more progress on them.

As I said, generational renewal is an area of real importance. I would not agree with the changes around the mandatory pension meaning the stopping of the single farm payment. There are a lot of other measures in there by Christophe Hansen that are very ambitious around the generational renewal piece. Again, we have to work through these proposals. There needs to be more meat on the bones of them and we need to see which of them end up being permanent or mandatory and which will be optional.

I thank the Minister. I appreciate we are at an early stage in negotiations and they have to take a route through all of this. The budget, as I said at the outset, is the key and what most farmers are concerned about, in that we see the budget being eroded. In every CAP negotiation for the past number of decades, we have seen that happen and that needs to be very firmly fought against to ensure we keep the budget in place so farmers can have reliability into the future. That is one of the big things for a lot of people. We talk about generational renewal but when people go into farming, they want to see a future in it. Part of that future is that they have to have a reliable and stable future and they know payments are going to be available to them.

On generational renewal, the Minister mentioned how we determine what is a farmer. What is a full-time farmer? What is the farm family? How is that put in place? I was concerned to see the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, in the changes to the forestry programme, suggested that for people to get the forestry grants, they would only need to have one year of payments. That is opening the door for corporates, companies and all kinds of people to be allowed to buy land up and to compete with other farmers.

It is not. The Deputy is completely wrong.

That is a very retrograde step and I would caution against that type of move.

I would like to join with Deputy Healy-Rae-----

Sorry, Minister, Deputy McGuinness has a question.

It is on the topic of stability and certainty in farm payments. I want to raise the issue of hill farmers on the Knockmealdown Mountains in County Waterford. They are currently in dispute with a landlord over exorbitant rent increases. I know the Minister will not intervene but the Department has effectively taken a side in an ongoing dispute here in holding these farmers over a barrel because no farm payments are being issued while the dispute goes on because of the requirement to provide a commonage-evidence letter. This is effectively the State siding with the landlord. These farmers rely on that farm payment. They farm other lands as well as the ones that are in dispute.

This has echoes of darker times in our history when absentee landlords pushed farmers off the land. The Department needs to take a realistic look at this. I understand the limitations on the Minister's ability to intervene but, if the Department is to be neutral in disputes, it should be fully neutral and not hold farmers over a barrel looking for this commonage letter while these disputes are ongoing.

To go back to Deputy Kenny's assertions regarding the changes to the definition of an "active farmer" for forestry, I back the Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, in saying that the Deputy is wrong.

Then explain it to me.

It is not only us who are saying the Deputy is wrong. The Social, Economic, Environmental Forestry Association of Ireland also says he is wrong in that it has very much welcomed these changes and said that they will help small farmers in the area of forestry and beyond. It is very easy to polarise these issues and the Deputy is dead right; I have no doubt I will be back here disagreeing with him again on other definitions. However, with regard to the next CAP, our definition of an "active farmer" will be pivotal. It will impact what we do on generational renewal and in many other spaces. We will need to have a fair and honest discussion on all of the supports and measures that are now in place. Are they delivering what we need them to? Do they in some ways act as a barrier to those who actively want to farm and drive on? The State resources employed to support farmers are very significant, as are the European resources, but we always have to ask whether they are doing what they say on the tin and whether they are best delivering on our policy objectives. I look forward to debating those points here. I am sure that, if the Deputy were to put a specific question on forestry to the Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, he would also be happy to debate the matter.

I am aware of the particular case in Waterford that Deputy McGuinness has raised. It is a bit beyond the scope of this question. The issue of single farm payments comes down to who is the active farmer. That is the position on that question. I hope a resolution can be found in the near future.

On Deputy Kenny's point on generational renewal and so on, this is going to be a really challenging debate. Commissioner Hansen's proposals talk about an increase from 3% of the budget to 8%. That would be really ambitious in the context of an increased budget and a lovely thing to deliver. If we are 20% down on the last budget, it is going to be really hard to deliver. Where do you cut money from to deliver in these areas? That may be a mandatory measure. These are the things we are trying to work through. We are trying to secure the maximum amount of flexibility so that we can be sure that interventions will deliver on generational renewal while also supporting all other sides of farming.

