Tom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Secretary General and his officials for their attendance today.

With regard to the greening aspect of CAP reform, an interesting issue is cropping up in the tillage industry. Let us say, for example, that a 50-acre farm comes up for rental next door to a tillage farmer. If that farm is in permanent pasture, the tillage farmer cannot rent it but a dairy or beef farmer can. If a farm comes up for rent that is in stubble or tillage and is put into grass for long-term lease, it becomes permanent pasture and moves out of the realm of the tillage farmer. Essentially, over time, the greening proposals will result in a gradual reduction of our tillage industry. Tillage farmers will lose out vis-à-vis stock farmers and land will become harder and harder to acquire because it will be deemed to be permanent pasture. This is a very serious matter for the tillage industry and perhaps a compromise can be reached on this. It would be no harm to have some degree of rotation, given that we are blighted with wild oats, land is being worn down and organic matter is decreasing. A compromise could be reached whereby certain lands that are deemed to be permanent pasture could be taken out of that classification but returned after a certain period of time for rotation. There would be natural benefits for grassland under such a system because it would reduce compaction, which is an enormous problem in grassland farming. It would also help with wireworm and other pests, which could be removed from the soil.

I am delighted to hear Mr. Moran express support for the sugar beet industry, about which I feel very passionate. I would love to see the industry return to Ireland and I wish the officials the best in that regard. As public representatives, we will certainly work with the Department to try to make that happen. There are a number of very good proposals on the table at present but none of them will go anywhere if the policy is not correct.

I do not want to comment on the capping of payments because it is being done on a European basis and it will not swim in Europe. I would like to know what the officials think about coupling. I would prefer to see coupling going past 10% and am interested in the view within the Department on that.

One issue is key and everybody here has alluded to it. Approximately 77,000 people will have their payments increased by 85%, while 55,000 will have their payments decreased by 33%. Let us get behind the fallacy here. I have farmed quite a lot of land in my time, and many people similar to me are now facing a situation in which the lands we once farmed are now being farmed by the individuals who own the land, in theory, although in practice they are not farming the land but are map farming. There is no point in putting our heads in the sand on this issue. Maps are being advertised in every newspaper in the country. It is so commonplace now that it is not even being concealed. The problem here is that a large proportion of the 77,000 people who will get an increase in their payments will get an increase not just of 85% but of 100%. Such people have had no payments to date, so any payment they receive will be a bonus for them.

In the past, when land cost €150 per acre, area aid was quite close to that. To acquire land, one paid the equivalent of the area aid to the landowner and then collected the area aid because one was in production. Now, landowners are being paid up to €220 per acre to farm the land but they are keeping the maps. We need to find out who is actually farming the land. This is a serious problem because it is crippling progressive farmers. They are losing land because people are afraid that rights on land are going to be set up for many years to come. I am proud to say that I farmed a lot of land when the last system was put in place. However, when I asked how much of the single farm payment I was entitled to for that land, the answer I got was "zero". I had a quasi-share farming agreement but I was not entitled to any payment. Before we start taking money away from the 55,000 productive farmers, we must make sure we are not giving it to those who are not producing anything. I agree that there are many small farmers who would like to get up and running but that is only one section. There are many who have no intention of farming their land. In that context, we should look at ways to tie proof of farming to payments, and including a penalty for those who are not actively farming would help greatly.