Apologies have been received from Senators Paul Daly and Eileen Lynch and Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice.

Before we begin, I bring to everyone's attention that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on matters. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by them outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in this committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in public meetings from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in the member having their online access removed. All the members participating are present in the committee room.

The agenda for today is the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS. The witnesses are from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I welcome Mr. Paul Savage, assistant secretary; Mr. John Muldowney, principal officer, agricultural environment and structures; Dr. Josephine Brennan, principal officer, on-farm investment; Mr. Kevin McGeever, assistant principal, on-farm investment; and Mr. Brian Fleming, assistant agricultural inspector in the agricultural environment and structures section. The opening statement has been circulated to members and they have had an opportunity to read it. I will give Mr. Savage five minutes to read through it before we go on to questions and answers.

Thank you very much, a Chathaoirligh, for the opportunity to update the committee today on progress with the implementation of the targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, or TAMS 3, which is operated by my colleagues headquartered in Wexford and in offices throughout the country.

TAMS 3 provides grants to farmers to build and-or improve a specified range of farm buildings and equipment on their holdings. All supported investments must be linked to climate, environment or animal welfare. The submission of applications commenced in 2023 under the 2023-2027 CAP strategic plan. The need to put new administrative and IT structures in place, while simultaneously opening and rolling out the scheme for participants, meant that it took longer than hoped to commence the issuing of approvals and payments. However, these initial delays were overcome, and the scheme has been operating at full capacity for some time. It is notable that some 59,302 applications were received across the first ten tranches, compared to 19,347 applications received over the equivalent period under TAMS 2 - a threefold increase. Nevertheless - thanks to the fantastic efforts of a very dedicated team of staff - rapid progress has been made in the processing of applications, with the result that over 52,000 applications have now been processed at both HQ and local office levels, and payments to the value of €142 million have issued to almost 16,000 participants, and are continuing to issue at a rate of up to €2 million per week. Notable too is the profile of the investment support already approved under TAMS 3 to date, with a significant proportion of approved investments accounted for in particular by the low-emission slurry spreading, solar capital investment and nutrient storage investment schemes.

The processing of TAMS applications and approvals has to be carried out in accordance with the budgetary constraints associated with the scheme over the period of the wider CAP strategic plan. Given that all eligible applications were approved over the first eight tranches of the scheme, and bearing in mind again the record number of applications received, the Minister considered it necessary to introduce ranking and selection for tranche 9, which closed for applications in September 2025 - and again for tranche 10, which closed for applications in December 2025.

This was done in the interests of ensuring that the overall TAMS budget will not be exceeded, while continuing to facilitate further tranches to the end of 2027. This was also the case under TAMS 2, when it was necessary to apply ranking and selection midway through the programme. It is not unusual and the Department will continue to review the overall funding position on an ongoing basis.

Ranking and selection is the process of ranking each application in each tranche using predefined criteria. A cut-off point can be used to select a certain number of projects - for example, the top 80% - to reduce the estimated level of expenditure and to manage the commitments within budget allocations. This is provided for under the regulations and included in the TAMS terms and conditions. The ranking criteria and marking scheme are available on the Department’s website.

A total of 6,122 applications were submitted in tranche 9, with a further 7,906 submitted in tranche 10. This brought the total number of applications received over the first ten tranches to 59,302. Based on the Department’s reference costs for these applications, the cost of grant aid would be estimated to come to circa €340 million, leaving very little funding available for the period to the end of 2027. This takes account of applications that have been withdrawn or rejected, as well as the fact that approximately 75% of approved applicants will proceed and complete the investments.

On that basis, a rate of less than 100% selection was applied in a differentiated manner across the subschemes, to limit the number of applications proceeding to approval stage. The approach was to apply ranking and selection at different rates across each scheme to reduce the overall cost of tranche 9 to €31.2 million. If we assume 75% completion rate, based on TAMS 2, the cost of this tranche would be reduced to €23.5 million. The same approach was applied to tranche 10, limiting the overall cost of the tranche to €23 million and, again, assuming a 75% completion rate.

I will focus on particular subschemes within TAMS 3 in the context of the application of ranking and selection. In tranche 10, a reduction of 90% has been applied to expenditure on the solar capital investment scheme. This is acknowledging the fact that there has been expenditure of almost €28 million under the scheme to date, accounting for approximately 20% of TAMS 3 expenditure to date. Almost 3,300 farmers have received approval to proceed with works, while 1,459 farmers have installed panels and received grant aid for their completed investment. The reductions here and across other schemes were applied in order to focus approvals on core on-farm investments, particularly slurry storage and farm safety.

The removal of domestic dwellings from the solar capital investment scheme in tranche 11 will enable a focus on supplying solar panels for on-farm demand and should enable a higher percentage of applications to be selected for approval. Farmers wishing to install solar panels for domestic use may apply for support from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI.

In view of the critical importance of nutrient storage investments, which are available across four of the schemes - the animal welfare nutrient storage scheme, organic capital investment scheme, young farmer capital investment scheme and women farmer capital investment scheme - a lesser reduction of 40% has been applied.

The importance of farm safety across all sectors is acknowledged so a decision was taken to approve all eligible applications under the farm safety capital investment scheme.

TAMS continues to be a hugely successful scheme. This year, supports under the scheme will again amount to some €88 million, so we are continuing to provide support to farmers to upgrade and invest in their holdings. I hope the Cathaoirleach and committee members have found this update useful. My colleagues and I look forward to answering any questions they may have.

I welcome Mr. Savage and his team. I acknowledge TAMS is a successful and positive scheme. I have read through the statement that was circulated and I thank the witnesses for that. It is complex to explain, particularly the Minister's intervention. The new tracking system, the selection process and the ranking are complex. We talk about simplicity and simplification in agriculture; by golly, we would want a bit of simplification in how we communicate this. I read it ten times today to try to get a handle on it. On a positive note, TAMS is a great scheme and meets the criteria Mr. Savage mentioned - animal welfare, environmental considerations and the conditionality around the scheme. That is only right and proper. From time to time, we have to reprioritise. Things evolve and change. There are different sets of circumstances and there is flexibility within the different tranches of TAMS.

There has been recent commentary about the administrative capacity to process applications. Will the witnesses touch on that? Farmers enter into schemes in good faith. They are ambitious and excited about the potential. There is a lot of proprietary work in getting a scheme done, including contacting the agriculture adviser and doing various scopings. There is nothing worse than preparing for a scheme and then feeling the rug is pulled from under them or being unsuccessful. That is an important point to make.

On 5 March, Agriland published an article. I will quote from it without mentioning the original name because he is not here and it would not be appropriate. An Agricultural Consultant Association, ACA, member told Agriland the following: "It's frustrating for farmers to make the decision that they're going for something, then to go down the whole way of getting the application done and gathering up ... the dockets and getting the surveys done for solar and ... so forth, and then all of a sudden find that they're not getting [any of] it, that they [were not officially approved]." That is part of an article in on agriland.ie and I want the witnesses to take a look at that. Let us have a bit of clarity here. Was TAMS 3 oversubscribed in terms of applications, and by how much? I believe it was quite significantly oversubscribed. With that comes disappointment. With that comes excitement and the hope that in another round of TAMS there may be something else.

Mr. Savage stated the Minister considered it necessary to introduce a selection and ranking process for tranches 9 and 10 so it would not exceed the budget while continuing to facilitate further tranches to the end of 2027. That is a very loaded statement. We do not have the figures for each of those tranches and, therefore, it is hard to make an assessment of what is projected out to 2027. Clearly, the Department is taking prudent financial steps and trying to manage people's expectations, but we are not seeing that against a graph of the figures. I do not want us to bore everyone here with figures but I would like to get a handle on what is going on.

Will the farmers who were not part of the selection and ranking process be facilitated in future tranches to the end of 2027? Either they will be facilitated or they will not be. It would be very unfair to string people along on the basis they were not successful at this point but at the next point they will be. The witnesses cannot write a blank cheque for everybody and there are criteria and processes. That is the key point. It is a great success but we need understanding of how the scheme is being oversubscribed and of the expectations for those who are disappointed.

Was the scheme oversubscribed? Yes. When you look at the number of applications over the first ten tranches, it is three times the number we had under TAMS 2, and we have had three times the number of approvals.

Will Mr. Savage give us the figures for that?