I accept that there is a proposed increase in the budget for generational renewal. The issue for many farmers is that, when programmes were put in place for them in the past, such as schemes to pension them off, these included an exclusion order. They could no longer have anything to do with the farm. They were out of it altogether and had to stay clear of it. That was a very bad proposal to put forward because the vast majority of these people, whether they are in their 60s, 70s or 80s, have farmed all their lives. They want to continue doing it until their last breath. They want to go out and feel they are an integral part of it. It is important that can be accommodated in any scheme that is brought forward.

The bigger issue is how to get young people into farming and how to get them to make that decision to have a future in Irish agriculture. To do that, it must be profitable and vibrant. They must see it has a future and that it will be good for them in the long term and not just for the next year or two. It is very important that we get that part of it right.

Again, the big part of this issue goes back to the budget. The Minister has not really dealt with that. What pressure is the Irish Government going to put on to ensure we maximise the budget for farmers in respect of all of this?

I am sorry. I thought I had dealt with the budget point clearly. It is our top priority. While it is not just me, I raise this at every single AGRIFISH meeting and in every engagement with Commissioner Hansen and other members of the Commission. The Tánaiste also raises the issue in his role in ECOFIN, as does the Taoiseach, who is in Brussels today. In all of those budget negotiations, there is a clear understanding across the EU that the CAP budget is critically important to Ireland. We are a net contributor, which means our voice is heard when we raise these points. I am proud that we are a net contributor. We have managed to take the structural funds of the 1980s and build a country and an economy that is going well enough to allow us to contribute more than we take in. For the benefit of the entire country, including those not interested in agriculture at all, 75% of the money we get back from Europe comes through Common Agricultural Policy measures. It is therefore in the interests of every citizen in this country that we get the maximum amount back from the CAP. If we do not get it from there, there will be a deficit in what we get back as against what we put into Europe.

If there is a transition period, that will also have an impact. As of now, a transition period is not planned but the timelines are very tight to have a whole new CAP in place and ready to go for the beginning of January 2028. If the Commission decides down the line to have a transition period, Ireland has good experience in that space and we will try to help design that during our Presidency. Having certainty in this space and flexibility to bring in targeted measures to deliver on our policy objectives while not undermining the commonality of the Common Agricultural Policy is a balancing act that we have to get right here. I look forward to continuing to engage with colleagues, particularly in the context of Ireland holding the Presidency of the EU from July until the end of the year. It will be a pivotal time for us, particularly with regard to the negotiations on the MFF. What happens there will directly impact farmers through the Common Agricultural Policy.

Will the Minister outline the engagements he has had on the EU-Mercosur trade agreement, specifically with regard to the provisional implementation of that deal by the European Commission?

I thank Deputy O'Hara for raising the important matter of the EU-Mercosur trade agreement. The Government has been very clear about Ireland’s concerns in relation to the EU-Mercosur agreement and has expressed these consistently over a number of years, particularly in relation to the agreement's potential impact on the beef sector, the strength of its climate and sustainability commitments, and the production standards enforced by Mercosur countries.

Since I took up the role of Minister in January of last year, I have met with like-minded EU counterparts to discuss these concerns. I have also raised them at every opportunity at the monthly AGRIFISH Council meetings in Brussels, at the extraordinary EU agriculture ministers’ meeting with Commissioners Hansen, Šefčovič and Várhelyi in January 2026, and in bilateral meetings with EU counterparts at the recent Global Forum for Food and Agriculture in Berlin, which was also in January.

I note the decision by the European Commission to move ahead with the provisional application of the EU-Mercosur interim trade agreement. The Government’s focus is on ensuring rigorous monitoring by the Commission of the agreement’s market impacts and the robust enforcement, where necessary, by the Commission of the provisions of the recently agreed safeguards regulation. The Government will also engage closely with the Commission and with other like-minded EU member states to ensure follow-through on additional commitments in relation to food safety and environmental standards as well as the agreement's stated intention to better align the production standards of imported products with EU production standards, particularly with regard to pesticides and animal welfare. All of this work will be crucial to addressing the concerns of our farmers and our consumers.

Some of these additional commitments were given by Commissioner Várhelyi at that special meeting in January, which I attended and where I raised and pushed those points with the Commissioner. Those safeguards that have been put in place are absolutely and critically important. We could never stop this on our own but we have worked with like-minded countries to build a bloc to do so. At the same time, as part of a twin-track approach, we have always pushed for the maximum amount of safeguarding measures to reassure our consumers and farmers should the agreement come into operation.

