Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegation from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Will Mr. O'Driscoll give us an update on where the Council and Commissioner are in regard to the proposal by Commissioner Cioloş that we move to a flat rate payment? Will he outline what their position is as opposed to the Minister's one and whether they have moved from the position they had that the payments would move to a flat rate payment by 2019? That would include the greening payment and the core element.

Mr. O'Driscoll spoke about the amount of money that was received. Will he confirm that when one takes inflation into account, one is talking about a 10% decrease in real value terms over the seven-year period in the value of the Pillar 1 payments and an 18% - an almost 20% decrease - in the Pillar 2 payments and that, in fact, it is a very bad deal? Every other time the CAP money increased but this time it is a very significant decrease in real purchasing power and that decrease will have a major effect on farmers.

Mr. O'Driscoll said the capping of direct payments will be introduced on a voluntary basis by member states. Is he saying each member state can voluntarily create its own cap or is this the European Union cap which is not a cap at all - it is an irrelevant cap in the Irish context? If it is the European Union cap, has the Minister tabled alternative proposals to cap the maximum payment a farmer can get? In line with his seeking flexibility in regard to how the Pillar 1 payments are distributed, has he sought flexibility for member states to impose a national cap on Pillar 1 payments? If, for example, the Commissioner's proposal was to win out against the Minister's one - it looks as if it is 22:5 - one would get some very unusual distortions because one would get farmers with a lot of land getting enormous payments as well as what is happening at the moment where farmers with very good lots of land get enormous payments. One would also get farmers with marginal amounts of lots of land getting very big payments. I do not believe either group should get huge payments at the expense of the 98% of farmers who get very modest payments. In fact, 90% of farmers get under €25,000.

Mr. O'Driscoll did not mentioned whether coupling is on the table at 5% or 10%? I understand that in Ireland's case, it was only on the table at 5%. Has there been progress in regard to coupling and a firming up? Will it be uniform across the European Union, in other words, the same for every country? There was a provision in the original proposal for areas of natural constraints. Mr. O'Driscoll did not mention whether that is still on the agenda under Pillar 1.

We keep hearing the statement that Ireland is concerned that the proposal to move to flat rate national or regional rates would cause very significant transfers of resources between farmers and that much of this movement is proposed to be front-loaded. What objection does the Department have to a more equitable distribution of the money? Why does it resist moving away from something that is totally based on a historic fact - that is, 2001 and 2002 which by 2020 will be 20 years out of date?

Why do they keep saying that would, by definition, be a bad thing if the right prescription was found? I do not agree with the proposal from the commissioner or the Department's approach. I think the front loading approach would be best because it would also deal with the issues of high intensive small acreage farmers who are a huge number of the farmers in the country. In regard to the low intensity farmers, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the National Parks and Wildlife Service appeared before the committee and they mentioned the need for significant compensation for farmers engaged in high nature value farming. The only way of compensating them is across the board because they cannot be compensated under REPS because good agricultural and environmental conditions, GAEC, mean they will have all the work done under Pillar 1 and there will be nothing left to do under Pillar 2 and in any case Pillar 2 is decimated having been reduced by 18%. Will the witnesses explain how farmers will be compensated for GAEC in the areas about which the Department is concerned - abandonment of land and the ecological disaster that would follow? It was made clear to us that without farming these areas will not survive. How does one square that with a policy of campaigning strongly against them getting a decent payment in view of the ecological service they provide to the State and the European Union? There appears to be a contradiction in that case.

I note what the witness said about the greening payment. It is consistent with everything that is being said. It appears the witnesses want it paid on an individual farm level whereas the Commission wants it done right across the board. There appears to be a desire to freeze Irish history in 2000, 2001 and 2002 and regardless of whether one is farming now or at whatever level that one keeps one's 2000 payments and that the historic issue goes on and on. No doubt if the same Government is in office in seven years time it will pursue the same policy of trying to preserve things in a historic context. We will get to the year 2100 and we will still be paying people in respect of what they did in 2000 even though nobody will be left from that period. The Department's policy is to preserve not what farmers are doing, or why they are doing it, or the constraints on them but history irrespective of what they are doing at present. I ask him to explain the logic behind this as it does not appear to encourage people to farm actively; in fact it is the opposite. It means that if one is lucky enough to get the payment that one can sit back and do virtually damn all and continue drawing the money.

In regard to Pillar 2 payments there is an 18% reduction. Will the witness please clarify two issues? When I take the total package of Pillar 2 or the total rural development programme and the national finances added to Pillar 2, how will the next Pillar 2, based on the MFF and taking the national contribution into account, compare to the last rural development programme? In other words, does the figure include the national money? Do we know what the national finances part of the Pillar 2 pool will be? Will he confirm that forestry payments will not be paid out of European Union funds as that would have a huge effect on Pillar 2 payments? Will he confirm that the Department will not try to save money by transferring 100% forestry payments out of Exchequer funding into a mixture of European Union and Exchequer funding? If that were to happen it would have a disastrous effect on Pillar 2 payments.