Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the officials for the presentation. A number of important issues have come up. I concur with my colleague that LEADER is an excellent scheme but it is drowned in a volume of bureaucracy. Even people who have hired in expertise find it difficult to deal with some of the requirements. The thrust of it is to ensure the revitalisation and sustainability of villages. People are worn out by the time they get to the end line. It is a very good scheme with very good incentives, but we do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater in being overly restrictive. Even with experts' help, people find these things extremely difficult.

I look at the CAP in the context of the Brexit developments or non-developments. That will be going on in ten years when many of us will no longer be here. I am looking at the remit of the member states in the simplification of CAP payments and the reduction of administrative burdens for the final beneficiaries. That is a cardinal objective of the proposed new regulations. I hope that is not just watery talk as they say down in the midlands.

From the viewpoint of the farmer, the recipient, very often it is our own bureaucrats who tie it up. It is time we lost this love of bureaucracy and red tape. It is very hard to get it removed from the centre of Government policy. Government policy is fleeting; the permanent government is always there which is part of the problem.

In June 2018, a common framework of rules to implement the CAP strategic planning regulations was introduced. What level of divergence will be allowed when we get down to the brass tacks? Where does that fit in? It is not possible to drive on a single road to every part of Ireland. It is necessary to branch off somewhere. Therefore, we need a bit of divergence to allow for various situations to arise.

We are talking about a 5% cut in the multi-annual fund. I know the Departments of Finance and Agriculture, Food and the Marine are working hand in glove because otherwise it would not work. We all know of three, four or five countries that do not want to contribute to funding CAP.

Apart altogether from hard borders and everything else a no-deal Brexit could bring, even with a good deal there will be a hole of between €10 billion and €12 billion in the CAP as a result of the UK withdrawing from the EU. That is a significant amount of money. While I understand that we have committed to playing our part at national level, there is no way we can find €12 billion. We must find a portion of the money applicable as otherwise we might as well drop the whole thing and pay farmers directly from now on. Is there any sign of flexibility on the part of those recalcitrant EU member states which have other objectives?

A series of objectives has been set out by other countries that is not focused on protecting the CAP or anything else. For us, the 5% cut would mean a 4% cut in Pillar 1 funding and a 50% cut in Pillar 2 funding. Maintaining the level of CAP funding is critical. Deputy Cahill is correct that if we take inflation into account, the real value of payments has been dropping but that is neither here nor there. We will be very lucky to maintain the nominal value rather than speaking about real values. Will the regulations permit member states to maintain the current level of Pillar 1 and supplement Pillar 2 expenditure if all comes to all? If the hole in the bucket remains as big as it is reported to be, a bit of ingenuity will be required.

We know about the direct payments and the basic payments in Ireland. They are absolutely critical for Irish farmers, in particular in the beef and suckler cow sectors where basic payments could constitute 110% or 150% of income. This will be a big issue. Perhaps it is time to spread the consultation beyond farm organisations. Many farmers and ordinary people have views on this. Perhaps we are hamstrung and our views have been circumscribed by what some farm organisations want. Some of the farmers I speak to say that no matter what we do in the beef or suckler cow sectors, they will not make a living. The other day a farmer told me he would be better off reducing his number of sucklers from 60 to 30 as it would reduce expenditure and with fewer cattle going to the factory, it would not have an excuse to reduce prices. That farmer, who has land that is suitable for forestry, asked why the forestry grant could not be increased on a graded basis. This would not be for corporate institutions or insurance companies but for ordinary farmers. In this way, we would decrease the carbon footprint and increase sequestration as a result of more forestry. We do not want to put forestry on good prime agricultural land but even in Westmeath we have marginal land that could benefit from it. We need a bit of ingenuity. We cannot sleepwalk along the same old road we have walked for the past 20 or 30 years.

The cap on payments is absolutely correct. I remember being ostracised for proposing it in the 1990s. I knew what Mary Magdalen felt like because I was ostracised from everything. I was always of the view that it was not a rich bed. I knew the objectives of the CAP back in the 1970s and they certainly were not to pour €150,000 or €160,000 into anyone's pocket, particularly when many of the people who received the money never employed a labour unit. Let us be clear about a few things. Rural Ireland is sustained by employing labour units. I supported the €60,000 cap simpliciter. Deputy Cahill is correct that we have no idea where we would end up if we were to get stuck into definitions of genuine farmers and the devil knows what. Knowing the bureaucrats, if they get a hold of these, it will be goodbye to the hills altogether because people would never qualify. Will the calculation be done on a per hectare basis, an entitlement basis or a combination of the two? If we do it on a per hectare basis, we will need a different reference year because being stuck with the same one would mean an awful lot of people would be excluded from higher payments. We could taper it on a per hectare basis so smaller farmers with up to 25 ha would get higher payments. We must start thinking like this. There is no use coming out with ó chroí, mo chroí about rural Ireland if we do not put the money where our mouths are. There is plenty of money in the CAP budget so let us maintain it. One of the objectives of the CAP was to maintain the maximum number of people in rural Ireland but if it is divvied out in the wrong way, we will pay only lip service to that objective.

With regard to environmental measures, we must devise a new green architecture. There is no use in putting our heads in the sand and getting a bit huffed. I do not care whether it is the Taoiseach or anybody else who says something. We must deal with this. I have met many farmers who have said we must deal with it. We must deal with the challenges of climate change. We have some good schemes. Last night, I met a farmer who is stuck with regard to the beef data and genomics programme. A small little thing will strike him out for next year. The bit of land he had taken was sold unknown to him. These are extreme things that happen and of which the Department must take account but the scheme does not allow for that. We also have the incentivised exploitation of renewable energy and the promotion of biodiversity and habitats.

We will have nothing left in rural Ireland if we do not look after young farmers. I am delighted to see the 2% allocation under Pillar 1. There has been a notorious amount of squeeze with regard to how we will get this. Older farmers in my age group will have to see that if we do not do something for the younger crowd coming through, no one will come through. We need to incentivise younger farmers. Has any progress been made on specific measures to support the important objective of the CAP strategic plans for young farmers? If the thrust of the strategic plans is to increase the level of subsidiarity envisaged to be available to member states, which is what I understand it to be, does it allow us greater flexibility and manoeuvrability to deal with young farmers? I am very interested in finding out whether this is part of the negotiations. What level of negotiations are we at on these very strategic objectives? I noticed that Article 70 has to do with risk management regulations, insurance and mutual funds. Does the Department have views on this? Is it hamstrung or circumscribed? What will be available for the farming community in this respect?