This deal obviously represents a serious threat to the future of Irish agriculture and to our farmers, who operate to the highest standards in the world in terms of food production but will now face competition from Mercosur countries where the same food production and environmental standards are not in place. It is not a level playing field. The Parliament voted to refer this deal to the European Court of Justice because of the concerns about its legality. However, the Commission has set in motion a process to implement the deal anyway. This shows a blatant disregard for the democratic views of the European Parliament. It is a shameful decision by Ursula von der Leyen and the Commission. We now need to see decisive action from the Government to prevent the provisional application of this deal. The Minister mentioned safeguards but what specific actions is he taking to stop the provisional application of this deal? Is the Irish Government opposed to that provisional implementation?

I can go back over all of the times I have raised my opposition to the Mercosur deal in the AGRIFISH Council and in bilateral meetings. I have also been very frank and clear on that in my public utterances, on the floor of this House, in Brussels and in media interviews I have done on the issue. An element of the Deputy's question should be directed towards the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade.

This is a broader Government issue and trade deals are not decided by the Minister for agriculture, although I do speak up when they impact on agriculture and beyond. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, has responsibility for trade across all the different trade agreements, of which there are many, and which, by and large, Irish farming and Irish farmers benefit greatly from. We export 90% of the food and drink we produce, and those markets are really important. However, we will always have defensive interests as well as offensive interests when it comes to trade agreements and that is why we fought to raise our concerns regarding the Mercosur trade agreement, but also to say that, should it come to pass, those safeguards are so important.

Getting the threshold for safeguard measures dropped from a 10% increase in import volume to a 5% increase, as well as the reduced 5% threshold for individual member states to trigger an intervention, are very significant changes that were fought for and measures like those are key to have in place.

There will be a huge impact on agriculture through this deal, so it is very relevant to the Minister. There is a concern out there because Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil sat on the fence for years when it came to this deal. It was not until the day before the vote that they came out and said they were going to outright oppose the deal. It is now being provisionally applied even though the European Parliament has voted to refer it to the European Court of Justice as it is not satisfied with the legality of the agreement.

The Government cannot be passive in the face of this. It needs to take a clear position on this and work with other member states to halt the provisional application of this deal. It is detrimental to Irish farming. Irish farmers have been clear about that and their views on it. As Minister for agriculture, Deputy Heydon's job is to represent those farmers, their views and their best interests. What specific actions is the Minister going to take? I understand what he is saying about safeguards and so on, and all of that is important, but what specific actions is he taking to oppose and stop the provisional implementation of this deal?

Before I talk about anything I am doing next, the first thing I have to do is to counter what the Deputy just said on the floor of this House. It is complete false. I have been clear on this issue. At a meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 27 January 2025, when I was four days into the job, I spoke about how I was opposed to the Mercosur trade deal and articulated that perspective very clearly. There were meetings on 24 February 2025 and 24 March 2025. On 23 June 2025, there was a meeting in Luxembourg. There were also meetings on 22 and 23 September 2025 and 17 November 2025 and the extraordinary meeting on 7 January this year as well. That is in addition to the bilateral meetings I had on a number of occasions with my counterpart, Annie Genevard, the French minister for agriculture. I met Francesco Lollobrigida, the Italian minister for agriculture, on a number of occasions to discuss this issue. I also met with ministers of agriculture from Poland, Austria, Cyprus, Latvia, Slovakia, Austria and many other countries that had, for a variety of reasons, expressed concerns. We engaged with them and worked all the way through. We worked to the very last point to get the maximum amount of leverage to see if we could build that bloc. We also pushed on the safeguards. No country would make a final decision that far out if it wanted to keep the maximum pressure on for the safeguards in the event that we failed to have a blocking minority. We crystalised our decisions on the last day and that was absolutely the right strategic approach because we got the 10% down to 5%; we got the changes on the safeguards should we fail to meet the blocking minority . We always knew that we could not do this on our own. Population-wise and member state-wise, we knew that would not be able to make that contribution. It was a very strategic approach.

What was Sinn Féin doing when the Minister was doing all of that?

It is not your speaking time.

It did nothing.

It was the day before the vote.

Deputy Healy-Rae supported our motion in 2019.

