Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Every time I talk about agricultural policy to people who have no interest in farming, I can see their eyes start to glaze over. I get it. It can seem like a niche subject that has nothing to do with the vast majority of the public but this could not be further from the truth. We do not often view the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine as a public service, as we do the Department of Health or Housing, Local Government and Heritage, but it is. Agriculture is how we feed ourselves as a nation. It is how we use our land. It is how we sell ourselves as a country to the world. What could be more fundamental than that?

As consumers, we have a right to know that our food is produced in a fair and ethical way and I can tell the House that at present it is not. That is at the expense of the majority of Irish farmers, migrant and Irish workers, consumers and the environment. This is a direct result of the policies implemented by CAP and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The power the Department wields is considerable and it needs to be held accountable by politicians and the public.

I thank the Independent Group for bringing forward this motion which enables us to talk about this matter. It raises a larger point about the role of the Dáil in relation to the Government's position on agriculture and marine policies at an EU level. The forthcoming CAP will shape not only farming practices but also the Irish landscape for potentially the next decade. It is unbelievable that there has essentially been no time devoted to discussing the Government's approach. The Minister and his officials are representing farmers and the State, with no oversight or scrutiny from this House.

I have had to rely on parliamentary questions to get clarification on the Minister's position at the trilogue negotiations on CAP on issues such as convergence. The Commission seems to be pushing 75% convergence whereas the European Parliament proposed 100% convergence. What is the Minister's stance on this? I am unsure. In response to my parliamentary question, the Minister informed me that his Department is analysing the effects of all proposed changes and engaging with European colleagues and farmer organisations which will inform the decision-making process. This implies the Minister does not have a position. This implies the Minister is sitting at the Council of Ministers saying nothing. This implies no real representation of Irish farmers in the negotiations. However, representatives from farming organisations have informed me that the Minister and his officials have a position that they are pushing the minimum convergence, and for member states to have a greater function in setting the levels. Either the Minister does not have a position, or he does and he is not willing to make it known. Either way, there is no scrutiny.

I have also sought that we would have an opportunity to vote on the position the Minister is taking in the negotiations but he informed me, also through a parliamentary question, that this will not be voted on by the Oireachtas. The reality of the matter is that decisions are being made about measures that affect farmers across the country with practically no input from Deputies. Reduced Dáil sittings have decreased our opportunity to question Ministers but I am seeking that the Minister will ensure that a session is added to the calendar as soon as possible to allow him to present his position on CAP negotiations and for opposition Deputies and, indeed, backbench Deputies to ask questions. This large point relates directly to the motion before us. The only reason we are talking about this part of the new CAP is thanks to the Independent Group using one of its few Private Members' business slots for this. This motion is doing what the Government should be doing. It is outlining a clear position in support of Irish farmers, allowing the House to discuss it and directing the Minister to adopt that stance in the negotiations. It is clear, simple and transparent.

This motion highlights the GAEC 2 category, which refers to land with carbon-rich soils, such as uplands and drained peatlands which form significant portions of farmland in the west of Ireland and in the midlands. One could draw a line from halfway through my constituency to the Inishowen Peninsula and most of the land to the west would fall within this category. It is the land of small farmers and the land of families who depend on basic payment schemes. Through the work of the INHFA, Deputy Fitzmaurice, Mr. Luke 'Ming' Flanagan MEP and others, it has come to light that the CAP proposals could exclude this land from the basic income support for sustainability, BISS, scheme, which will succeed the basic payment scheme. This proposal from the Council of Ministers has implications for farmers' ability to access other payments because this land would no longer be classified as an area in which agricultural activity could take place. Deciding land is ineligible flies in the face of anything that resembles a just and fair transition.

For too long, we have seen small farms become more and more unviable. We have seen farmers' protests the length and breadth of the country, the inhumane treatment of workers in meat plants and so many more injustices in our food system, while a small few big players reap the lion's share of rewards. This issue falls in the same failing system. As the INHFA points out, this move essentially separates carbon-rich land from all other farmland in terms of CAP. It will remove the right of certain farmers to payments, with eligibility dependent on unclear derogations of which there is no guarantee. This motion rightly calls for the Government to oppose this amendment to protect the agriculture area status of these farms. Speaking at the Joint Committee on Agriculture and the Marine last week, Department officials provided a passive summary of CAP negotiations. It was as if events were happening around them and they had no influence on them.

We remain unclear on what the official position is on GAEC 2 land. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline, in plain language, if will he will be opposing this motion at the Council of Ministers. Will he do everything he can in the negotiations to ensure that these lands will still be classed as agricultural - we all know a derogation does not go far enough - and that families farming them will retain their right to earn a living? My constituents in Beara and Mizen, around Bantry and on the islands, who will be affected by these proposed changes, are eager to hear his response.

The beef plan protests and subsequent beef plan task force epitomise the way the Department treats farmers and avoids meaningful engagement with them, as we are seeing this week. As a bit of background, there used be a law which banned below-cost selling of produce to protect primary producers and smaller retailers.

The Government got rid of this in 2006, so understandably the Beef Plan movement has been eager to include an independent regulator on the agenda of the negotiations they fought very hard to get. They want a regulator that can set rules to ensure fair trading practices but they have not been able to get that onto the agenda. Instead, the Government is planning to introduce a food ombudsman which, while welcome, will only oversee existing rules which are quite clearly not working.

Like many, I have always been beyond baffled at the special treatment that Larry Goodman and Meat Industry Ireland get. This treatment has never been afforded to small farmers, food producers, workers in meat plants or consumers and it is high time that changed. The Minister can change it.

See this speech in context