Dáil debates

Wednesday, 2 November 2011

Priority Questions

Common Agricultural Policy

1:00 pm

Photo of Michael MoynihanMichael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine his negotiating position in relation to the 2014 reference year and 2011 activation clause set out in Commissioner Ciolos' Common Agriculture Policy proposals in early October. [32329/11]

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This question relates to the specific issue of the use of 2014 as a reference year for the new CAP proposals in respect of single farm payments. The Deputy will be aware that in advance of the publication of the European Commission's document on reform of the CAP, a great deal of concern was expressed to the effect that 2014 would be used as a reference year. That concern was realised when the document in question was published. In the period between the commencement of the lobbying effort in respect of this matter and the publication of the document, my officials and I engaged in intensive lobbying of the cabinet of the Commissioner on Agriculture and Rural Development. We indicated that what is proposed would give rise to major problems in Ireland and that we are extremely concerned that there would be a land grab prior to 2014 if the reference year was set in the future rather than - as has traditionally been the case - in the past.

There was partial acceptance of the argument we put forward because the Commission added a new section which stipulates the inclusion of 2011 as a "tie-back" year. In other words, if a farmer has eligibility in the proposed reference year of 2014, he or she can only be eligible for the single farm payment in the future if he or she made some claim for that payment in 2011. This is designed to stop people from outside the agricultural community coming in and buying up large tracts of lower value land in an effort to secure payments indefinitely into the future. In essence, the problem has still not been resolved. I remain concerned that in the build up to 2014 the leasing and conacre markets and, potentially, the afforestation market may be affected by the setting of the reference year in the future rather than the past.

Farmers should recognise that this issue remains the subject of much discussion. In that context, I encourage people not to make investment or long-term leasing decisions on the basis of the current reference year of 2014 or the current tie-back year of 2011. A great deal of negotiation remains to be done in respect of this issue.

Photo of Michael MoynihanMichael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his reply. Regardless of the complexity of legislation emanating from Brussels, it is amazing how quickly individuals interpret it in order to identify the difficulties which might arise for them.

The Minister referred to entitlements to single farm payments. I understand that the document published by the European Commission stipulates that an entitlement must be established. The difficulty I perceive in this regard is that some farmers - for family reasons or whatever - leased out their lands to third parties during the period leading up to 2005 or 2006. Thereafter, perhaps as a result of the death of a parent or for some other reason, a son or daughter may have returned to the family holding and begun farming the land in question. However, the entitlements relating to such lands remained with those who leased them during the period 2000 to 2002, inclusive. As a result, a farmer may have submitted a single farm payment application in respect of land of this kind but no entitlement would have been activated in respect of it because no such entitlement existed. What would be the position of such a farmer in respect of the proposed reforms?

There is a second matter about which I am concerned. As a result of the fact that there would have been no perceived financial gain from submitting an application for a single farm payment, a person who returns to take over his or her parents' farm and who bought stock and placed it on the land in 2006, 2007 or 2008 could not have activated an entitlement because no application was made. As per the wording provided in the European Commission's document, those in the two instances to which I refer would not have activated an entitlement in 2011. This assumes that the wording relating to 2011 and 2014 will stand when the negotiations are concluded. There are two groups of people, particularly those with difficult family circumstances, who would not be included under the Commission wording. Is there anything that can be done for these individuals?

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy makes a valid point. There is also a third group of people affected and this comprises those who have entered farming for the first time. I refer to those who are serious about active farming rather than those who are buying land in order to lease it out and obtain payment in respect of it in the medium term. The people in the third group to which I refer will not have an entitlement in the current year, 2011, but who may well be actively involved in farming in the reference year of 2014. We must facilitate active farmers who are working the land in the context of the choice of any new reference year. That fact is accepted by many of my counterparts in Europe with whom I have discussed this issue. To date, the focus has been on those who have existing leases on land, those who traditionally rented land and those who leased land under the conacre system - either from their neighbours or someone else - over a period of years and the fact that they would have obtained entitlements in respect of such lands. The main concern in this regard relates to the leases in question being broken by their landlords in order that they might maximise their own entitlements. We could not possibly agree to any package whereby those who are actively involved in farming and who are working land in respect of which entitlements should apply would be prevented from obtaining such entitlements.