Deputy O'Shea should ignore the noise and make his contribution.

I am taking this parliamentary question on behalf of Deputy Colm Burke. I sympathise with Colm on the recent loss of his mother-in-law. I also sympathise with his wife, Mary, and the McCaffrey and Burke families. Our sympathies go out to them at this difficult time.

What progress has been made to date on the implementation of the national women in agriculture action plan? When is it expected that the detailed progress report will be published? Will he make a statement on the matter?

I join with Deputy O'Shea in extending my sympathies to Deputy Burke and his family on the passing of his mother-in-law.

Gender equality in agriculture is a priority of mine and it is included in the programme for Government. Food Vision 2030 also recognises the importance of gender balance to the long-term sustainable future of the sector and committed to holding a national dialogue on women in agriculture.

The dialogue, which took place in 2023, explored gender equality across the sector, with the outcomes and recommendations informing a report and national action plan which was launched in 2024. A working group was established to oversee its implementation, which is nearing completion. The group has delivered a winter webinar series to increase knowledge and awareness of my Department’s schemes, access to finance, agri-taxation, succession planning and social protection. This follows a number of in-person leadership and networking events nationwide last year.

The group established an annual women in agriculture studies excellence sward, in association with the UCD school of agriculture and food science. Sponsored by my Department, it recognises academic merit and commitment to gender inclusivity among female students.

A review of my Department’s schemes was completed to ensure language, terms and conditions and eligibility criteria do not present any unintended barriers to female farmer participation. It has informed an internal guidance note and checklist to assist in the design of future scheme documentation to ensure best practice. A review of the herd number application process was also undertaken and updated guidance documents, application forms and standard operating procedures have been implemented, ensuring greater consistency and ease of use.

A women in agriculture webpage was created as a centralised point of information for, and promotion of, women involved in Irish agriculture. Promoting the role of women in sustainability, the group published a "Spotlight on Female-led Sustainability" booklet, profiling and promoting women's sustainability practices in the farming, food production, forestry, marine and research fields. The specific work of this group is almost complete and an implementation report will be published later this year.

I thank the Minister for his continued engagement on this matter. I welcome the continued implementation of the national women in agriculture action plan. It plays a vital role in supporting, recognising and empowering women right across the agricultural sector. Women have always played a central role in Irish agriculture, both on and off the farm, yet their contribution has not always received the recognition that it deserves. The national women in agriculture action plan is an important step in addressing that imbalance.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has said that a working group has nearly completed its work. Will the Minister delve further into this and see when the next steps in the plan will be undertaken?

I thank the Deputy. It is timely this year because 2026 has been identified by the United Nations as the International Year of the Woman Farmer. My Department recently held a conference to launch the year in Ireland and to celebrate International Women's Day. I was delighted to announce the new International Year of the Woman Farmer ambassador, who will represent Ireland in Irish agriculture. She will raise awareness of existing supports and highlight issues that are important to women farmers. Further events for the International Year of the Woman Farmer will be held throughout the year. The calibre of applicants for that ambassador role was really impressive, as was the debate that took place on the day of the conference in Athlone. I was delighted to be able to attend and participate in part of that event.

This is an issue that is close to my heart. I know the barriers that are there for female farmers. My dad died when I was eight. At the age of 43, my mother became that female farmer. That was not easy in 1986, and it is not easy today either for female farmers. We want to break those barriers.

For many of the farmers who are operating on farms, their voice is not heard and their name is not seen on Department documents but they are integral part of the farming system. Those farmers are all over the country and it is about elevating them. There are a number of policy measures in the action plan, and it remains a top priority for me.

The plan is about much more than recognition. It is about creating real opportunities, from improving access to education and leadership roles to supporting female entrepreneurship and ensuring a stronger voice in decision-making. This initiative is key to building a more inclusive and sustainable future for women in rural Ireland. Encouraging greater participation by women in agriculture will strengthen farm families, rural communities and the wider agrifood sector. It is essential that we continue to support and fully implement the actions set out in this plan so that the next generation of women in farming can thrive right into the future. I welcome the Minister's commitment.