The figure for applications is 59,302. We had 19,700 applications in the same period in TAMS 2. We have effectively three times the number of applications. Over the first eight tranches, the decision was taken to approve all eligible applications. We approved far more applications over those first eight tranches in TAMS 3 than we did in TAMS 2. In the same way we had three times the number of applications, we issued three times the number of approvals. The level of demand for participation in the scheme reflects the value and attraction of it to farmers in providing support. The numbers were a significant increase on the previous TAMS. After the first eight tranches had received approval for all eligible applications, we had to try to manage the budget because there is a defined budget available over the period of the CAP strategic plan and a defined budget available to us over the next couple of years in terms of expenditure on the scheme.

We could not continue to spend at the rate we were spending across the first eight tranches because the money would simply run out. That happened during TAMS 2 as well, where we introduced ranking and selection halfway through the scheme because with the level of response from farmers and based on the available budget, it had to be managed over the remaining period of the previous rural development programme, RDP. We are in a similar situation now with the CAP strategic plan, where we now have to manage the budget.

To answer that question on whether it was oversubscribed, we do not have any particular criteria or benchmarks as to whether a scheme is oversubscribed or not but the pure fact is that we had far more applications than might have been expected compared to TAMS 2. That, combined with the fact that all eligible applications were approved over the first eight tranches, meant that we had to look at this in terms of the expenditure profile for the remainder of the programme.

The Senator asked what capacity there is in the Department to deal with it. I mentioned in my opening statement that in the early days when we were trying to roll out the scheme and then put in place the administrative processes and the IT system, our administrative capacity was very severely challenged around getting the scheme up and running and getting approvals out, and then getting payments out on time as well. However, as I said, we have caught up with that now. We have overcome those delays and we are essentially operating at full capacity now. Generally, we are getting all of the applications processed. There are different steps in the process so when somebody sends in an application, after the tranche closes we go through a series of HQ checks on foot of the ranking and selection process that is done and then applications are sent out to our local offices. It takes some time to process the applications.

We are up to speed now in terms of the capacity within the system. I mentioned our allocation of €88 million for 2026. We have the capacity there to fully spend all of that money on the applications that are on hands over 2026. We are fully using all of the capacity that we have available and we have improved our IT systems over the past two years since launched the scheme to facilitate the handling of the volume of applications. There is a process there. As I say, there are stages to the process.

The Senator talked about people who are maybe disappointed having gone through the process of putting together documentation and then finding out they might have lost out on ranking and selection, and maybe the perception might be that they were waiting a long time for that decision. The reality is that we cannot begin to process applications properly until after a tranche is closed and a decision has been made about whether or not ranking and selection is applied. It takes a bit of time to get to that point but then we are committed to processing those applications and then processing claims for payments quickly in the following couple of months after that closing date for the tranche.

I thank Mr. Savage. I think he covered what I was asking.

The Senator makes a reasonable point that farmers would have been lining up and preparing work, maybe even getting some of the background work done as well. Part of that plan would be that they would get the grant. It is hugely frustrating for people to find themselves in a position, particularly with solar, where they are not getting a grant but are being rolled on to the next tranche with no real expectation there of qualifying for a grant because their circumstances will not be any different.

Mr. Savage stated that the Department saw a big increase in the number of applications between TAMS 2 and 3. At what point along that process did the Department become aware that there were so many? The Department was as far as tranche eight when it took action. At what point along that process did the Department find that it needed to do something here or there were a lot of applications?

In the early days, we would have seen an uptake in the early tranches compared to TAMS 2. Over a period of time, in the following couple of tranches we would have seen that those numbers were being maintained. It was when we were coming to those later tranches, tranches 6, 7 and 8, that we were looking at the overall numbers and what that might mean in terms of the overall profile.

Decisions are taken at the end of every tranche by Ministers in terms of whether or not all eligible applications will be approved or whether we will apply ranking and selection. We make it clear in the terms and conditions of the scheme that ranking and selection may be applied to a given tranche depending on the circumstances. Quite simply, it was not decided in any of the first eight tranches to apply ranking and selection. It was decided at the time that we should approve all eligible applications, which the Minister wanted to do, and so we did that. However, we were monitoring the potential profile of expenditure over the period of the CAP strategic plan, CSP, as well and-----

It is good that the decision was made to approve the 100% along the way in each of those tranches. Was there a request for additional funding along the way to be able to continue at 100% or how did the Department arrive at the decision of ranking? Did the Department go looking for additional funding on it?

In our engagements with our colleagues in the Department of public expenditure, both in terms of the original allocation of funding to the CSP and in our ongoing interactions, it was very clear that we had to stick within the budgetary guidelines that are set out for us. We had to stay within the budgetary parameters that are set for the CAP strategic plan. It was in that context that the decision was taken to look at ranking and selection for tranches 9 and 10.

So there was not a request for additional funding.

There are discussions every year in the context of the budgetary process with the Department of public expenditure and reform in relation to funding around TAMS and every other scheme. In the case of TAMS, it would not have been possible to get additional funding for it on an annual basis until the point where we were looking at tranche 9 and the decision to be taken as far as ranking and selection was concerned.

There was ranking and selection in place for an earlier round of grants.

Ranking and selection is an integral part of the scheme. It is in the terms and conditions. It is there to be deployed if a decision is taken to do so, if a Minister decides to do so. In the first eight tranches, that was not the decision so all of those eligible applications were approved.

On the earlier application of ranking and selection and going to 100%, how did that decision come about? Did the Department go looking for additional money? When the Department applied ranking and selection previously, what was the exit strategy at that stage? How was the Department going to get back to 100%? What is the plan now to get back to 100% granting?

Ranking and selection would have been applied effectively at 100% in the sense that we would have allowed all eligible applications in in the earlier tranches. If the Cathaoirleach is talking-----

What I am asking is, what is the plan to get back to everybody being able to get granted?

At the moment, there is not any capacity within the available budget for everybody to get back to 100% approval.

Is there a plan to get to that stage?

There is not a plan to get to that stage. We will have to manage the budget, as we do on an ongoing basis year on year and depending on the number of applications that comes in.

We have seen a very high rate of applications over the first ten tranches. Experience has shown that numbers of applications tend to fall off a little later in the process, towards the end of the TAMS period. There may not be an issue.

We would like to see a situation where farmers who make an application and prepare the work would have a reasonable expectation to be able to get a grant and we would like to see a pathway to getting to the 100% grant aid again. I want to try to get a handle on how that would come about that.

We could look at that but it boils down to the required funding being available on an ongoing basis, year on year, for the level of applications that come in. The problem is that TAMS is a demand-led scheme. We do not know what the level of demand will be at any point when we start off with the scheme but there is a limited budget. We are constrained by budget from the outset because we have an agreement at EU level in terms of what is available as far as CAP funding is concerned.

The Department knows approximately 75% will be drawn down and it has a flexibility with another approximately 25% that probably will not get drawn down, typically.

Even within that, even if you take a 75% completion rate, when you look at the numbers that we have had apply over the first eight tranches, that is still very significantly in excess of the available budget. As I said, it is three times the number of applications we would have received under TAMS 2.

Okay. On the numbers coming in and the increase in the numbers, were they in particular grants or were they across the board? Mr. Savage might not have the figures immediately available. If he does, I would be interested to know where the increase was seen. If Mr. Savage does not have them, I would ask that he would send them on. Also, is the ranking occurring as a result of an increase in one type of grant or another, or is it across the board?

I might let colleagues come in and comment on this further. There has been a general increase across all schemes, across all sub-investment items. There has been particular interest in the solar capital investment scheme. The low-emission slurry spreading has continued in terms of its level of popularity. We have also had significant interest in nutrient storage and on the farm safety capital investment side as well. We have seen an uptake in terms of the wind farm capital investment scheme as well compared to previous times. There has been a fairly consistent increase across the board. That was part of the reason, when the ranking and selection was considered, that for the first time we looked taking a differentiated approach across individual schemes, looking at what the level of take up has been so far across all of the schemes and bearing mind the Minister's priorities as far as expenditure for the current tranche and for future tranches is concerned.

I would be interested if Mr. Savage could send on to the committee the increase in the different grants.

We can give the committee a profile.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statement, which we have all read, and for their work to date on this. They mentioned that the Department is working towards a deadline of the end of 2027 and that it will have enough in the kitty to cover that. What I understand from previous answers is that there is little or no chance of there being a restoration of the situation where farmers can expect to get a guarantee that if they put everything in right and they are eligible, they will get money. Until we get to the end of this particular programme, we are not going to see anything change in respect of that. Is that true?

