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

While this is a useful and worthwhile discussion, there are so many issues that we could be here all night. When we look at the big scene and the CAP, we all agree with the need to deal with environmental and climate change issues. At times, they are separate issues. We must also recognise mair, a chapaill, agus gheobhair féar. In other words, the farmer needs income support if he is going to be there at all. If there are no farmers, there is no environmental protection, in particular in upland areas. It is incredible that in 2027, we will be basing single farm payments on something that happened in 2000 or 2001. It is equivalent to basing grants in 1960 on what happened in 1933. It is the same timespan. Nobody in his or her right senses would say there had not been monumental change in that time. There has been monumental change in our time also. One of the monumental changes is this but what is constantly ignored is the issue of high-nature farming. If one does not farm high-nature non-productive areas, in purely agricultural production terms, Europe will not be willing to fund the gap. If we want to keep people in the less productive areas, we cannot give the best grants to the people with the best land and the worst grants to the ones with the worst land and hope they will all continue to farm. It is not going to happen.

The second issue with regard to CAP is what I hear about simplification. Everything gets more complicated, however. Two years ago, one could send in an area aid form oneself, but now one has to get a planner to do it. If one does not have broadband in rural Ireland, which many do not, or is not familiar with the Internet, which many are not, one must get someone to do it for one.

I put something to the witnesses that is rarely looked at. I take the example of someone with an excellent farm. He or she could get up to €60,000 to €80,000 in BPS for greening alone. It is a scheme with a very low compliance cost. One can name one's number - €60,000 or €80,000 – one gets one's grant and is out the door with one's cheque. One has complied with one's obligations and got one's cheque. The stronger farmers I deal with would be lucky to have €10,000 out of BPS and greening. To make the other €10,000 what must such a farmer do compared to the farmer who gets €80,000 for BPS and walks out the door? What does the poor old guy at the bottom have to do? He gets €3,000 very handy with the ANC which has low compliance costs. He must have 0.5 livestock units per hectare and is through the gap. I accept that it is a good scheme, albeit there is not enough money. He cannot go beyond €3,000, really. He gets €4,000 out of GLAS, when it is open, but it is faoi láthair and locked out at the moment. For the first time ever, the environmental schemes are not coming one after the other, so that someone leaving one can join another. Now, one cannot get that. If one averages over ten years, one is not getting that over ten years. We talked about swapping from AEOS, but there was a cheat in that. The Department said "Give up a year of AEOS and we will give you five years of GLAS but then leave you hanging for two years". There was a good saving in that one. He joins the beef genomic scheme because he has a few suckler cows and gets €1,000. It is an incredibly high compliance scheme. By the way, the GLAS scheme requires one to have two planners if one is in the hills. One for the hills and one for the lowlands. He joins the knowledge transfer scheme to find that 40% of the money is not going to him but to the planner; good luck to the planner. He gets €750 out of that. He joins the sheep welfare scheme and gets €1,250. When one adds it all up, he has, give or take €50 here and there, €20,000 and is in six schemes. If he is lucky, he might have a locally-led scheme and will be in seven schemes and still have in and around €20,000. Compare that to my man or woman with the BPS and the one grant. We expect these people to live and to be viable at that. We have a big problem and need a fundamental debate on it. It cannot be a superficial debate and a question of leaving everything as it is, which seems to be the tone here today.

The next thing is as follows. Most high-nature farmers have done all they have to do. All they have to actually do is continue to do what they and their forefathers and foremothers did before them. Both were probably involved in the farm in one way or another. That is what we want them to do. We do not want them to do anything radical because we know the farming taking place 50 or 60 years ago was sustainable. Under the old REPS, one got paid because it was an area based scheme. If one's farm complied with good farming practice, one got paid. Some genius woke up one night and thought that was too handy for a man or woman who was already doing everything right. It was decided to make it more difficult and a measure scheme was brought in. That means one has to do this, that and the other even if it is not needed on one's farm. If one cannot do this, that and the other, one does not get any money. For high-nature farming, we should go back to the area based scheme whereby one is paid on the hectares. It could be done according to a model. If it is like that before one starts, one gets paid for continuing to do what we want people to do, that is, continue with best practice. We are not asking them to do more.

It was stated in the very interesting script we got today that 5% of the RDP will have to be allocated to LEADER. If that had been in vogue before this year's allocation of €250 million for LEADER was made, would the money be up or down from where it is now? That is to say, is the current LEADER money more or less than 5% of the RDP money this time?

I support completely a limit on CAP payments simpliciterof €60,000. I have been in favour of that and in fact previously said the limit should be €50,000. However, I will not fall out over €10,000. I also favour a review of having EPS payments related to something - stacking everything into account - that happened back in 2001. There seems to be some suggestion that people will be means tested for farm payments. However, the worse one's farm, the more one has to have an off-farm income. If one has 1,000 acres, it is easy to be a full-time farmer. If one has 20 acres in Connemara or even 40 acres in Ballinrobe, where the land is much better, one will not live off it. We had this before for areas of natural constraint many years ago when it there was a disadvantaged area payment. There was a means test on it but someone brought it to court because the spouse's or partner's income was being taken into account and that was ruled illegal. We need to get some facts around the thinking here. I foresee a time bomb that will be very dangerous.

I wish to speak about CAP funding. While for some reason this is quite controversial, to me it is common sense because I just like looking at money. The officials have told us that if we continue as we are going with what seems to be coming out of the CAP, we will be €47 million short. They also said the Exchequer could top up and provide the €47 million. Is that not correct? The officials need not answer at this stage. If it topped up Pillar 2, it is €47 million; I cannot see how it is anything else. An increase in the ANC would immediately help 75% of the farmers in the worst land in the country: with 75% of the land being bad it gets them an extra payment. It is very simple with very little bureaucracy and there is not really any limit on that scheme which can go up to €250 per hectare.

On 18 December I received a reply to a parliamentary question from the Minister for Finance with the figures for 2017. I think it is bigger in 2018 but we do not yet have the figures for that. The reply stated that in 2017 gross receipts for Ireland from the European Union were €1.7 billion, the vast majority of which came through CAP. That includes moneys coming directly to Ireland but not going through the Exchequer and about €1.6 billion going through the Exchequer. Our gross contribution to the European Union was €2.016 billion with a net contribution of €308 million. We paid in €308 million more than we got out. That means that for every euro we pay in we only get 85 cent back. Those figures are backed up by the Department of Finance. Anybody who wants to dispute those figures can ring up the Minister for Finance and not me.

At a previous committee meeting we were advised that only 30% of the money paid into Europe actually goes back out in CAP. Much of the other money being paid in would not come back our way at all. Based on the two possible approaches my calculation is that we could put €47 million in and it costs us €47 million or put it in through Europe and we will have to put €156 million in to get €47 million back. I know that for some reason this is considered revolutionary; it is considered outrageous talk. I see no reason to lose €100 million net for some irrational principle that somebody seems to have.

Why does the Government not give a commitment to make up from the Exchequer whatever shortfall happens in Europe? It is the cheapest method of delivering it and by far the most efficient. It also gives us maximum control over the scheme because the less money we get from Europe, the more control we have over the scheme and the more we can avoid some of the more archaic, bizarre and irrational rules made by Europe that do not suit our situation at all.