I agree with the Deputy. As he can see from my earlier response, it is not about on intervention that will change things and move the dial. It is a series of different things. When I looked at this previously when I was a Minister of State, the feedback from female farmers was that male-dominated knowledge transfer groups were a challenge. Having female-only knowledge transfer groups in certain instances has worked really well. There are lots of small, practical things we can do that can make a difference. I spent a long time in this House today talking about generational renewal. Our commission on generational renewal identified 31 barriers and challenges that we have to tackle. Gender is a significant challenge. I want to get to a space where daughters are considered every bit as much as sons when the mothers and fathers of farm families are discussing who the likely successors are. This has not been the case historically but it is where we want to get to. These changes will bring about that cultural change for the betterment of Irish agriculture.

I am glad the Minister and two Ministers of State are here to take the question. Will the Minister provide details of the initiative to increase the amount of milling flour produced in the State and the necessary increase in acreage of wheat to be grown for that? I say this in a positive way. I hope with the Minister and two Ministers of State that we can have some good news on this now.

I know how important milling is to Laois and beyond-----

An-tábhachtach.

As is the tillage sector. The tillage sector is an integral part of Irish farming, producing high-quality animal feed and bedding for the livestock sector and ingredients for the food and drink industry. The sector makes a significant contribution to the Irish economy, as the Deputy knows, estimated at €1.9 billion per annum over the 2018 to 2022 period. It is also important in terms of employment and is estimated to support over 11,000 full-time equivalent jobs. This Government is committed to growing the area under tillage crops in line with climate action plan targets.

The Food Vision tillage group report sets out a roadmap for the sector’s growth and development, identifying key opportunities to sustainably grow the sector. Adding value to tillage crop output will be crucial to its long-term sustainability and competitiveness. The programme for Government commits to examining facilities for the processing of Irish crops and to exploring opportunities for oilseed and milling wheat processing. Additionally, a key recommendation in the Food Vision tillage report is to explore opportunities for milling wheat in Ireland.

While there are opportunities to grow milling wheat in Ireland, there are also recognised agronomic and market challenges. However, with collaboration from industry and support from the marketplace, domestic production of milling wheat can play a role in providing a new value-added opportunity in the supply chain for Irish tillage farmers. In line with these commitments, my colleague the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Deputy Burke, has approved the development and implementation of a new scheme, to be administered by Enterprise Ireland, to support the establishment of flour milling projects in Ireland. Approval for the scheme was granted in January 2026. I was delighted to be able to launch it with him. It will provide capital investment support for the establishment of large scale flour mills. A total grant budget of €15 million will be made available, and it is envisaged that up to three projects could be supported. Growing that capacity on the processing side will be a real incentive for tillage farmers to look at milling wheat as a greater value-added opportunity as well.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I welcome the news of the plan to develop four flour mills. There is huge financial potential here and gain for producers and jobs and employment. A total of 80% of our flour is coming from Britain, as the Minister knows. During the crisis with the beast from the east, the freak freeze, we almost ran out of flour and bread. The total cereal production in the State, while it was up last year by 10%, that was mainly due to good weather at the start and end of the season, as opposed to the year before. There are huge risks there. We understand that. In terms of costs and that, the costs of fertiliser and fuel have increased.

We are very vulnerable in terms of our food security. We are only three days away from a crisis at any time. This is a real opportunity for farmers and for jobs. There are environmental benefits and economic benefits for farmers, jobs and food security. Laois is very good wheat-growing territory. I know south Kildare is as well - the wheat plains of Kildare - but Laois has wheat plains as well. I strongly ask the Minister to consider Laois as a location. There are over 70 acres there of land for industry that is unused by IDA Ireland. I am asking the Minister to make this a priority, right on the edge of Portlaoise on the crossroads of Ireland, the M7 and the N80. You cannot get a better location. It is on the railway line. It has a strong case.

I thought Deputy Stanley was going to break into a bar of Trudi Lalor's "Lovely Laois" for a minute. I am well aware that some of the best tillage land in the country is in Laois because it is right beside Kildare. We have it too. The Deputy has many constituents, as I have, who are dependent, who are tillage farmers and are very worried about the future. They have had three really tough years due to a mixture of bad weather, income challenges and pressures and high input costs and low margin prices. At its heart has been the fact that our tillage sector is largely reliant on world market prices. Unlike the value-added piece that we have managed to introduce on our beef and dairy products, we are not in that space in tillage.