If we look purely at the amount of money that is available and the number of applications we have been getting in, if that were to continue then there would not be any possibility, at this point, of being able to approve all eligible applications. The Minister still has discussions with his counterpart in the Department of public expenditure every year around the budgetary process and would have completed discussions recently around the national development plan. There are always discussions going on around the possibility of additional funds being made available, but we had committed to an overall level of expenditure under the CAP strategic plan over the period to 2027 and beyond and we are working on the basis of assumptions of funding that is available up to 2029. On the basis that that is the available capacity, it will very much depend on the number of applications that come in under each tranche in terms of deciding whether, or to what extent, the full set of applications could be approved. If the trend continues as it has been, it is highly unlikely that all applications could be approved but that is a decision for the Minister at a given point in time after each tranche. However, we do have to work within those overall budgetary constraints.

I understand that basically it is the restraint of the capital allotment that is there. If that does not grow, nothing can replace it. Mr. Savage is saying that there is a focus on nutrient storage investment and because of that, a lesser reduction of 40% is being applied. The issue of nutrient storage is a big one for a lot of family farms. Does the Department have a breakdown of the sectors that investment is going to? For instance, is the majority of it in the dairy sector or the beef sector? Does the Department have any breakdown of that in respect of the applications processed so far?

I do not have anything in detail to hand and I do not think my colleagues would have that breakdown here but we can look at supplying those figures later.

I would be interested in seeing where that funding is going. Mr. Savage mentioned that in tranche 10 there is a reduction of 90% being applied to the solar capital investment scheme, which means only 10% of applicants are going to get through there. Is that what he is saying?

Yes, pretty much.

Are some of those applications of a higher value than others or are they all around the same value?

It would vary. It would depend on the scale-----

Would they all be close to the maximum?

It would depend on the scale of the investment in particular cases but they fall within a relatively well-defined band. I will ask Mr. Muldowney to elaborate on that.

The size of the units that we support for solar depends on the farm demand. Dairy demand is typically higher so we are talking there about 20 kW to 30 kW units, whereas beef, sheep or dry stock farms would be much smaller, at 6 kW or 7 kW. The size is also indicated by whether the farm has single-phase or triple-phase electricity connection and whether there is capacity on the network locally to take any surplus overspill that might occur. These are all factors that feed into the size that is allowed, but we are constrained in TAMS by the demand of the farm unit itself.

Obviously there must be a process in place to select the projects that will be funded. What criteria does the Department use in that context? Does it give a particular loading to a farm that has more demand, for example, when approving an actual payment?

The choice is led by the ranking and selection template that we have. Those criteria were agreed under the CAP strategic plan with the monitoring committee that is there. Overall, it is driven by the age of the applicant. There is a marks differential, with farmers under 41 getting 20 marks and those over 41 getting none. The size of the holding is also a factor. The larger the holding, the smaller the marks. Another factor is ANC land. The more ANC land on a farm, the more marks it gets. Stocking rate is also taken into account. The more intensive the farm, the higher the marks but again, that is very marginal. Generally speaking, the biggest driver is the age of the applicant. The younger farmers -----

It is weighted towards younger farmers more than anything else.

Yes, exactly.

Is that true for all of the schemes?

Yes, all of the schemes.

Tranche 9 was closed for applications in September 2025 and tranche 10 was closed in December 2025. At what stage does the Department expect to see the results of those? When will people be getting offers in respect of those? Where are we now in regard to those tranches? Are they completed?

In the case of tranche 9, that was decided and communicated to people after the ranking selection was carried out. Those people who were rejected under the ranking and selection process at that stage were automatically rolled over into tranche 10. Their applications were considered again in tranche 10 in the overall ranking and selection that was then carried out. That was done in February and, again, any fresh applications that came in to tranche 10 and did not make it as a result of the ranking and selection will be carried forward into tranche 11. Those that might have failed twice would have to submit a new application before tranche 11 closed and we extended the closing date for tranche 11 to allow that to happen.

Basically the people who were in tranche 9 were rolled over into tranche 10. Having been unsuccessful in tranche 10, they will have to make a new application, although I suspect many of them will not do that. Has it been the case that farmers have made new applications or did they just draw a line through it at that stage?

The closing date for those applications was extended to last Friday, 13 March. I am not sure if we know at this point precisely how many people have come back. We can probably follow up on that but it is a small number, based on what we have seen so far.

On the value of payments, a total of €142 million was issued to almost 16,000 farmers. My maths is not great but that works out at less than €10,000 per farmer.

It is an average payment of around €9,000.

Yes, there or there abouts. What would the average percentage be? Obviously there is a variation in that. The danger with an average is that it has a wide variance.

It hides a lot.

What percentage of payment would farmers be getting in respect of that? What percentage level would they be at or by how much would that vary?

Is the Deputy referring to the percentage level as in the contribution towards the cost of what is being funded?

Yes.

Depending on the type of investment, the grant aid is 40% or 60% of the cost.

The point I am making is that for some farmers, scale is going to be an issue. A farmer who has a difficulty in being able to find the other part of the payment may well be the farmer who needs the funding most and the one who is under most pressure. I appreciate that the weighting is towards the age of the farmer, but there is no weighting towards a sector, as such. Is that correct?

No, not on the sector. We do not have any system to divide out the sectors because-----

There is a mix-----

Yes, between one year and the next a farmer can slightly change the type of production system so that would not work. That is why we stuck to area. In terms of solar, obviously the larger the farm, the more demand that is there to install solar. Smaller farms do not have an electrical demand so, again, what would we be supporting in that? That is why we went with the more intensive farms, to try to have the large electrical demands covered.

Like all the previous speakers, I thank everybody for coming here today. My first question, given that we are talking about money here, is whether the Department can give us a cast-iron guarantee that no money will be sent back. We have been at meetings here recently and seen instances where Departments did not fully spend their money. That is the most important thing. We would not be able to stand over anything like that, with money being sent back and people ultimately not getting any money at all.

Why have there been persistent delays in TAMS applications and what concrete steps are being taken to eliminate the backlog?

I will get answers to my five questions first and then see how we are for time.

Will the officials outline the full administrative cost of running TAMS, relative to the value of grants approved, and justify the ratio? How does the Department ensure that smaller family farms rather than the larger and more capital-rich enterprises are benefiting from the TAMS fund prioritisation in the context of the scorecard? Has the Department conducted any equity assessments of the geographical or sectoral distribution of TAMS approvals? Will those results be published?

I will run through each question. First, the Deputy asked about the guarantee that money will not be sent back. Is he referring to EU money that is available to us in terms of-----

Yes.

The intention is that no EU money will be sent back. We will be spending all of the TAMS allocation we have.

The Deputy’s second question relates to the delays in the applications and the steps being taken to address them. In some ways, as I mentioned earlier, we have got through that phase now. We had a lot of delays at the start. This is a problem we had with other CSP schemes that were being introduced in 2023. They happened shortly after the plan was approved by the European Commission, which meant that we were rolling out the schemes at the same times as we were putting in the administrative structures and IT systems. That delayed us processing the applications for TAMS and getting approvals out. It also delayed us getting the claims and payments facilities in place as early as we would have liked. We have taken steps to address those issues, however. As I said earlier, we are now operating at full capacity. We are generating payments of up to €2 million per week. Our IT and approval and processing systems are functioning well. Those steps have been taken at this point and payments are going out on a regular basis.

What about the administrative costs?

When it comes to administrative costs relative to grants, I have not seen any assessment in that regard. I might follow this up for the Deputy and come back to him afterwards, if he does not mind. The administrative costs are essentially all consumed by the staffing costs of the people working on the schemes within the Department, both those in HQ processing the applications and those around all of our local offices, including the technical staff who work on the assessments of those applications. Off the top of my head, I do not think there are any other administrative costs associated with the processing of the applications.

That is grand. That answers the question.

I am not sure we have a disaggregated view of exactly what that looks like, but I can certainly check for the Deputy to see whether we have any information in that regard.

On ensuring that smaller family farms as opposed to large operations benefit from the scheme, Mr. John Muldowney spoke earlier about the ranking and selection criteria. It is fair to say that, across the board, the ranking and selection criteria militate in favour of smaller farms. The area component of the ranking and selection criteria gives a more favourable weighting to a smaller farm compared with a larger one. There is a combination of trying to help smaller farmers develop and targeting payments predominantly at younger farmers. They are the two elements of the overall ranking and selection process that apply.

