Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms McGuinness to the House and thank her for her comprehensive presentation. I also applaud her for her continuing contribution and for wearing the green jersey in the European Parliament, particularly in her area of expertise. I will raise a couple of issues she may wish to address.

In the last day or two her colleague, Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP, has criticised what he believes will be a massive reduction in EU Structural Funds. He reports that 43.5% or almost ¤200 million will be taken out of the Structural Funds between 2014 and 2020. He has asked that a special provisional allocation of up to ¤345 million go towards the Border, midland and western, BMW, region. He makes the point that the criteria used are flawed and outdated due to the figures being used by the Commission with regard to wealth. The reference years used predate the devastating economic crisis and rising unemployment levels across Ireland and particularly in the BMW region. The unemployment rate now stands at 16.5% across the region, which is 20% below the EU target set under the Europe 2020 strategy for growth. Perhaps Ms McGuinness will comment on that.

There is also the question of payments. The IFA takes the view that any redistribution of payments must not undermine the viability of family farms and must be on the basis of objective criteria. As Ms McGuinness is aware, there in an ongoing debate in this country about what are termed "active farmers". Can she outline what she believes to be the definition of active farmers? Like my friend and colleague, Senator Comiskey, I come from a severely disadvantaged area where there are primarily stock farmers and hardly any form of tillage. About 99% of the land in County Leitrim is marginal and does not grow anything much other than trees, which I understand are supposed to be a key area of growth but that has brought its own legacy. I am curious to establish this. On the one hand, there is a view that the proposals on the direct payments will benefit approximately 75% of farmers across the country, in areas where there are both tillage and dairy farmers, yet there appears to be some resistance to this on the basis that there will be a continuation of direct payments to corporate bodies and the very rich and that this could somehow undermine the continuing viability of the family farm. Where I come from farming is part-time to a large extent. People try to get extra off-farm income. However, the money they receive directly from Europe goes into the local towns and villages and the local economy. Any disruption or significant reduction of that will have a knock-on effect on the local economy. I am curious to hear Ms McGuinness's views on the issue of payments.

There is also the rural development programme and greening. There appears to be controversy about the greening proposals. Members of the agriculture committee visited Germany a few weeks ago and I was interested to find that the Germans are very concerned about the greening measures as well. It was salutary to discover that they are also concerned for what they term their disadvantaged areas. I understood that all of Germany had lush, fertile land but that is not strictly the case. We might be able to engage in common cause with them in that regard. We secured funding of ¤350 million under the rural development programme. Again, there is concern that this could be reduced. Will Ms McGuinness comment on that? There is also discussion about capping the payments due to the large sums of money some individuals have been getting.