I am determined to get there. I have my €50 million supports through straw incorporation and protein aid, and the €30 million tillage sustainability scheme, which I recently launched. On top of that, it is about the value-added piece. It is about developing a quality assurance scheme for our tillage sector that delivers better value back there. It is this value-added piece that is here. In terms of the money and whether Laois is in the mix, it is up to individual companies to put themselves forward for that now. The Government has made that money available for them.

We have a strong tradition of milling flour in Laois. Odlums in Portarlington is one of the few places in the country now doing it. That is there. There is potential for it to be developed in the county. An economic report was published this morning by Alan Ahearne, former adviser to the US Federal Reserve and a former adviser to Micheál Martin, as I understand it. He stated that foreign firms are producing six times more than Irish firms in this State. They produce three quarters of all exports. He stated that there are huge risks to the Irish economy. It is great to have foreign firms. This is not an argument against that and I do not want it to be taken as that. What I am saying is that it is very lopsided. Our economic development has been lopsided for years. There are huge macroeconomic risks there because of that in terms of corporation tax and other risks. As I said, there are the environmental benefits, the economic benefits - jobs, food security and all those benefits. Laois, Kildare and Carlow lost the sugar beet. We should not have lost it and should not give up on it altogether. I welcome what the Minister is doing. I ask him strongly to consider a location in Laois for flour production. We have 70 acres there for it.

I completely concur. We should never have lost the sugar beet industry. It was a detrimental blow to those of us in south Kildare, Laois and beyond who made very good money out of the campaign every year in delivering it into Carlow, as they did in Tuam, Thurles and Mallow.

I take the points regarding Alan Ahearne's report on board. It is why the Government has invested and supported Irish agriculture to the extent it has, with record amounts of funding to meet the last CAP plan. The Irish Government was not found wanting in supporting our agriculture sector in matching the European money that came in there. We will continue to do that. It is also about driving more value back into our sector and providing that value-added piece that means our tillage price is not just dealing on commodity markets. It is about being able to premiumise that, as we have seen on the beef and the dairy side. If we can add that premiumisation and increase the value in the product by the story we tell and tillage farmers' work in the area - AgNav is a good example of that - that can lead to positive impacts in the future, as will this investment.

I am seeking an update on funding for piers across Connemara. As the Minister will be aware, this is an extremely important matter, especially for those who rely on the piers in Connemara.

As the Deputy may be aware, our Department operates and maintains six designated State-owned fishery harbour centres, located at Castletownbere, Dingle, Dunmore East, Howth, Killybegs and Ros an Mhíl in her own constituency. Additionally, our Department has responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of north harbour at Cape Clear, as well as the maintenance of a small number of specific piers, one of which is Cleggan in the Deputy's constituency, which may be what she has in mind here, as well as in relation to lights and beacons throughout Ireland, in accordance with the ex-congested district board piers, lights and beacons Act 1902.

The responsibility for the development and maintenance of local authority-owned piers, harbours and slipways rests with each local authority in the first instance and their parent Department, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage thereafter. Therefore, it is the responsibility of Galway County Council to progress any possible works in relation to piers in Connemara, of which Cleggan is somewhat an outlier, because our Department has some responsibility there in consultation with the local authority, which also has part ownership of the pier. However, our Department, as part of its annual fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure development programme, does provide limited discretionary funding to coastal local authorities for the implementation of small-scale projects focused on the development and repair of piers, harbours and slipways under their ownership.

Accordingly, on 16 February, I announced €4.3 million in funding under the local authority marine infrastructure scheme for 2026. Under this scheme, my Department will co-fund up to 75% of the eligible project costs, up to a maximum of €187,500 reimbursement where eligible, per project, with the local authority providing the balance.

The deadline for local authorities to submit project proposals for funding under this scheme was 9 March. I am pleased to inform the Deputy of the large volume of project proposals submitted to my Department within the timeline. In fact, applications were submitted by every coastal local authority, including Galway County Council. Any applications for funding for capital works at piers in Connemara that may have been submitted by Galway County Council under the 2026 scheme will be given due consideration, taking into account the available funding and the terms of the scheme.

