Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the farm organisations for their attendance at this meeting which was called because of the very serious concerns among committee members on the position as articulated by the INHFA on the GAEC 2 proposals.

Will the INHFA representatives outline what exactly they see as being the potential concerns from these proposals as outlined? I hope they have had an opportunity to see the Department's response to the effect that there is nothing to worry about here, that the Council is moving to protect farmers on peat land. What do the representatives see as being the significance of a piece of land being designated or considered an eligible hectare, permanent agriculture or not being considered? Do they believe the proposed changes by the Council at European level have the potential to impact on payments received by farmers in Pillar 1, Pillar 2 or both? What might this mean for farmers who are operating under commonage agreements?

The IFA has raised concerns around GAEC 9 which relates to the minimum share of agricultural land devoted to non-productive features or areas. Its opening statement indicated that the Department seems to be pushing for this to be applied across all agricultural land rather than simply arable. Will the IFA outline its view of the effect that extending this condition would have on all agricultural land?

On convergence, all of us will have sympathy for any farmer who is likely to lose out on Pillar 1 payments, particularly those who would be on smaller holdings but might have larger eligibility. I understand the point made on the European budget and the share of that going to CAP, and I agree. Ireland should not have agreed to the European budget on the basis of what was being provided, but in the parameters that exist, will the different farm organisations outline what they propose with regard to Pillar 1 payments for the farmers who are currently receiving below the EU average? We can say that we do not want to take funding away from any farmer, but there are farmers who are being penalised because of a historic eligibility criteria that is archaic. How do we address that?

What are the views of the witnesses on capping? This would appear to be the first thing we could try to put a redistributive mechanism in place. The ICMSA has proposed a cap of €60,000, which would be eminently fair. Would the other organisations support such an upper limit payment?