Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I thank him for the promptness with which he arrived here to discuss this important issue on the back of some shenanigans we had here over recent weeks given the proposals to amend the Order of Business to take a motion on this. At all times in opposing the amendment to the Order of Business, we have requested that the Minister come to the House. There are a number of facts we would like to hear before we put our full deck of cards on the table. I will proceed to address some of these issues for the Minister.

The Minister referred to the importance of the scheme to rural areas. I will address this. From 1975, it has been designed to help the smallholder on the family farm in the most restricted rural areas where the quality of land is very poor, owing to gradient or soil drainage. If the disadvantaged areas scheme, as it was known, had not been introduced, many smallholdings would have been abandoned and it would not have been feasible for the farming families to maintain them. It was in the interest not only of ensuring farm family income but also of biodiversity. Bearing in mind the maintenance of these plots of rural land with serious constraints, farming, including moderate farming, is what harnesses and maintains biodiversity and the nature of the area. This is the most important contribution of this scheme, along with providing badly needed income for the farm family.

I will not rehearse the figures in the Minister’s report but the scheme is worth €200 million to rural communities, which is no small sum in rural areas, including the most rural areas. We in Fianna Fáil have always maintained that the most disadvantaged must receive the greatest payment. The most disadvantaged areas and the areas of most constraint are the hill and mountain farms. As I have put on record on more than one occasion, we agreed with the Sinn Féin motion in this regard. We want the money to go to the most constrained. That is basically what it says on the tin. The money is not something we want to spread out like butter all over the country just to make sure everybody gets a little. It is a subsistence payment for those who are most constrained. It is on them that we want the money spent.

Before we could support the motion that was tabled last week, we would need to know a few different facts about the scheme. The first concerns money. If we were to give the mountain and hill farmers a payment equivalent to that paid on the islands, where would it come from? How much is in the kitty? Does the Minister propose to include in the ANC budget the under-expenditure in the other parts of the rural development programme? There is money for other schemes that is not being spent. It is sitting on the shelf and we feel it would be very advantageous and result in most value if it were diverted to the ANC scheme and put in as part of that pool.

There is a commitment in the programme for Government to an increase of €25 million in this area. We would like to hear about where the Minister is thinking of spending that money. As I stated, our emphasis is on the concept of giving the most money to the most constrained.

When and where will we see the new biophysical maps? With that it mind, why has the review been kicked down the line until 2019? The Minister was saying his Department was on target, would have all its ducks in a line, would have all its maps processed and would have its consultation process in place for the 2018 review but now we believe Ireland is supporting a proposal to push the review down the line to 2019? That said, it may not be the worst thing ever if it gives us more time to analyse the proposed maps that are to be submitted from the Irish side. I hope it would allow for an appeals process for people aggrieved over the new application procedure. This is if there are those who will be left out who were included previously. It is vital that they be given an opportunity to appeal.

I propose to the Minister that the maps and submission from the Irish side be sent, prior to their submission, to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine for review. This is vital to such an important sector. Reviewing the proposal of the Irish side is the purpose of the committee.

In any proposal under the rural development regulation, I would like to see addressed the issues faced by people with SACs and SPAs in low-lying areas. It was not mentioned in any way in the Sinn Féin motion that such people were getting absolutely no recognition or compensation for the associated inconvenience and constraint.

As part of the review, we have the fine-tuning section. My reading of it is that it will involve the elimination of areas that had a constraint but which no longer have one due to the diligence of the farmer, or other individual, on foot of investing money. Owing to the hard work of the farmer, his spending of a lot of money on drainage and his diligence and efficiency, land with a poor drainage history might be transformed and, therefore, be taken out of the relevant category and not included as an area of constraint.I would have serious reservations in that area, in particular, with regard to drainage as in the example I cited. The Minister, as a farmer, knows the position. He comes from a far drier and better quality part of the country than that from which I come.