Tuigim an méid atá á rá ag an Aire Stáit faoi Chomhairle Chontae na Gaillimhe agus an ról atá aige féin ann. Is í an fhadhb atá ann ná nach mbíonn an maoiniú ar fáil ag an gcomhairle contae chun an infheistíocht atá ag teastáil sna céanna a chur ar fáil agus an obair a dhéanamh a bhfuilimid ag caint fúithi. Mar shampla, ar Chaladh Gholaim i Leitir Mealláin, tá siad ag caint ar dheisiúchán ó 2024 ar aghaidh. Tá an cás déanta chuig an gcomhairle contae ach níl an maoiniú ann.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. Galway County Council has a serious role there but the issue is a lack of funding for that. There is an issue with one particular pier, Caladh Gholaim, which has been ongoing since 2024. The council says it applied for funding from the Department. We need to make sure that funding is available in order that this can be done.

That is an issue right around the coastline. The funding we provide to local authorities is relatively small, and an input is required from them. It is really only suitable for minor upgrade works. I am conscious that there are others, including Cleggan and a number of others that Deputies from Deputy Farrell’s constituency and elsewhere have been in touch with me about . That scheme does not meet the needs. I am in discussions with a number of Departments, including the Departments of rural affairs and tourism, because there is a recognition that not everything relates to fishing. Leisure activities and the potential for some offshore renewable energy activity must also be taken into account. Over time, we need to develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing the deterioration in the quality of some of these facilities. I have seen quite a number of them. They do not fall within the scheme that is there. They are not owned directly by our Department yet the local authorities do not have the funding to address them. There is a bit of a gap there. We are trying to work on a solution that might involve a number of Departments which have line responsibility.

Táim sásta é sin a chloisteáil. Tá sé ríthábhachtach go mbeadh muid in ann díriú ar na céanna sin agus ar an mbuninfreastruchtúr sin ionas go mbeadh sé ann don phobal atá ina chónaí ann freisin.

I welcome that because I think it is important that there is recognition we need to look at exactly how we will fund these. There has been a lack of funding for basic infrastructure across Connemara, and we need to look at how we do that. It is good to look at it from a cross-departmental point of view in order to ensure that funding is available. It is not just piers; it is also bridges and roads. More often than not, I hear that funding is not available. I am sure the council would like to do it if it could.

Is maith an rud é sin. Sílim, ach go háirithe má bhreathnaímid ar an mbuninfreastruchtúr ina iomláine i gConamara, mar shampla, na droichid agus na bóithre chomh maith leis na céanna, tá go leor infheistíochta ag teastáil. Is maith an rud é go bhfuil an Roinn ag breathnú air seo agus go bhfuilimid ag breathnú ar roinnt Ranna atá in ann cabhrú leis.

I fully get that. I saw in the case of Connemara where part of Cleggan is owned by our Department and part by the local authority. There was a comprehensive plan there which was probably too large in scale. While everyone liked it, nobody was able to come up with the comprehensive amount of money. I have suggested to them that they might look at a slimmed down version and we can see how we manage that. In that case, while there is some fishing activity there it is relatively small but there is a really important ferry service going out to the islands that is of vital importance. There are certain times where there is a safety issue there.

Deputies Conor D. McGuinness and Mary Butler have a similar issue down in Waterford, which I have also witnessed. The pier at Heilbhic does not qualify for any of the supports that are available at the moment. In the case of Heilbhic, it is impossible to get the RNLI boat out in certain circumstances. We have to look at all this in a more comprehensive way in order to identify the areas where we need to do it. We also need to look at a more broadly based scheme.

It is important that the review to which the question relates be expedited fairly quickly.

The board of Bord Bia met on 2 March to discuss proposals to resolve the situation whereby Bord Bia’s offices were being occupied by protestors. Following that meeting the board issued an agreed statement. This statement noted that the terms of reference of an independent governance review which I had proposed were agreed by the board, and that the protest inside and outside the offices would be stood down.

As agreed, my Department is now commissioning an independent review of Bord Bia’s governance framework. The review will specifically consider: the role of the board including the chair; composition, including eligibility, of the board, including the chair; the board’s terms of reference, including clarity in relation to corporate governance framework and implementation; the procedures for and management of conflicts of interest, including consideration of what constitutes a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest as set out in the code of practice for the governance of State bodies; and specific governance related questions that have been raised during the current period. The consultants will engage directly with the board members and executive - the CEO and the secretary to the board - to seek their perspectives, especially in relation to governance issues that have arisen in the current period.

