Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Thank you Chairman. I welcome the delegation here today and indeed the farmers in the Gallery, some of whom are from my own county. When one talks about forgotten farmers, we are usually referring to young farmers, who fell outside the remit of the last CAP and failed because of different circumstances to get a significant single farm payment. We have a number of farmers in the country who own designated land who are certainly the forgotten farmers. It is the only scheme that I ever saw introduced at the stroke of a pen that totally devalued a farmer's assets. It is incomprehensible that this has been allowed to happen. How we allowed Brussels to bring in a scheme that completely depreciated the value of land has to be redressed, and redressed quickly.

I agree with about 90% of what Mr. Fitzgerald said, but there are one or two points I do not agree with. We must bring in a scheme that will restore the value of that land. That is the barometer on which we will judge any new scheme. This new scheme that is being proposed now by the Minister will go nowhere near restoring the value of the land. It is only putting a sticking plaster on a very, very deep cut. We are going to see land abandonment. We are going to see vast tracts of the countryside with no one living in them, and the purpose of this scheme is going to be defeated. These vast tracts of land will not contribute to habitats, as the EU hoped.

When the scheme that was first introduced when this designation came in, into which 350 farmers entered - it was subsequently suspended - did give reasonable compensation at the time to the farmers who were lucky enough to get into it. We need an uncomplicated scheme similar to that. A figure of €370 per hectare has been quoted and I would not disagree with that. That is the kind of scheme we need in order to restore the land value. If a proper scheme is put in place land value will be restored. To me, that is the key. I would not be looking to the National Parks and Wildlife Service to compensate farmers. I would be looking to a scheme that would put value back into this land so that forever and a day it would attract a premium, while the designation on the land lasts. While that designation lasts there is a moral obligation on the EU to compensate farmers. I would not be looking for anyone else to do it, it was the EU who introduced the designation and it should do this.

The one point I would disagree with is where Mr. Fitzgerald referred to Pillar 1 and that there was a proposal to take a percentage of the funds out of Pillar 1. That is robbing one farmer to pay another. There should be a separate budget for designated land. This was an EU scheme and the budget should be put in place and be specifically for designated land. We do not want to pitch one farmer against the other. A farmer with designated land should be entitled to this payment and it should come with no layers of red tape.

Obviously, anyone getting the payment would have to agree to the rules of the designation.

Regarding the blanket ban on forestry, especially on the hen harrier land, there is clear evidence to show that is not helping the population of hen harriers. Different stages of afforestation, with an amount of open land, will actually help the hen harrier population and will help them to breed and to increase their numbers. It has been shown that with the blanket ban, the number of pairs of hen harriers is actually dropping. What the EU has imposed is not working.

There is the other argument regarding the targets we have to meet on climate change. We need this designated land and we need afforestation to meet the targets that are going to be imposed on us. The blanket ban is not helping the hen harrier population and it is taking away the complete value of that land as well. It is not making sense on a number of horizons. What has been done to the farm families in that area is inexcusable and has to be addressed.

What does Mr. Fitzgerald feel is the best way of addressing the devaluation issue of designated land and how much would it actually cost? What are his concerns regarding the new scheme that has been introduced and how would he suggest that these concerns be addressed? Outside of the devaluation, has he any other major concerns? What structure should we put in place to keep farmers on the designated land and to bring them up to the same level as other farmers. I would like specific proposals from Mr. Fitzgerald on these issues. To me this is clear-cut enough and fairly straightforward. We have taken away the value of land, we have completely devalued it, and the only way that we can restore the value of that land to what it was prior to the designation is by putting a scheme in place that each farmer will get X amount per hectare for obeying the restrictions that have been imposed by designation. That must be done and we need a separate budget for that. I would not talk about Pillar 1 or Pillar 2, that is defeating the purpose. The EU brought in this scheme and it must fund it. To me that is what we have to achieve, and it is the job of our Minister to deliver a scheme. This €25 million that has been proposed by the Minister is nowhere near adequate.