Mr. Vincent Roddy:

I thank the Chair. It is good to have an opportunity to discuss this matter. While I know Mr. Kelleher said that CAP is struggling to deliver what it is meant to, it is still of course vital support for farmers, whether they be dairy or hill farmers, and we have to recognise that. On the specifics, in Pillar 1 we welcome the increased level of convergence, although I know it is an issue for some, and the introduction of the front-loaded payment under the complementary redistributive income support scheme, CRISS. This will provide additional funds for farmers who had low payments. These supports will deliver improved payments for over 60% of all farmers and move towards a fairer payment system in recognition of the increased conditionality. This will also help secure an increased budget in future CAP programmes, and that is what we should all be looking at. Also on Pillar 1, we have to recognise the increased conditionality and I know it has been mentioned by some previous speakers. That will be a big demand for farmers. On GAEC 2, which concerns peatlands, we lobbied hard on this in May of last year and I thank the Members of the Oireachtas who supported that lobbying campaign because it recognised the major threat that posed to farmers both on hills, drained peatlands and throughout the country because 20% of our land base is peat soils. On the back of that lobbying, we got a footnote included that will guarantee farming activity. In light of the coming nature restoration laws and regulations, we see that has now become very critical. We cannot assume it will always be there, so we ensure that is there in this CAP and that it continues in future CAP programmes, but maybe taking one at a time.

Moving on to Pillar 2, the first point relates to the budget. We welcome the increase in the overall budget, but we need to put it in the context that that increase will only bring us back to where the Pillar 2 budget was for 2007 to 2013. Effectively, we are no better off than we were 15 years ago and we are definitely worse off if inflation is taken into account. While we welcome it, we need to recognise it is limited and we need to see further budget increases - we estimate at least an additional €150 million per year - that can deliver in schemes such as ACRES and improved supports for suckler and sheep farmers. We welcome the fact the sheep improvement programme has been included and that it has continued but the payment rates are disappointing. We are looking at €12 per ewe. While it is an increase on €10, that will depend on budget, so the first thing we need to do is to ensure that €12 will be guaranteed. We would like to see it increased to at least €20, and while I see others have said €30, even if we can get an increase to €20, that would be a major plus. Regarding suckler supports, we need to see payments of at least €200 for a suckler cow and obviously higher, if possible. What is currently being proposed is okay for the farmers who will get it and definitely if BEEP, if that comes, is included. The problem is there is not enough budget there to deliver for all suckler cows in the country. That is a major problem. At best, half of farmers and half of cows will get a payment, so that will not deliver what we would like to see it deliver.

A lot has been said on ACRES, and as previous speakers have said, the closing date is very tight. As 21 November is running in very quickly at this stage, we need and have called for an extension to that date to give both the Teagasc and independent advisers an opportunity to get as many of their plans in as possible. The budget for that is about €50 million per year above what GLAS was, but when we look at what was in the programme for Government and the talk about supporting farmers, there is no doubt it is disappointing. The fact that only 50,000 farmers will be accommodated in that will leave more than half the farmers in the country unable to access an agri-environmental scheme at a time when climate change and biodiversity loss is trumpeted as a major issue. We ask the Government to look at that. It has always been our belief that any farmer who is willing to make a contribution on the environment should be supported through an agri-environmental scheme.

I have a couple of other points on ACRES. It is disappointing for farmers on designated land that there will not now be any direct payment for them in an agri-environmental scheme. The initial REPS paid €242 per hectare for designated land; the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, paid €150 per hectare; and in GLAS it fell to €79 per hectare. Not to have any payment in recognition of the clear burden is a major cause for concern. It is worse than that: it is a disgrace, and there is no point in saying otherwise. There are other issues around ACRES and we will probably come to those in the questions. We look forward to that.

We welcome the increased budget for organics but, as has been said, we need to ensure there are markets for it. There is also the issue of the processing ability. At the moment there is only one processor who can manage it and we see that as a major problem. While the funding is brilliant, we need to make sure we have real competition in processing organic meat. We have outlined a number of proposals on TAMS and we need to see about the payment rates and how they are assessed, because in the context of a 40% grant, looking at how costs have increased, we expect those increased costs to be factored into the new TAMS. We have put forward proposals to get drones included and that will be essential for hill farmers. We also think there is potential in fencing collars and we have asked for support for mulchers as that would reduce the requirement for spraying.

We look forward to questions and I thank the committee for their time.