Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the informative presentation. The witnesses have put a lot of work into the research, and the proposal that has been put before us this evening. Mr. Lorcán O'Toole covered the role of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the population falling in the west and rising in the east. That has been happening over time, partly due to the decline in manufacturing industries, but more importantly the decline in agricultural activity and the supports being generated to encourage more intensive farming rather than actual farming activity. That is an issue for debate under the Common Agricultural Policy, under which historical payments are issued to people who may not be farming as intensively as they were ten years ago but yet are in receipt of the same amount because of the manner in which payments under CAP are divided. The Commission proposes that payments be divided based on hectarage that would allow younger farmers to come back to the west and to take up employment on the family farm.

The witnesses are correct that Food Harvest 2020 is driving the agri-food industry which is worth about €24 billion to the economy. We all subscribed to the fact that we wished to play a major role in the economic recovery of the country. Bord Bia, Teagasc and the other agencies are playing their part, but I do not subscribe to the fact that one can only and exclusively develop the Food Harvest 2020 model through intensive farming. I believe that farmers with smaller farms in peripheral areas play a big role, whether they are in Connemara, west Donegal or Kerry, the farmer who produces small numbers of lambs, calves or young bulls are feeding into the food chain as well. We need to protect the green natural environment if we are to sell the Food Harvest 2020 model abroad, particularly in light of what has happened in the past number of months in the food industry in Europe.

Just because farmers are in a restrictive area does not preclude them from farming. In fact, they are encouraged to farm in conjunction with the wildlife that lives around them. The only way to protect wildlife in a meaningful way is to have the farmer on the land. If the farmer is driven off the land and farming is made restrictive, that will affect wildlife. I am sure Mr. Lorcán O'Toole's view would be that farming and wildlife should go hand in hand. How best could we develop that idea? Is it that some of the responsibilities under National Parks and Wildlife Service should come under the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine or should the Department liaise with more farmers and the wildlife sector?

The proposal in respect of the scheme is an excellent one. The EU multi-annual financial framework was agreed last week. As it has to go before the European Parliament again, we do not know what will happen. While we were hoping for more money, in the region of €1.5 billion is available in transfers under the single farm payment and the rural development aspect, which is pillar 2. The only scheme available in those areas is the disadvantaged areas scheme which is not exclusively available to the uplands or the commonage areas. It is also available to large arable farmers in the east. Therefore, why call it a disadvantaged scheme? Is it correct to say that the proposed scheme is in addition to the agri-environment options scheme and the rural environment protection scheme? If so, would it be paid on a hectare basis and in addition to other schemes?

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. David Scallan in respect of the need for any such scheme to be as free from administration as possible. Often the amount of red tape makes it almost impossible for the farmer to draw down the money. While the agri-environment options scheme is in place, it is not all it should it and is certainly not the replacement for REPS that was sought, because the money has to be spent first. As Teagasc explained earlier, the Teagasc planner has to carry out much of the work and it is heavy in terms of administrative work. The scheme being proposed would be welcome and would allow farmers in areas where they are restricted through EU legislation and departmental legislation to derive an income and stay on the land. I am told by smaller farmers that their backs are to the wall, everything is restrictive, there are delays in receiving payments from the Department and they are at breaking point. Some are considering either selling up and going on social welfare or moving away and obtaining employment. People have gone to London and other parts of the world and have left the land behind. Under the new Common Agricultural Policy we must put in place a system to ensure that does not happen. Perhaps this is a proposal that should be given serious consideration by the Department.

I thank the witnesses for the presentation which I hope is something we will be able to consider.