For those young farmers who do not own a farm but who, rather, lease land, do the same criteria apply?

Yes. That is taken into account.

The Deputy’s final question concerned an equity assessment of the sectoral distribution of payments. Again, I do not think we have carried out an assessment of the relative breakdown across the sectors. Certainly, from an equity point of view, we could probably look at the profile of the beneficiaries or recipients of payments over a period, but it is not something we routinely do, as such. It could be useful in the context of informing the next iteration of TAMS after 2027.

My next question is one that I, as a public representative, am asked all the time. Given the inflation in construction equipment costs, will the Department commit to revising the ceilings relating to TAMS grants to reflect current market conditions?

When it comes to the inflation in costs, we have, and continue to, carry out reviews on the reference cost we use to determine the grant levels. We carried out a review of the reference cost in 2025, which came into effect in September when tranche 10 opened. In that review, we looked at the evidence we had, such as receipts that came into us in respect of investments that had been undertaken by farmers in the early part of TAMS and the impact that was having on overall costs. We have increased the reference costs and factored into-----

Even as we speak, people doing jobs who received assurances from suppliers are getting phone calls informing them of increases because of diesel prices and so forth. There is nothing they can do about that. In the next 48 hours, we should see something coming from the Government with regard to the price of fuel. The Government will definitely do something because it is causing a huge ripple effect. People might not understand it but this affects even the cost of materials going into buildings as we speak. I am hoping that something will be done in the next 24 to 36 hours.

Why has there been limited funding for low emission or renewable innovations under TAMS compared with traditional infrastructure grants?

I am not sure there has been limited funding. It is fair to say that infrastructure grants tend to be higher in terms of providing physical infrastructure on farms, whereas with the low emission slurry spreading, LESS, scheme, it is a different kind of expenditure. It is not as expensive or of the same order as infrastructural elements. The type of investment we are talking about must be looked at in the context of the appropriate level of grant or percentage of grant aid that should be made available for the different types of investment. In a broad sense, when we apply a 40% or 60% grant aid rate, it is then applied to the cost of that particular investment. It just so happens that the outlay for a number of the investments, such as mobile investments, LESS or other areas, is smaller than the infrastructure grants.

I will make one point. I presume Mr. Savage will understand it. Due to the complexities of the scheme, in most cases, people go out and get a professional to make the application on their behalf. At the end of the process, however, they might not get anything. That can happen. They might get passed on from one tranche to the next whereby they must reapply. As the Cathaoirleach said, some guarantee must be given to people who go out and spend money to make an application. At the end of it, they could get nothing. This is why there are pre-planning meetings because people are given a certain direction. For example, people about to spend between €5,000 and €7,000 on a planning application are guaranteed a particular result at the end of it, having invested their money. It is the same in this context. It is very frustrating for farmers, especially younger farmers who are finding it difficult with the price of milk and so forth this year. They seem to be under huge pressure. I am talking about small family farms here. Two people came into my office in the past two days in respect of this issue.

It is not possible to give an absolute guarantee to everyone who might consider making an application to a particular scheme that they will be approved. A lot of different criteria apply. There are different circumstances as to why someone may or may not apply or qualify for a grant. Added to this is the limited availability of funds under TAMS. The decision has to be based on the volume of participation and demand. When the applications come in with each tranche, we must look at the overall budgetary profile and decide whether to apply ranking and selection. It would be difficult to give anyone a cast-iron guarantee upfront that they would always be successful in making an application. There are too many factors at play.

What about when they are ticking all the boxes and have done everything right? I understand circumstances where that is not the case. It happened to me many times. When people are ticking all the boxes, however, they would hope to be able to be in position to be approved. It must be remembered that, at the other end, they have to put in their money and make sure it is available. That is all I am saying.

If the money were endless and it were guaranteed that there would be no issues, then maybe that would be possible. The fact is that we have to work within budgetary constraints. It is not possible to absolutely guarantee-----

The scorecard can be difficult as well. It is difficult for people to understand.

Is the Deputy referring to the ranking and selection criteria?

Yes. It is difficult. People are frustrated. My time is up. Will there be another round?

Yes.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I thank Mr. Savage for his opening statement. I agree with him that TAMS continues to be a hugely successful and important scheme. It helps and supports farmers to upgrade and invest in their holdings, which will be vital going forward. One concern people raise with me relates to the delay in hearing back from the Department. I am aware of one farmer who made his application in June of last year.

The next contact he had from the Department was in March 2026. In that contact, the Department was looking for information he had already put in his application. What action can be taken to solve this sort of unacceptable delay?

If there are particular cases of individuals experiencing difficulties or extended delays with their applications, we can look into what exactly the reason for that is. It is probably fair to say that most of the delays and problems we have had with practically all of the tranches of applications we have launched so far have stemmed from the delay in getting the administration and IT systems in place in the first place. In regard to the schemes that opened between February and June 2023, it took time to get the approvals out, which happened at the end of 2023, and then it was 2024 before the claims and payment systems were up and running. The vast majority of cases should have had any issues they experienced during that period fully resolved at this point. If there are particular cases that have suffered delays we would certainly like to hear about them, follow them up and try to resolve whatever the issue is.

I do not know what the details of this particular case are. It could have been to do with anything related to the application which might have been at headquarters level in Wexford - with us - or in the local office when that application was being followed up in terms of assessment. I do not know what precisely the reasons were. If the Deputy shares the details of the case after the meeting, I will be happy to follow up on it.

In a general sense, we are working through this and our processes are working well in all of the systems now. We have a commitment as to how soon we can turn around approvals, claims and payments and how quickly we can get through full processing of the application as well.

My belief is that some of these people had the information in their applications and the Department came back to them looking for the same information to be put in again, which was disappointing and put extra work on the people who made the application for the funding.

I would be surprised if it was the case that we were going back and looking for information that was already there. I am sure there was a good reason we went back looking for more information or why the particular application took a little bit of time to get to the point it did. That is why I would be happy to follow up on that specific case.

No problem. It is very difficult to get information on why applications were rejected and what the issues were. Could there be more transparency between the Department and the people who make the applications in order to give them information on why they were rejected?

I do not think there are specific reasons. Will Mr. McGeever cover this in terms of the correspondence we engage in with the unsuccessful applicants who have lost out during the selection process? I am not quite sure what level of detail we go into in those cases. Will Mr. McGeever explain that?

In a particular case where we might have a query with an applicant, we would write to them and give them a period of time - ten days - to reply. It is only after that, if we get no reply, that we would consider rejecting the case. If we do reject an applicant, we would outline why the application was rejected. That is at the administration stage. If the application passes through that stage, it would move on to the local office for a further technical check. If there is any issue at that stage, the applicant would be communicated with. If we could have details of this particular case, we will certainly look into it.

No problem. I thank Mr. McGeever. There seems to be an issue in regard to payments, with a backlog and people waiting for payments. Could that be simplified? What are the witnesses' views on that?

Yes, we can look at that issue. It is fair to say that our payments are going out at a very high rate and at a rapid rate at the moment. Normally, we commit to making payments within two months of the receipt of the claim under the farmers' charter, if I am right. At the moment we are hitting that target, by and large. Well over half of claimants are receiving payments well within that timeline. We are looking at improving the systems and the processes as best we can as we go along. The changes we made and the deployment of the systems we put in place in late 2024 and into 2025 are generally working pretty effectively. We are doing our utmost to try to make sure we are keeping to those timelines as far as payments going out are concerned.

That is very good. We hear a lot of talk about farm generational renewal. The Minister published a report on this measure last year, as we are well aware. How many applications were made under the young farmer and the women farmer capital investment schemes?

I am looking at figures as of last week. The total number of applications made under the women farmer capital investment scheme to date is 2,633. Under the young farmer capital investment scheme, it is just under 3,500. We have had just over 6,000 applications between those two categories.

That is a large amount.

Yes, it is a large amount. In terms of the young farmer capital investment scheme, for instance, we have had payments to date totalling just under €17 million and for the women farmer capital investment scheme, we have had payments of just over €10 million.

I believe there is a set amount of funding available but if we are to be serious about farm generational renewal, how can we justify capping the selection if these applications are at 80%? We are well aware that people will lose out and we are trying to encourage young people to get into farming.

