Kate O'Connell (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending. Following on from Deputy Naughten's comments, there has been much talk back and forth and the point has been laboured. I do not think anyone is suggesting that anybody should be treated in an unfair manner. The point is that it is the assets that are being treated differently. I do not think anyone is suggesting that someone from a farming background should be treated more favourably than somebody coming from an alternative background. The point being made is that the asset has potentially been targeted three times as part of the calculations. I want to make sure that we do not have to go back over it another three times. The point is very clear.

I agree with Mr. Healy's four asks. I do not think they are too much. The cost for people in farming communities of the lack of mobility and paralysis on this issue cannot be overstated, as it has had real-life impacts for people who are trying to succession plan as part of their lives in rural Ireland. I agree in particular with the back-dating of any proposal as compensation for the stagnation that has occurred with the progression of this legislation.

I do not wish to go back over the exact same points as anybody else, but I know the Department is in contact with the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government about leasing or renting properties. I have a slight concern with Mr. Redmond's assumption that everybody that is in a nursing home is not of sound mind or that there is a vulnerability there. Many people have extensive support networks and, with all due respect, it is their families that stand up for them and their communities. I do not think we need to classify them as a particular type of vulnerable person here this morning.

The Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government was mentioned. I have been informed by the Minister that it is considering this as an option to free up the supply of stock. I imagine that there may be issues of suitability. For example, many rural homes might not have insulation or be retrofitted and, consequently, might not be fit for rent. That is a decision for the family, though.

In terms of the all-of-Government approach to climate action, has this matter been considered? The witnesses might think I am being a bit out there in this, but there is supposed to be carbon checking or a climate response from every Department. Some years ago, there were initiatives to incentivise the leasing of land to improve land mobility so that younger or more progressive farmers would not need to go to a bank and seek funding that they might not get. I am sure that the departmental officials are fully aware of those tax incentives to encourage the leasing of land. It has been referred to as income, given that the leased asset is considered in the calculation. Without making broader statements, and perhaps Mr. Healy will agree, a younger farmer tends to be qualified in the areas of the beef genomics scheme and all those other progressive actions we are taking in agriculture. The role that rural Ireland and farms in particular have to play in our decarbonisation is so important that we cannot do anything that in any way disincentivises people. The number of leases that have been taken up has doubled to 10,000 as a result of the policy of encouraging land mobility. If we do not make the modifications that are being asked for today, we will not be climate proofing this policy and it will make moving into the farming sphere less equitable and fair. The younger, more progressive farmers will be penalised and, therefore, we as a country will not get the benefits that we should from their progressive methods and standards.

I am concerned about the five-year clawback. There have been a couple of instances of people not meeting the five-year threshold. A line must be drawn somewhere, but is there an appeals system? If something happened in a family four years and 360 days ago, would a sliding scale apply or would it be completely black and white? Is any compassion shown if people are in a difficult situation with, for example, a sick family member?

I am informed by the IFA that 86% of farmers have no succession plan. That is worrying, given that they are the custodians of most of the land that will trap the carbon. As such, the issue under discussion is being looked at in a silo rather than as part of the overall solution for the country. Has the Department considered this matter in its planning on the legislation?