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

I thank Mr. Moran for his presentation. He stated that a great deal of time was spent on the detailed regulation. It is often said that the devil is in the detail. Our discussions with representatives from the Department last week indicated that a major challenge is arising for farmers who have so-called commonage land in the context of what constitutes an active farmer. It appears that if one puts any stock on semi-cultivated land, one will not receive any form of single farm payment whatsoever. In situations where there is a mixture of lowland and commonage, only some people actively use the hilly land. This suits those individuals because it means they can have more stock. As Mr. Moran is aware, there has been an ongoing battle against the overstocking of hills in any event. The remainder of farmers involved in the type of scenarios to which I refer just use the enclosed parts of their farms. I understand it is stated somewhere in the small print that if farmers do not put stock on the semi-cultivated land, they will not receive single farm payments. This would have a huge effect on a large number of farmers on the west coast.

The GLAS scheme also seems to be giving rise to major problems for commonage farmers. Did the requirement that 50% of an active shareholders in a commonage join the scheme on the same day emanate from the Department or does it arise on foot of an EU regulation? Is this requirement immutable? We cannot use freedom of information to discover who are the commonage farmers and which of them have submitted area aid forms because the information is private and is not, therefore, disclosable. There might be 200 people in a commonage but only 100 of them might have submitted area forms. I understand from Mr. Moran's officials that it is not possible to discover the identity of those 100 individuals in order to discover whether they all want to join GLAS together or whether only 50% of them to. Is this down to the regulation, was it the result of a slip up in the negotiations or does it emanate from the Department? If the latter is the case, then it could be changed.

Will Mr. Moran provide details of the discussions which took place in the second half of 2013, when Irish and British beef prices really began to diverge? For example, what discussions have taken place at EU level in respect of barriers to free trade. The entire idea behind the Union is that there should be free trade and that borders should not be used to erect artificial barriers in respect of such trade. As Mr. Moran is aware, there appear to be a significant and increasing number of barriers to free trade between Ireland and both Britain and Northern Ireland. What discussions took place at EU level in respect of country of origin labelling being misused and employed as a barrier to free trade? Was the possibility of moving from country of origin to origin EU labelling - in order that free trade in the beef sector will not be hindered - discussed?

I understand that a change has been made in the context of the regulations. Previously under the CAP, the N+2 mechanism ensured that payments to farmers were spread out over a number of years. As a result, payments for the 2007 to 2013 period will not actually cease being paid until 2015. I understand that on this occasion payments will be made up to 2023, which means that it will be a ten-year rather than a nine-year period. This indicates that the money on offer will be somewhat lower than previously because payments are going to be spread out over ten years. It is something similar to what the Government has stated is the position with regard to the country's loans, namely, the longer the payment schedule, the less one is obliged to pay each year. How much of the money available under the CAP will be on a seven-year timeframe? I understand that such a timeframe applies in respect of single payments and that a ten-year model applies with regard to rural development.

Of the billions we will be allocated, how much will be paid in the seven year timeframe and in the new ten year timeframe? We need to know this to get handle on the annual payments we will receive.

Under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, €148 million has been secured, which shows the difference between the funds for agriculture and for fishing. The allocation works out at €20 million a year if the timeframe is seven years. Will Mr. Moran confirm if it will be allocated over seven years or ten? Will it be paid in the period from 2014 to 2020 or from 2014 to 2023 or even to 2022? If the timeframe is seven years, the allocation will be €20 million a year and if it is ten, the allocation will be €14 million a year. There is a major difference between the two. Will Mr. Moran confirm if compensation for shellfish farmers hit by incidents of red tide, toxins and such like which will result in their being out of business for one or two years is included in the EMFF package?

With all of the trade agreements being negotiated, the key issue is equivalence. In other words, if somebody were to sell into this market, would he or she have to adhere to the same standards in regard to genetically modified organisms, animal health and welfare and all of the other standards required to be met in European farming? Is Mr. Moran confident that when trade interests which are much more dominant in the European Union than agricultural interests get to work, we will be able to insist on equivalence being maintained in all free trade negotiations? If it is not, lower standard producers with bigger farms will have a massive advantage over us and could dump a lot of their produce in our markets and thus undermine the livelihoods of European farmers.