Yes, and again it has been the case that the Minister has decided to try to balance all of the criteria and different objectives as best he can while staying within the budgetary limits we have. The criteria within the scheme give favouritism and more weight to young farmers. For instance, in the ranking of selection criteria there is a heavier weight given to young farmers. There is a young farmer provision across a number of schemes that allows people to get priority access to the grants under those schemes as well.

In terms of women farmers, we have a separate women farmer capital investment scheme. What we tried to do, and what the Minister decided, particularly in the context of the nutrient storage investments as well as part of tranche 10, was to keep the rate of ranking in the selection criteria higher for those categories than would be the case for a lot of other categories such as solar and LESS.

The intention is to try to balance the criteria as best we can, satisfying the requirements of those groups while at the same time trying to live within the budgetary limits we have.

I would say it is very important to keep encouraging young people to get involved in farming, which we want to see going forward. I thank the witnesses for their time.

I thank the Chair and I thank Mr. Savage and his team for coming in today. I want to acknowledge the success of TAMS. It has been very successful over a number of years and it shows the commitment farmers have to investing in their farms and in sustainability measures. At a time when farmers are often hammered on sustainability grounds, it is interesting that we have schemes here, particularly the solar scheme, where the demand is so great that the Government and the State cannot actually supply that demand. That needs to be recognised here, across the media and in many other parts of public life.

I want to echo the frustration that has been alluded to by several Deputies. I spoke to a number of farmers over a number of weeks and there is a lot of frustration out there when farmers make applications and spend a lot of time and money. A lot of hope goes into those applications and there is frustration out there about this. I have a question for Mr. Savage. There have been about 59,000 applications submitted for TAMS 3 and 16,000 of them have been successful. That is about 27% so far, and at the moment about 73% applications are either pending, in the process or unsuccessful. Is that the case?

I have checked the figures here again for the Deputy. Altogether, we have had just over 59,000 applications in and 43,000 approvals have been issued across those 59,000 applications.

There have been 43,000 applications approved.

Yes, 43,000 were approved.

Is this in TAMS 3?

Yes.

To date, the total number of the claims we have received has been 18,500. The total number paid is 16,000. We are quite up to speed with the number of claims that we have received. Not every application and not every approval turns into an investment. Of the number we have approved, we have had about 8,300 approvals that have now expired and were not followed up with an investment. Not every application leads to a follow-on claim for payment for instance because the investment is not pursued by the farmer. In an overall sense, based on the approvals on that have gone out, the claims that have been made for payment were quite close to the number of claims that we have received that we have actually paid. There is a lag there because when we give the approvals, people have 12 months to make the investment. Sometimes that is extended by a further period of up to six months, then we make the payments when the claims are made showing evidence of the investment having been carried out. We check to make sure that is the case.

Last week, Deputy Aird made a very good point. He asked the Minister about where the money goes when farmers are fined. The Minister was unclear. It appeared that there may have been some money going back to Europe in relation to it. Given that the scheme is obviously oversubscribed in that we are now trying to cut the cloth to measure, is it possible that the money be redirected into TAMS as opposed to going back into a central pot and into European funds?

Off the top of my head, I do not think it can. I would have check precisely on the legality or procedural elements of that, particularly in relation to EU funding. We have to account for expenditure under each heading. If we have expenditure allocated which is spent on particular schemes and if penalties are incurred by individuals, that is effectively reduced from that particular scheme-----

Could that be looked into by the Department's officials?

We could have a look at that.

At the moment, we are a net contributor to the European Union. We are one of the highest per capita in Europe. We receive the vast of majority what we get from the EU via the CAP. To think that there is money being sent back is bitterly disappointing at a time when farmers are trying to get on schemes and cannot get on schemes because the money is not there. Could that be looked at to see whether all those fines could be redirected within agri schemes in Ireland?

I will have a look at what exactly the provisions are that relate to the handling and processing of penalties. In the context of TAMS for instance and in answer to the question that was asked earlier, no money is being sent back or not being spent in terms of TAMS. All that money-----

I am referring to other penalties that TAMS could desperately use.

There is very limited scope for that, if any, but I can certainly check on that.

I ask the Department to furnish the committee with the number of fines that are collected on a yearly basis, the proportion of those fines that are sent back to the EU and where the remaining money goes.

We can do that.

Mr. Savage cannot speak on an individual or specific basis, but what advice would he give to farmers or farm advisers? For example, in relation to the solar capital investment scheme my understanding from speaking with farmers and farm advisers is that there is a success rate at present of about 25%. For every four applications they submit, they are seeing one of those being successful. In fairness, others are still in the process. What advice is the Department giving to farm advisers and farmers in that regard? What is the likelihood of success? What are the criteria in relation to it?

The likelihood of success over the first eight tranches was pretty much 100% if the applicant had an eligible application. In those cases, people were getting the application approved. On foot of tranches 9 and 10, there is no particular advice that we are giving to advisers in terms of increasing the chances of somebody necessarily being successful. The point is that people have to submit the application. They should submit it in its entirety completely in accordance with the requirements of the terms and conditions of the scheme. We apply the ranking and selection process to it as we normally would do.

Regarding our engagement with advisers and others, we simply keep them abreast on what is happening in the scheme. We do not advise them as to what they should advise their clients and whether they should lodge an application. Advisers are clear and understand what is happening in the schemes, how they are being administered and what we are doing in terms of ranking and selection. Advisers will advise their clients accordingly.

If a person is an adviser and he or she is seeing that 75% of the applicants are not getting over the line, what is the advice? Farmers are coming and asking to put in an application. They are spending money on applications. As Deputy Aird mentioned earlier, if one is looking for planning permission for a house, he or she can go to a preplanning meeting and sit down with a planner, and they will give an indication whether X type of house would likely to be considered. I am asking because the money is tight, and the scheme is very different. Mr. Savage mentioned that it would have been 100% in the first eight tranches. The next couple of years will be very different.

I would not presume to give advisers advice about what they should say to their clients. All we can do within the Department is run the scheme in accordance with the criteria that we have and the limitations that govern the scheme, including budgetary constraints. Advisers are aware of that. Regarding the experience that advisers and farmers had in TAMS II where we were applying ranking and selection from the midway point of that scheme for the last couple of years of TAMS II, there is an understanding out there and appreciation among advisers and farmers that it is not guaranteed that an application for TAMS would necessarily be successful. There is a history of this being the case in terms of processing of the TAMS. Advisers are probably well placed to be able to advise farmers accordingly.

I am not so sure. They can advise farmers on the technical aspect. They cannot advise farmers on the likelihood. I appreciate that Mr. Savage cannot see the future either. He mentioned that there has been reduction of 90% applied to the expenditure of the solar capital investment scheme. Will Mr. Savage outline what he means by that?

What I mean by that is it is instead of having a default value of 100%, in other words, where we take every application and approve all applications. That is what happened over the first eight tranches. Effectively, ranking and selection is applied at a rate of 100% because nobody is excluded. What is happening now is that ranking, and selection is essentially saying that we are only selecting 10% of the applications under the solar capital investment heading. That is effectively a 90% reduction on what would have been the case previously. It is 90% reduction from 100%.

In the next tranches, is it that 10% of applicants on that scheme will be considered or likely approved?

A total of 10% will be approved.

There will be an opportunity to come back in.

I am in the same vein as Deputy Lawless. I had fellows who were refused for whatever tranche they were in last September. We tried to ascertain where they fell down and why they were not approved. We could not get any direct answer as to what was wrong or what was missing or even where the goalpost was. We got an answer back to the tune of stating the applicant can leave his application in place and put it in for the next tranche or he can make a further investment and apply with a new application. That is not transparency. It is not very clear for an applicant who is spending money and holding up a job, which is a job that he badly wants to do to help the environment and everything like that. To say that it is set down at the end of it, then again, the Minister could apply new rankings to the next tranche. In other words, the Minister could move goalposts down further altogether. I would rather that the Department be straight up with people and tell them it cannot take their application at this time.

Try to just say that such a fellow is entitled to come in with an application at such a date, or something like that, rather than him putting in the same application or a different kind of an application, while the person still does not know, and will not know, if he is going to jump the bar or not. I am concerned about that kind of a story. As has been said here already, where are we going when 90% of the solar issue will not be accepted at all? It is up in a heap, to be honest. To be fair to progressive farmers, tell them what the portion is and tell them what they are short. This man did not know what he was short, and I know a few who are the same. Tell me a bit more of what you are at.