My Department is currently engaged in a procurement process for this review, with a view to completion by the end of April. Bord Bia is also progressing a new farmers forum which I had asked it to establish on foot of a five-hour meeting I had with the six farm organisations and key stakeholders on 13 February to try to bring a resolution to this. The farmers' forum is a vehicle for us to have farmers’ input into every part. Part of the recommendation from Macra na Feirme was that the outworkings of the farmers’ forum will be a standing item at every board meeting of Bord Bia and each of the six farming organisations will get to have input into that which is a key role. It provides another option for renewed engagement between farmers and Bord Bia.

I am trying to figure out the length of time it will take. The Minister said that it will start with procurement and that the review will begin by the end of April, is that correct?

The end of April.

It will begin by the end of April.

It will be finished by the end of April.

That is better again. That is good news. It is obviously a concern because it is fair to say there is a confidence issue there. There has been a big breakdown in relations and that needs to be addressed. Bord Bia is central as a body to promote the quality of Irish food and quality is the key word here.

In any outcome, we cannot have a food safety and promotion body that promotes the high standard of food produced here because of high regulations and standards and have someone at its head who is importing produce that is produced at a lower standard. Quality is key not only for farmers but for shoppers and consumers as well. Something that might be looked at is a more rigorous vetting regime for the heads of State boards.

Deputy Martin Kenny has a supplementary.

I support Deputy Stanley on this issue. It is obviously something that has taken up a huge amount of time and energy for everyone involved. It is positive we are at a stage where there is at least the bones of a resolution in place. The key issue is that people who are involved in State boards have a responsibility to adhere to the codes of conduct or practice that are in place. The review of all this will be short, hopefully. I welcome the Minister saying it would be concluded at the end of April. That would be ambitious. Farmers need reassurance that they will get additional and robust representation on any new board that is proposed, because that is one of the big issues. Without farmers, there would be no Bord Bia and no food to market anywhere. They see themselves as being very small players in all of this, however. Anything that can be done to ensure that farmers have a greater role to play would be very positive.

The reason we are talking about the end of April – which is both a very tight timeline and ambitious – is because it is something I want to bring to a conclusion. There needs to be a lot of honesty in the debate. I agree with Deputy Kenny that we need to reflect on everyone’s fiduciary duties when they sign up to a State board.

A great deal of responsibility comes with that, and that applies to every member of a board, not just the chairperson.

On the points about farmer representation and the farmer point of view, that will be enhanced by the establishment of the farmers' forum that I proposed at the five-hour stakeholder meeting on 13 February. The farmers' forum will provide a structured forum for two-way feedback because it is just as important that Bord Bia can feed back to farmers. It will also explain the market requirements, why quality assurance processes require certain amounts of information, how that is monetised and how it allows us to have premiumisation of their produce in the end. That is a really important part of this. We will all be strengthened from that greater collaboration.

The Minister said that the end of April is the completion date, and that is very welcome. Normally when we hear about reviews, they to go on forever and a day. As a result, I welcome the fact that there is a bit of urgency about this. Farmers' participation will be central to it. We have to learn from the fiasco that we have had over the last few months. We all need to look at what happened there and try to move forward in a more positive way.

That is it exactly. We want to move on, but we want to ensure that as we do so, there is a clear understanding of the highly integrated nature of food trade globally. We export 90% of our food and drink. It is really important that our farmers clearly understand that. The whole tenor of the debate over the five-week period focused on the 10% consumed in Ireland, understandably, because it is very important market in terms of sentiment and for Irish consumers as well. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that Bord Bia is an international food board that provides marketing and opportunities for Irish food companies to get the best possible return. That, in turn, gives the best possible return to our farmers and it has been very successful. Coupled with our ten-year strategies in the Department, we have seen the value of Irish food exports grow from €10 billion back in 2011 to €20.8 billion last year and there has been a commensurate rise in farmers' incomes. We want to be very careful, in addressing all of these issues and concerns, that we do not undermine the very structure that is delivering real value back to our farmers.

That concludes questions to the Minister for agriculture. We will now move on to Leader's Questions. Before I call Deputy Doherty, I want to welcome a group of history students and their teachers to the Public Gallery. They are guests of Deputy Timmins and are very welcome. I hope they enjoy their day in Dáil Éireann.