Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. The first thing to be said to the Minister, Minister of State, Government and officials is that we do not believe they are intentionally trying to take people away from the CAP. However, it is possible that none of them will here in five or ten years' time. That is not to wish them bad luck. Let us be very clear on what is happening; the Department is saying this is an amendment whereas the European Union, in the documents we have seen, is saying very clearly that this is a derogation. Deputy Ó Cuív, the previous speaker, talked about a derogation on the bogs, and they got that. What happened nine years later, when Deputy Ó Cuív was no longer the Minister? What happened with the water derogation? This is not a derogation agreed between a farmer and Europe but one that a Minister in this country will ask Europe for, not in this CAP but in five or ten years' time. It is not that people are having a go at the Government. This is, unfortunately, the way that things have worked down the years, no more than with the animal remedies at the moment. The consequences of what was signed ten years ago and what was done nine years ago are now known.

This will be the first time ever that there will be two systems under CAP, from the hills of County Donegal to the bottom of County Cork, and from the hills of County Dublin to Connemara and the wetland and peatland areas. That is the reality and no one can deny it. There is a front door. Someone in the Golden Vale is sure to be in but someone living in the hills of County Donegal - it is not all bad land there and I come from worse land than anyone else - or another peaty area is being mapped out at the moment, right across this country. Ever county has a bit of this land. Take below in Listowel. Reclaimed bog there is where the best of cows are giving milk. The fear is about what is down the road under this system, especially if one looks at Pillar 2. The Minister of State talked about eco-schemes and how he wants people in them. Let us say I have land where there was once habitat and I go into an eco-scheme or the old rural environment protection scheme, REPS, and let the briars grow and let everything be great for biodiversity. I defy a Minister to tell me that in five years' time, when the Pillar 2 scheme is over, I can go in with a digger and make that into good agricultural land to qualify for the single farm payment. I would not be allowed to touch it under the rules and regulations coming from Europe and the biodiversity strategy the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, and the Government has signed for 2030.

What is coming on the right hand that is going to run along with the left hand? Let us say the agricultural policy is the 2030 one whereby 30% of our country, both land and sea, is to be designated and 10% of that will be what people will not stand on. With the best will in the world, we will not have enough land owned by the State to cover that. This is the fear, and the Minister understands it because he understands County Donegal and the west. The fear among farming families is that they will be put in this section and told their land is not good enough to qualify under the normal single farm payment but that because of the derogation, they can come in the back door and it will be sound. That will work and I do not doubt the Minister's and Minister of State's honesty in trying to ensure farmers are looked after. However, this is the first thing that has happened under GAEC. Whether the word "minimal" or some other wording is used, there will be a new wording for peatlands and wetlands. That affects large swathes of many counties right around the country. I am not leaving out any county. This is not the south against the north or the west against the east; it is about all farmers and small family farms. If one looks at the farms that are on or near areas that are peaty, they are generally small family farms where people are trying to make a living.

Let us look into the glass ball to see the future. What if we get a Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine like the Minister for Transport, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and he or she decides whether we go for the derogation and whether we ensure this land is eligible and that land is not or that we will leave land basically uninhabitable? This is the fear that needs to be addressed and now is the time to talk about it. What will happen then is those farmers fear that down the road they will be looking at what I call a theme park where they once farmed their sheep or their cattle. We should bear in mind that most of these areas are suckler and sheep areas. These people once farmed, sent their children to school and went to the local shop in these areas but, unfortunately, from then on, there will not be a need for any of it. That is the genuine fear.

This is not scaremongering by the INFHA or anybody else. There is a document which we have seen, and I will give a copy to anyone who wants to it. The word "derogation" is written in it in four or five places. When we have the word derogation, we must be very careful because of what the word means about what is down that road. This will not be between the agricultural farmer and Europe but between Europe and the member state and the Minister then has to go and look for it. The Department is saying it is an amendment. Why is one person saying one thing and others are saying the opposite?

We welcome that we will be more in control of our future because too much stuff comes from Europe. The only problem is that if a Minister has his tongue out to ask Europe for something, he is on the back foot. It is a sad day that we will have a two-tier system in the CAP that is going to come in depending on the farmer's land.

Let us look into the glass ball and look into the future. What happens if we get a Minister for Agriculture and the Marine like the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, deciding whether or not we go for the derogation and whether we ensure that that is not eligible or that is not or that we will leave it basically uninhabitable? What will happen then is those farmers - and this is the fear, it needs to be addressed and this is the time to talk about it - those farmers fear that down the road they will be looking at what I call a theme park where they once farmed their sheep or their cattle. We should bear in mind that most of these areas are suckler areas and sheep areas. Where these people once farmed and where they once sent their young kid to school and where they went to the local shop, unfortunately from then on there will not be a need for any of it. That is the genuine fear. This is not scaremongering by the INFHA or anybody else. There is a document which we have seen, and I will give a copy to anyone who wants it. In four to five places in the document the word "derogation" is written. When we have the word derogation, we must be very careful about it because of what the word means about what is down the road. Let us be clear on this because it is not between the agricultural farmer and Europe. It is between the member state and one has a Minister who has to go back and look for it. The Minister's Department is saying it is an amendment but why is one person saying one thing and the opposite being said the other way? We welcome that we will be more in control of our own future because too much stuff comes from Europe. The only problem is, if a Minister has his or her tongue out to ask Europe for something then he or she is on the back foot. It is a sad day really, that there will be a two tier system in the CAP that is going to come in which depends on the land u come from.

It will probably be more or less a regional system that depends on where one comes from.

If the Council of Ministers does not agree it when the Minister goes to Europe, then it will not be agreed. I am asking the Minister to make sure that the wetland and the peatland farmers will not be told they came in the back door and were given a few pounds and that it was not that they were great farmers or that they have great land. The day the Minister does that will be the day we will go down a wrong road in farming. I wonder if there is a theory and a ploy somewhere - I am not accusing the Minister of this - that we will get areas of the country where there will be less and less farming going on in them and that it might help the other areas that might be in a little bit of bother with what they are putting out in the line of carbon. That is the danger and the worry and it is not scaremongering to point that out.

The word we are hearing is that this will be nailed down one way or the other in May. The Minister has the opportunity. Given where he comes from, the Minister is well familiar with the situation with land on which mountain ewes live, where family farms have survived for years and from where the greatest of people have come out. Regardless of whether it was the Golden Vale or a hill or mountain where heather grows and from where mountainy sheep come out, if a family was reared in either of those places, they are both entitled to the same chance in life and the same application for the single farm payment. Those families should be under no obligation that they will be brought around this way into a scheme for the time being but that they will not do X, Y and Z. There is even a part of that document that talks about not being able to clean a drain. How have we farmed in the past on boggy or marginal land? We had to shore the land and clean the drains because that was the only way to get the water off it to make sure people earned a living on it. A lot of people will not even bother if that stuff comes in on the single farm payment. I hope some European is not thinking that where people brought the sweat of their brow for years to drain their land and make it workable to rear a family, they will no longer do so now.

See this speech in context