I will let others come in with more detail on the criteria. However, if we take the solar capital investment scheme, for instance, there is a range of criteria Mr. Muldowney referred to earlier on, from the age of the applicant to the size of the holding, production units, whether it is in an ANC area, for instance, and what its nitrate situation is in terms of stocking. When it comes down to the ranking and selection, if there is a very high number of applications, it is a very fine line in terms of the marks given across each of those criteria to individual applicants. In terms of us explaining to people where they fell short, where they would have fallen short was where the area was a factor or the applicant was not a young farmer but was over 40 years of age. That might have affected the overall distribution of marks. We can look at that. We do not really say to people when-----

Could it be the case that there are too many applicants for that particular tranche? It is very hard for the likes of us when we are going around doors looking for votes at election time when we hear people say such a fellow down the road got the very same thing, and they did not get it at all, and they asked about it and they are still in the same place; they never moved. Sure, almighty God, there must be some set of criteria or guidelines that a fellow will have to obtain or should obtain, and if he gets those, he should be told the Department does not have the money for him at this stage and close with that until it is able to give him the money. Advertising for another tranche and putting more fellows in is like putting more players on the pitch when there are others left behind. I cannot figure out how that is fair at all.

It goes back to the fact that it is a demand-led scheme. We do not know how many applications will come in from applicants under each heading. We do not know how many people will apply for each individual scheme over the course of a tranche. It is difficult to predict in advance whether we might have to apply ranking and selection in order to control expenditure in that particular tranche. We have to wait and see what the profile of the applications that come in are.

This has got away from me altogether because there should be a set of rules, and if it passes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and a person does not get it, it is very wrong to tell a fellow that there may be different rankings in the next tranche or the Minister may interpret the rankings differently in the next tranche and somebody else may pass him out and he may not get it. The same rule should apply for every man and woman going for the scheme. If the Department does not have the money, it should people them that and not tell a person a story that he missed it by point something, and not even tell him what the point something is.

I take the point-----

Sure it would drive you round the bend. It would drive me round the bend when I have two girls at it and I am trying to get an answer for this fellow. This fellow voted for me before, and I am very doubtful that he will the next time when someone down the road is after getting the bloody thing and he cannot get it. Sure, I mean, be fair about it or do not have it at all. Give it up and finish it up and say there is not enough money for it.

There is money available but there is not enough to approve every single eligible application that comes in, which was the case over the first eight tranches but is no longer the case now. The terms and conditions of the scheme, in other words the standing criteria that govern the operation the scheme, apply equally to everybody and are applied equally to everybody, wherever they live and whatever proximity they might live to each other. The question is when it comes to managing the budget. We have to do it in a way that essentially only allows for a certain proportion of the people who apply for that scheme to be chosen, and that is where we use the ranking and selection criteria. The ranking and selection criteria are available on the Department's website and are in the terms and conditions of the scheme. They are available to every applicant. It is made clear to everybody who wants to participate in TAMS what the ranking and selection criteria are as well as the terms and conditions of the scheme, and they are applied equally to everybody. It is just that the ranking and selection criteria will determine and whittle down the number of applicants depending on what particular category they fall into, whether they are an older or younger farmer-----

It is the biggest circus of a story I ever heard. It is like telling the lads we know in Kilgarvan who play 31 that when they get so many tricks they will reach 31, but when they are dealt the next hand it could be 35 or it could be 36. That is the biggest cock-and-bull story I ever heard. Either a fellow reaches the criteria or set of guidelines or he does not. To change the guidelines according to the number of people applying for it, give it up and forget about it, because there are people going mad over this.

To reiterate, the guidelines are not being changed in the sense that the terms and conditions remain the same for everybody. The terms and conditions of the scheme are applied to everybody. It is just that when the budget is limited and we have to cut back on the number that can be approved, we use the ranking and selection criteria set out in the terms and conditions.

The Department is changing the goalposts to suit the amount of money it has.

Again, we do not know that we will have to apply those ranking and selection criteria until we see the profile and number of applications which come in and the number of schemes they are applying for. It is only then that we can assess whether it is necessary to apply ranking and selection.

This man was told he was short so many percentage of whatever it was, and instead of telling him what that amounted to, he was told he could apply again in the next tranche with the same application, letting it go forward, or add in another investment and apply under a new application. That is not fair. I have not one bit in the world personal against any one of the witnesses, but whoever sent them out to operate this kind of a scheme is wrong because this is not fair, in my mind anyway.

Mr. Savage mentioned that, from 1 to 8, there was basically 100% approval if the person satisfied the eligibility and so on. However, in the solar scheme it is down to 10%. It has gone from 100% from 1 to 8 and now, in tranche 10, it is only 10%. That is a massive reduction.

It is, but it reflects the number of applications. Approximately 20% of all of the money we have paid out on TAMS so far has gone to solar capital investment scheme applicants. As the Deputy can see, there has been a very big uptake as far as solar capital is concerned. When we have a limited budget from here on in terms of TAMS, choices have to be made about where attention is focused. There are huge demands in relation to nutrient and slurry storage. The Minister has tried to focus the attention as far as the budget is concerned on those areas and farm safety in particular.

Could it not have been predicted from previous schemes that there would need to be adjustment made earlier? It seems like the person who is applying today or next month or in tranche 10, is the person who is basically hammered. He most likely will not get it. Nine times out of ten he will not get it whereas, had he applied six months previously or a year previously, he would have been approved.

There seems to be an unfairness there in the sense that we are now in an energy crisis. We are hammering people. The carbon tax will rise again in May and we are pushing people towards this agenda, but then on the other hand, 90% will fail. It does not make sense to me.

As the Deputy put it, they will fail in terms of the 10% being applied, in the interest of focusing the available funding on investments the Minister wants to prioritise for nutrient storage, which is also critical, as is the issue of farm safety.

It is difficult to make money spread across all requirements and it has been a case of having to prioritise the focus of the expenditure over the past two tranches. For those who fail to qualify under the solar capital investment scheme, there are still options to avail of with the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, which I mentioned earlier, in respect of availing of available grants to provide solar power to both dwelling houses and farms.

There are other alternatives for people.

I just want to make this point, and Mr. Savage might feed this back to the Minister, Deputy Heydon, and his officials. It is very frustrating when there is countryside across Ireland where solar farms are popping up on hundreds of acres with thousands of panels. It has been bought up by and leased from foreign corporations, and it is happening right across the country. There is going to be an acceleration over years unless we get to grips with it. That is on the one hand.

Then, on the other, farmers are applying for the solar investment scheme, but the money is running out and only 10% will be successful. That is fundamentally wrong and unjust. Farmers want to be more sustainable, they want to develop renewals and they are not allowed because of the TAMS scheme.

I will be feeding this back to the Minister, but I would appreciate if Mr. Savage and his officials could also do so.

I will take that away. The one point I will close on is that it is also a reflection of the massive success of the scheme to date. That is, the huge numbers that have come into the scheme and have effectively been approved in the first eight tranches, which has resulted in us having to manage the budget much more carefully.

To add to that, we have many people who would apply but there is no connection to the grid.

That is a different grant scheme.

For the solar panel scheme, there are many people who could and would apply, but they cannot apply for this TAMS grant because there is no connection to the grid.

Can I please ask a question that I asked originally?

When the Deputy talks about the connection to the grid, the TAMS grant is there to support the use of solar electricity and energy on the farm and in the domestic dwelling. The connection to the grid is a secondary issue in terms of us trying to secure the fact they have got renewable energy being used on the farm.

If there is excess energy that is apart from what is used on that farm, in the house or industrial building or whatever it is, it is of no use. There would be pay back out of that if there was a connection to the grid, but in a lot of instances there is not.

That is an instance where you may have an overproduction at any given time during the year. As long as you stay within the overall average expected power generation you have identified in your application, then there is no issue. Yes, that would be a problem if you did not have a connection to the grid, but that is not something that is provided for or facilitated for under the TAMS scheme.

I know but it is stopping people from applying for the TAMS grant and solar in the first place.

Yes, perhaps so.

May I ask a question please? Is the administrative cost to the Department taken out of the money that comes under the CAP budget for this scheme?

No.

If there is €200 million that comes in under the heading, do the farmers get the entire €200 million into their pockets?

Yes, it all goes into the grants. The Department does not spend any of that money itself.

