Mr. Jason Fitzgerald:

Yes, I would like to respond.

There have been some slightly negative comments about the idea of the National Parks and Wildlife Service compensating farmers for land designation, but we must bear in mind that €350 or €370 per hectare was only part of the picture. Farmers who had 40 ha of land would be able to get that scheme. They were led to believe, and it was outlined in all the literature and documentation in clear black and white writing that they would also be able to plant. That option is no longer there and €370 per hectare is nowhere near enough. We commissioned a consultation with a forestry company around the value of forestry and why it is making €5,000 and €5,500 per hectare. In the consultants' estimation it is because the land is worth €625 per year over a 35 year period. This is a huge amount of money and I cannot see the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine putting in a scheme of that length and that level of money to compensate for that value. This, however, is the reality. This is based on people who are going to their banks, doing their calculations and coming up with that figure. I suggested this amount because we need a scheme that pays a base payment. I believe that most farmers, if they were getting €370 per hectare and if their land value was restored, would be quite happy. Obviously, it would have to be index-linked and would move with the consumer price index. I feel that most farmers would be quite happy with that. If, however, the scheme alone is used to bring back the value of the land it would have to be significantly more than that because schemes are taxed on top of that payment, but the forestry is not.

With regard to proposal that the National Parks and Wildlife Service could pay the balance, it was clearly outlined in my submission - in the final paragraph on page 4 - that the service had agreed to do this if land became devalued. I am not reinventing the wheel. I only suggest that the National Parks and Wildlife Service lives up to its expectations. The total amount of land sold in 2016 was just short of 34,000 acres. This was just 0.26% of all the land in Ireland. There are only 56,000 ha of land in the designated areas. I am aware that a lot of land might come up for sale. If, however, a scheme was in place whereby the same value was put on the land, I do not believe that would happen.

Taking the national figures, on the 56,000 ha of land mentioned, it would cost less than €600,000 to sort out the devaluation issue in the hen harrier designated areas in terms of that aspect alone because one would give assurance to the farmers. They could go into their banks and say their land is no longer devalued because if they sell their land on the market, they will have a letter from the National Parks & Wildlife Service saying it is going to pay the balance, that is, in the context of their neighbour's land down the road where their land was worth the same prior to the designation. It is a tiny amount of money. Some people in the National Parks & Wildlife Service or the Department of Finance may say one would have to do this for all the people in the designated areas but let us look at that issue. If one expands it out, 15% of the country is designated and much of that designation is close to river banks and does not comprise blocks of land like in the hen harrier areas. However, even if that was the case, if such as scheme was to be brought in, we believe it would cost around €7 million per year to compensate farmers in all designated areas for devaluation. That is going by the figures outlined here. That is why it is desperately important that there is a good scheme in place so that people do not feel they have to sell the land. I suggested the figure of €600,000 in the hen harrier areas. Taking two young farmers, for example, who we have trained and sent through college and who have great ideas, great energy and want to farm, which is what their fathers did, we are now asking them to farm their land in accordance with providing for the hen harrier. They were providing for the hen harrier prior to any designation and were only delighted to do so. There is no issue between the farmer and the hen harrier. The issue is the effect this designation has caused to their income, their future and their economic opportunities.

Taking two farmers with 200 acres each on which they put 150 cows, the value to the local income over a five-year period would be well over that figure for one year. We are looking at this with a closed vision. Many people are imprisoned on their land. There are people who are 65 or 70 years of age who are not able to farm their land. They just want to plant their land so they can live out the rest of their lives in peace, as they should, because they have worked hard enough all their lives. There are other people who want to sell their land because they might be sick or maybe a loved one has died. I have been to too many funerals of those who have died broken-hearted and emotionally destroyed because of this. Their land was handed down from their parents. They believe that they have let that generation and the next one down because the truth is their sons and daughters do not want to know anything about this land as it is a noose around their necks.

Deputy Cahill mentioned the new scheme. I have no issue with the new scheme, the hen harrier project people are very professional, they are easy to work with and they are at the end of the telephone at any time we contact them. Our issue with the scheme is that it is discriminatory against some farmers. Let us take a farmer who has over 19 ha. One farmer who contacted me last week said he has a large amount of ground. The problem with the points system is one is paid differently for different land. Every single hectare of land is designated equally, it has similar restrictions and it has been devalued to a similar level but we are now going to pay people differently according to the habitat on that land and that is completely wrong. I would have no issue with it if the base payment was in place on every hectare first, and then farmers could do as they wished. They might or might not take it on. I have no doubt people will say this is a great success as 1,100 farmers have already signed up to it. If one has nothing else, of course, one will sign up to it. If one does not have an option of planting trees or anything else, this is the only option available and, of course, one will sign up to it. One does what one has to do to survive, and that is what it is all about.

The other aspect of the scheme about which we are not particularly happy is the hen harrier payment because farmers cannot influence that payment at all. The scheme should be designed around what farmers can or cannot implement. We also have another issue regarding the setting up of the scheme. A bottom-up approach was to be taken in regard to this scheme.

Despite the promise from the Minister, Deputy Creed, last January that we would have a position on the steering committee there has been no farming representative on the steering committee during the design stage of the scheme. That is a big issue. This scheme can work. I believe a proper base payment should be put in place first and there should be an addition so people who want to improve the habitat and do whatever they want can do so. As regards GLAS, there is a management plan to fulfil, which encourages one to spread lime and fertiliser but that is working completely opposite to this new scheme, which is designed to grow different flower or plant species. If somebody spreads the fertiliser and complies with the GLAS scheme the person is doing damage and reducing their score under the other one.