Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives. There is a problem in terms of the double payment for those farmers who have 17 or 18 hectares. I understand a farmer who was a participant in the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, could be a participant of that scheme and of the organic scheme and receive payments under the two schemes, but now a farmer will get only one or other of those payments. If a farmer has ten hectares under the organic scheme, that farmer cannot get a GLAS payment in respect of that land, so he is caught in that way. There seems to be a gap in terms of the scheme for the farmer who has between five to 17 or 18 hectares. If a farmer had 20 hectares, he could apply ten hectares to each scheme. It is not possible for the smaller farmers to do that and that is the problem. It is a front-loaded system and comprises Pillar 2 funding. Such funding will go out one door or the other. If, as the representatives said, farmers are getting out of the organic sector, they will move into GLAS and the Pillar 2 funding will go out that door. To keep people in organic farming, they should be given an incentive or front-loading in respect of payment for the first 20 hectares.

To be fully compliant with the organic farming scheme, I understand a farmer must be in it for two years before his cattle, sheep or other animals will be recognised as organic. A new plan has been embarked upon this year to bring many larger farmers into the sector. Am I correct in understanding that those farmers' cattle, sheep or other animals will not be recognised as organic for two years? Do the representatives know the number of farmers who are engaged in organic farming, the number of smaller producers who will jump ship and are ready to leave the sector due to the lack of incentive in it? That will leave a gap in the sector over the next year and a half until the other animals as recognised as organic. That will cause a major problem in that we will not fulfil what we have said to Europe we would fulfil.

In respect of the delay in payments, there was an industrial dispute about that last year. The representatives are correct in saying that the process is being dealt with manually. That was supposed to be sorted at that time and obviously the issue is arising again. Have the representatives been given a reason they cannot be put onto the system if new entrants are being put onto it?

It is mainly smaller farmers who are engaged in the organic sector. Do the representatives know the number of farmers who intend to leave the scheme, be it this year, early next year or the end of next year? We need to know if there will be a gap in the market in terms of the loss of recognised organic meat.

Serious questions need to be asked about the categories of payments to be made to the certification body. Will there be one or two, or more, certification bodies? Will they do the work of the Department? That is the key question. There may be a sufficient number of inspectors in the Department to cover that work. What is the representative body's view of the certification process? In terms of over-pricing in that respect, the figures presented indicate that the smaller the producer's operation, the harder he is hit. That is not the way it should be if we want to keep the smaller farmers in the sector. It may be worthwhile inviting in the people who are in charge of the certification body and asking them directly what is the problem or why the small farmers are basically being screwed.