Does the Department spend any of that money on wages or anything like that?

No. Our wages are paid out of a separate administrative budget and do not directly come out of CAP funding at all.

I was just concerned with what happened earlier in the year as regards the ACRES scheme and the huge delay in that and why it was happening. I have asked the question now and got the answer.

The delay in the ACRES scheme was separate. We had issues with our IT systems and our administrative systems going into place at the right time.

Under the new guidelines that have come in from the Department as regards not needing planning permission for storage, is Mr. Savage in agreement with that? The farmer does not have to apply now for planning permission.

You do not need to get planning permission, but you need to get a certificate of exemption from the local authority. You need to have certification from the local authority that no planning------

Is the Department having a problem with that? The question I asked was if the Department is having problems with that.

No.

There is none. That is grand.

Not that we are seeing from a TAMS perspective.

Is the Department getting the certificates in from the local authorities?

Yes.

I just wanted to check with the witness that it was working because that is what people ask me.

At this stage, the Department nearly know that all these schemes coming in are going to be oversubscribed. Every person is under pressure to get more nutrient storage and to get in solar panels to reduce their costs. This is all about cost-based systems. Everybody is making the application in order to try to improve their own farm or whatever the case may be.

The situation arriving at present is there are too many applications coming in. The Department is saying it does not have the money so it is going to dilute it or it does not know so put the application in again. Surely, there is a better system. That is the first question.

Second, if person A has drawn down money under two or three of the tranches, and person B makes an application who has got no money yet, does the Department look into that situation?

Not as part of the ranking and selection process. There is a limit of up to a €90,000 ceiling which people can avail of, so you can make multiple applications in TAMS up to a ceiling of €90,000 and then we have a separate ceiling of €90,000 for some investments, like the nutrient storage, for instance.

In the ranking and selection, there is not any particular criterion which says that because you might have applied for another scheme previously, that you would be in some way-----

I did have a person-----

That is only when you meet the €90,000 ceiling.

I know that, but I had a person with me the other day who has come in now and has only got the release of the farm. Everything is sorted out. He is a young farmer and ticks all the boxes for everything. They are only starting now, so they are going to be at a huge disadvantage.

Do they get any priority, having drawn no money yet?

Is it a young farmer?

Yes.

Young farmers get priority in the ranking and selection process.

I understand in the ranking and the scorecard, but the question I am asking Mr. Savage is if you are starting today, and other people have started years ago, if you are only up and running and you make an application to the TAMS, will you get any priority because you have never drawn down any money?

No, there is nothing in the ranking and selection that gives you any priority because you have not drawn down money before or because you are a relatively recent entrant. It is about your age and whether you are below or above 40 years of age.

You can be up to your €90,000, or up to €80,000 drawn down, and another person coming in has no money drawn, but it is the same criteria.

Yes, it could be.

All I am asking is for the Department to have a look at that, because itnlooks like it is going to always be the situation - and it is getting worse - that people who are making the applications do not know whether they are going to get anything. That is the problem out there right now.

You do not just decide at breakfast in the morning that you are going to do something. This is something that is discussed in terms of how much money it is, if you have the available money to match the funding you are going to get from TAMS, or whatever the case may be. You do all of that, put all your ducks in place and then at the end of it, you have nothing. That is difficult.

When I was starting off as a very young farmer, you were always guaranteed your money with the schemes out there then, provided you did everything right if you understand me. Now, you do everything right and you still get nothing. You can be a new entrant today - and that is the huge thing - starting off in farming, and the chances are you might get nothing or very little.

The Department needs to look at this and come back, given the fact it has been oversubscribed. It was the same with the sheep scheme. That was oversubscribed, so what did the Department do? It put €5 on every ewe. To me, this was absolutely ridiculous. This is where the whole thing was coming in from, and there was money sent back in other schemes.

We have to look at this and be fair to the person who is wearing the boots on the ground and doing the work. We have to remember that. Those people out there are investing in their farms and in what they have to do to get a sustainable income.

That is what they have to do it for. They have all the conditions on this side then telling them they have to do this to tick all the boxes. My point is that the Department has to be fair, and it has to be fair with the younger people who are coming up as well. We have to be fair to them. We are talking about trying to encourage young people into farming. There are schemes out there; people are sitting at home today thinking that they are not going to get anything because they are oversubscribed and there is nothing for them. The Department has got to look at this going forward. The next tranche is going to be the very same. It will actually be worse because we are getting worse. More and more people want to get into these because of the conditions that are required under farming. The nitrates one is a typical example. We can see the number of people. There are a number of applications in under nitrates because they need more capacity. That is why the whole thing makes sense. The Department has come out and seen the necessity to do this; cut the red tape, tell people they can go ahead and put down their tank and they do not need planning permission. It is to try to encourage people. The end result would be quicker. Now, what happens? They can go ahead, but they have no money. That is the point I am making to Mr. Savage. I want him to look at that. Unless people are involved in farming and have the boots on the ground, they might not understand that. That is why I am trying to explain it to him-----

Absolutely, yes.

-----that the Department needs to encourage these people and it needs to provide money and have safeguards for them. That is what I am asking.

Absolutely, I take on board all of the Deputy's comments. We are constantly reviewing these things and we will be reviewing TAMS as well in the context of the next CAP strategic plan, CSP. These are all things we will reflect on in the context of doing that.

However, then-----

On the nutrient storage point the Deputy made at the end, even in the context of the very constrained budget we have at the moment, the Minister made the decision to prioritise the nutrient storage investments. The ranking selection was still applied at a rate of 60%, but it was not as severe as some other schemes in terms of the rate at which the ranking and selection was applied. Therefore, the Minister did make a conscious decision, given the factors the Deputy talked about, to prioritise investment in nutrient storage. That has been reflected in how tranche 10 has now been decided upon in terms of ranking and selection.

People can still be left out of it.

They can, yes. They can still be-----

That is my point. They can be left out of it.

That is purely again despite the fact that there is not enough-----

However, then everybody is talking through two sides of their mouths. The Department either wants young people to get into farming or it does not. Here is one of the areas where we are trying to encourage them in and trying to do something. Then, people sit around the table but those farmers are not going to get any money; they cannot do it and ask what do they do? They cannot make a living. I am talking about a person who might be starting off milking 40 or 50 cows and wants to go up to 70 cows or whatever. He is trying to get a weekly income for himself and his family and decide on a future. Then, he is told there is nothing for him and that we are not prioritising him. We talk the whole time here about trying to encourage young people in. What I am trying to say to Mr. Savage is that there should be joined-up thinking. The Department of housing had joined-up thinking when it said we need to encourage people and we need to do this right, and what it was going to try to do was have exemptions for planning for slurry storage. That is coming from the Department of housing. The Department of agriculture, on the other hand, said they can but it has no money to give to those people. That is it. It is very disappointing.

I thank Deputy Aird. There are two or three points to clarify, please, before I go on to Senator Duffy.

One of the aspects of the ranking is on age and another is a weighting on the size of the farm. Is there consideration taken of the fact that, say, a person could own half the side of a mountain and it is not exactly productive ground? It could appear on paper as being quite a large farm where the viability might be the same as a far smaller farm. I am thinking, for example, of somebody milking cows and owning the mountain between Deputy Healy-Rae and I and it appears as several hundred acres of fionnán and the grassed fields below are only viable for milking cows.

For the purpose of ranking and selection in TAMS, every hectare is the same so the most recent basic income support for sustainability, BISS, application is the area that contributes to that. Again, as has been said, the smaller the holding, the more marks. It is about size. Again, we are working towards supporting the smaller holding that needs support. The larger holding can generally manage on its own and take the-----

Would that not mean that it will go against the sheep farmer in Ballingeary with the side of the mountain?

Points can also gather on areas of natural constraint, ANC. There is a sliding scale on ANC. The more land people have as ANC, the more marks they get. That would counterbalance that in the case of those people.

When the Department is not approving 90% of the solar grants, is it steering people over to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, to apply for a grant there to do work? It is not exactly spending all its money that is available to it either.

We are not consciously directing people towards the SEAI. Those options are available to them as alternatives if they wish to explore them but certainly, in the case of us telling somebody that they would not have qualified on foot of the ranking and selection criteria, we would only be directing them-----

Is there an SEAI grant that people can apply for to do the job in the yard?

