Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Senators who contributed to the debate, which has been informative. It is obvious that the contributions reflect the broad concern about how secure these payments are and an obligation to review the designation under a different set of criteria to those used perviously when lands were categorised.

Reference was made to the fact that over the years we increased the level of lands, as if that was a bad measure. I fundamentally disagree with that. A payment comes with the designation. The fact that under the criteria that applied at the time we were able to convince the European authorities, and I am learning quickly that that is not easily done because they are not easily convinced, of the merit of our case and that that delivered payments for farmers, irrespective of the shape or hue of the Government at the time, is something to be acknowledged as a good development in terms of getting payments to Irish farmers.

The other point worth bearing in mind is that this scheme is co-funded by the European Union.The European Union pays 53% and the Irish Government pays 47%. With a scheme that currently delivers payments in the region of €205 million to farmers this year, please bear in mind that approximately €100 million of Exchequer funding is required.

In respect of making a commitment, people have been unrealistic because they have commented on the scheme without referring to the overall financial constraints faced by the Government.

I take issue with a fairytale view that has been expressed that there has been a significant underspend in the rural development programme. That view is not based on facts. The programme spans a five-year period and it is not neatly book-ended on either side. We are still paying, in respect of this rural development programme, for some of the schemes that people applied for during the last rural development programme. The next rural development programme will pay for some of the GLAS because people who apply today will get five years. It is not a neat 2015 to 2020 arrangement.

My Department has conducted studies on our commitments to a range of schemes that it operates under the rural development programme. Therefore, I know that there is no headroom to say that we can redesignate funds from one area to another to deliver a higher level of payment for any scheme be they the disadvantaged area scheme, areas of natural constraint or any other scheme. It simply is not the case. Plenty of people have said that we should pay €200 for suckler cows and increase the level of payments for different categories of disadvantage. To make serious and credible proposals requires one to address the economic side. There has been no underspend in the rural development programme and there is no crock of gold in my Department that would enable us to fund higher payments for disadvantaged areas. Yes, we have committed to, in our programme for Government, increasing disadvantaged areas payments by €25 million in 2018. I hope to deliver that funding in the context of budget 2018. It is something that will be in the overall melting pot of the negotiation process.

I accept the bona fides of everybody who has made a contribution. When one stands back from the politics of this matter I think everyone wants to ensure that those who benefit, and those who operate and farm under disadvantage by virtue of the lands they own, rent or whatever, get a payment commensurate with that situation. There is no land anywhere on the island of Ireland that is more disadvantaged than the islands off the coast of Ireland. That is why, specifically in the context of the renegotiation of the rural development programme 2015 to 2020, the islands received special recognition. I challenge anybody to argue to the contrary that no matter how disadvantaged one's lands are elsewhere on the island of Ireland, there is nobody farming under a greater disadvantage than island farmers. Whether they are on Tory Island, Achill Island, Sherkin Island, Lambay Island or any other island off the coast, they operate under specific disadvantages in terms of transporting their product by boat to the market on the mainland or, indeed, transporting inputs by boat from the mainland to their farms. There are specific disadvantages and for that reason the islands were specifically recognised.

A Senator has argued that we should equalise the disadvantage that island farmers face with other categories such as mountain land. That would not be fair. It would not recognise the specific disadvantage encountered by island communities. Such disadvantage should attract a higher rate of payment.

In the context of the biophysical criteria and the fact that we are carrying out the review, consideration must be given to what the process throws up. It is my view that there will be tiered levels of payment but that will depend on the outcome of the assessment that uses biophysical criteria.

I acknowledge and agree with the point made about farmers who, through the sweat of their brow and commitment over many years, improved their land. I personally do not think that such endeavour should work against them now. If one talks about the biophysical criteria, though they may have drained the land they did not change the soil structure, a fact I hope will be reflected in the outcome.

The process was under way in my Department. In terms of our obligation, up to the point where we are now pursuing, along with other members states, an extension of the time involved by which time we must have this matter concluded, my Department worked on the assumption that we had to have this matter concluded by the time farmers applied for their basic payments in May 2018. A situation arose where Austria, at the Council of agriculture Ministers, asked for an extension of the period. The call was supported by a number of states, including Ireland. I believe that was prudent. I do not have a crystal ball that can tell me the outcome of the process. To use the old maxim of a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, I felt it would be better to adopt a policy of what we have we hold for the longest period possible and remove the uncertainty for the period that was within our control. I hope, while it has not been delivered in absolute detail yet, that the extension of time is forthcoming.

We have worked flat out to complete the process and that work will continue. I want to give a commitment that there will be an extensive engagement with the stakeholders who are the landowners and the affected communities, and Oireachtas colleagues. I have no problem in attending an Oireachtas committee meeting on this topic at a later stage.

The scheme is critically important. We should celebrate the fact that 95,000 farmers receive the payment. There are four categories. First, there is the island community. One will not find many people tillage farming on the islands off our coastline. Island farmers are the most disadvantaged and it is right that this fact is recognised by a higher payment. I appreciate that there are many hill farmers all over the country, particularly on the western seaboard and stretching from west Cork to Malin Head and Mizen Head. It is right that they are recognised. The two other categories are more severely handicapped lowland and less severely handicapped lowland. There is a tiered level of payments. Broadly speaking, the categories reflect the types of land in this country.

In terms of the overall budget, if we acceded to the proposal put forward then we would have to take €150 million from the €200 million of total funding and give it to the other categories. I could not be a party to the suggestion that mountainous land should be at the same level of disadvantage as islands. The proposal is unfair because island communities are at a specific disadvantage and that is why the payment is higher than that for anybody else. If one takes €150 million for two categories then one severely limits the amount of payments one can pay to the rest. It is right to have a tiered process, which will be reflected in the final outcome, but it is too early to say what that will be.

There are many farming communities on the western seaboard, along the line from Malin Head to Mizen Head, who do not farm on mountain-type lands. It is not a blanket area of disadvantage, of a uniform nature, because there are variations of disadvantage. It is right that the variations should be reflected in the final outcome and in the level of payment that people receive. That is something that I am committed to.

The payment is very important to farming communities. It is right and proper that we seek to deliver in this process, and this is something that I am committed to, the best possible outcome for the farming communities that reflects the level of disadvantage that each and everyone of them operates under.

The biophysical criteria frightens the farming community. I am reminded of the point that Senator Paul Daly made about his travels and his reference to the land around Macroom. I suggest that the next time he travels to Killarney races he takes more notice of the land around Macroom. Farmers in the region, as in every region, must cope with variations in the quality of land.One passes many furze bushes on one's way from Cork city to Killarney. Many farmers in the area are working marginal land. There are many farmers working fine land as well.