Yes. It is called a non-domestic microgen grant, which people can apply to the SEAI for, which comes-----

The Department's purpose is to serve farmers. Is there any indication of how many of its clients are actually going over there and if they are getting grants at that stage?

The figure we have from the SEAI is that it has over 200 applications from agricultural enterprises. Of those, over 160 have got payment approval already. Again, they are significantly bigger holdings and bigger investments that it is doing.

These 200-odd applicants are people from-----

The agricultural community.

-----TAMS.

I do not know if they are from TAMS, but I know they are agricultural.

Is the 200 a recent figure or has it increased since the TAMS refusals?

It is recent; it is the figure in the last couple of weeks.

Okay, so, people are moving to that scheme.

Again, I do not have an indication-----

It would appear-----

Yes.

It could possibly be.

We do not direct them in that direction and we do not know ourselves. We do not keep any data or figures in terms of who may have gone to the SEAI, for instance, having been rejected from TAMS. We do not follow any of that. It is up to the person themselves.

Those farmers are the Department's reason to exist. Its whole function is to serve farmers. It would be important to track if they are getting a grant somewhere if they are not getting it from the Department and to share the information between the Department and the SEAI to ensure that they stay in farming and that they are there to keep the Department's reason to be.

Again, our biggest issue at the moment is to make sure they were not receiving a claim or grant under two different schemes.

A duplication.

We have that interest in it, but we do not track between the two if they are not funded by us and they have gone somewhere else. Again, it is only something new that is occurring at the moment. That is quite a significant grant that they have on the SEAI side. It is there, so it is well worth looking at.

I thank Mr. Muldowney.

I welcome Mr. Fleming, Mr. Muldowney, Mr. Savage, Mr. McGeever and Dr. Brennan. I thank them for being here this afternoon.

Obviously, the TAMS grants are very worthwhile and beneficial to farmers if they can access them, and the €88 million investment this year is very positive. I want to focus specifically on the installation of solar on farm holdings. There have been a number of instances that have been brought to my attention. I am a representative based in County Mayo. There have been a number of instances where people have installed solar with a recommended provider that is detailed by the Department. They have paid the contractor and received a grant but the works have been substandard and have, in some instances, cost tens of thousands of euro of damage where the solar panels were not installed correctly and did not function. What supports, structures or mechanisms are in place currently to protect farmers in instances like this given the fact that these providers would have been recommended by the Department?

Arrangements are in place in terms of people having insurance, for instance, to cover the use of contractors or specialists to install this equipment. Therefore, whatever company is used to install the solar panels would normally have insurance to cover any incidents or issues that might arise from the installation of those panels as far as I am aware. There is not anything in particular in the context of TAMS that we provide additional support to people who might claim there has been any issue or other matter arising from the installation of the facility on the farm. Once it has been carried out by a registered electrician or suitably qualified people, that is all we want to know.

They have to submit and show that to the Department at the time of installation. I would have thought that any commercial or private company involved in doing so should have insurance or another mechanism in place to deal with any claim or otherwise from anybody where anything was installed incorrectly.

Should the due diligence not be on the part of the Department, considering it is giving the list of contractors? If the Department is detailing and instructing farmers to go with certain contractors and they then do a substandard job, is the liability not with the Department for instructing the farmers to go with those contractors?

I do not think liability is with the Department at all. We are recommending that people be selected from an approved list of contractors-----

What is the due diligence on that approved list if the works have been substandard and caused significant damage to the farm holdings?

The due diligence is on the list, putting together the list and making sure the list is of suitably qualified people. As long as the Department is happy that list is comprised of suitably qualified people, that is the extent of the Department's due diligence requirements. That is-----

Whose responsibility is it to compile that list of recommended contractors?

Is it the SEAI? I am not sure what body it is.

We have an agricultural list for TAMS. It is for the purpose of providing farmers with a point of contact. Inclusion on the list can be very basic from the point of view of ensuring-----

Is it a point of contact or is it a specific list? It is more than just being helpful and providing a range of contractors. It specifies these are the only contractors that are to be used. Is that right?

Yes.

So, it is not signposting and is actually a specified list. You could have an excellent contractor but they may not be included on that list.

Yes, but the contractor still has to have an electrician working with them. There are multiple components of that and once a farmer submits the initial application, it could change to the team who delivered the final project for the farmer as well.

This is really important in terms of having contractors who are linking in or have within their own wheelhouse electricians who can oversee the end-to-end delivery of it. This issue has arisen on a number of occasions and has come to me on both farming matters and domestic matters, where people have installed solar panels with the hope of then connecting up with the NC6 form if it is a domestic dwelling or with a farm connection only to then be told the contractor, who did not have an electrician, was not signed off on properly and they cannot benefit from the support.

Have there been any contractors who have been removed from the recommended list? Has the Department received any complaints about the standard of contractors it has specified that farmers use? Will there be any change to that list because of poor workmanship?

The list is maintained by our engineering unit. It would be updated. If we have problems with someone or they are made known to us, we can review that and they can be removed from the list, but we have not done it so far. Part of the NC6 issue the Senator mentioned would be that we want the NC6 to come in before approval. We want all of that paperwork in before approval so that those issues would not arise.

On certification, everyone must be Safe Electric certified. There are certificate No. 3s and the test and commissioning certificates, which all have to be fully filled in and put in with the claim as well. The installation must be fully certified and signed off by a Safe Electric-registered electrician in Ireland or it will not be paid.

No one has been removed from the list as of yet and there have been not been any complaints about contractors.

Not to my knowledge.

Does the Department carry out inspections on the standard of works?

Inspections are carried out at the usual risk analysis rate. There is a 5% risk analysis rate of on-the-ground inspections-----

What does an 85% risk analysis mean?

The figure is 5%.

It is 5% of-----

Of the population that come in for-----

-----TAMS beneficiaries.

Yes.

Has that brought forward any issues or concerns in terms of the standard of some of the contractors? The reason I am asking these questions is I just want best practice for farmers. There have been incidences where they have been short-changed and their properties have been damaged because of contractors that have been specified by the Department but have failed because of poor workmanship. I believe there is an insurance indemnity with TAMS. Is that right?

There is an indemnity as part of the terms and conditions.

In instances like I have outlined, would that not be an eligible mechanism or structure for a farmer whose property was damaged by a contractor who had carried out poor workmanship on the holding? Would that be an example where they would be able to benefit from the indemnity that is there to protect the farmer?

The indemnity is to be held by the solar provider and the electricians have their own. It is not that we have the indemnity on our end.

I asked about the indemnity that was there. What is that for?

The indemnity is to allow a solar contractor to be on the list. We check that they have appropriate insurance. The signal is that it is between the farmer and the contractor to ensure they are happy. If there are issues, it is between the farmer and provider of that service where there is an issue to follow up. That is the line we will be taking on all that sort of work. We do the same with farm building work. If the builder does something wrong, it is between the farmer and the builder, not us. We are parallel to that.

I know but the fly in the ointment is where the Department has specified the contractors to use. Like I said, you could have the best in class not included on that list but there could be someone who is clearly doing poor and shoddy work. It is a risk to life, basically, especially with solar and electrical works if they fail. Where is the due diligence-----

On solar, we use Safe Electric electricians. It is Safe Electric that carries out the checks on the quality of the work that is done. We are checking that the certification is in place. That is what our officers do. We are not checking the electrical detail that is there. That is confirmed to us by having Safe Electric certificates on file that show the work is complete.

Okay. In instances where the certificates are there but the work is substandard, is there a mechanism in place to remove those contractors from the list if they are causing risk of damage to property, risk to life and damage to-----

If issues come back to us, they can be looked at at any time.

The term "looked at" is vague enough. Is there a mechanism to have an ongoing review of contractors?

We do not have an ongoing review of contractors. If new contractors come in to be added to the list, they are then reviewed to see if they go on the list. For contractors that are already on the list, we do not have a review or we do not review-----

Nobody gets removed from the list is what Mr. Fleming is saying.

Not unless there are issues and they are reported to us, but I am not aware of that having happened to date.

Have people had their grants refused as a result of an installation issue?

No, the grant has not been refused. With the inspection process and different eligibility criteria, there is a penalty schedule with different penalties. Eligibility issues can arise at inspection, and on the back of that, there could be disallowances in the payment.

Yet that installer remains on the list to sting another farmer.

I do not have the full breakdown of the exact solar penalties. It might not be an installer issue. It is just the normal penalty schedule in the terms and conditions.