Vol. 573 No. 4
109 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if, with respect to establishing entitlements under the mid term review agreement, farmers who leased their land during the entire reference period has entitlements; if not, the other similar groups which have no entitlements; the plans he has to address this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25673/03]
Under the mid-term review of the Agenda 2000 agreement, the single decoupled payment is for farmers who actively farmed during the reference years 2000, 2001 and 2002. Entitlements will be established for them which they must activate by submitting a valid area aid/single payment application in 2005. The single payment will be based on the average number of animals, or the average number of hectares in the case of arable aid, on which payments were made under the livestock premia and arable aid schemes in respect of the three reference years 2000, 2001 and 2002.
The single payment is calculated by taking the three-yearly average number of animals or arable hectares which attracted payment and multiplying them by the payment rate for 2002 in respect of livestock, or by €383.04 per hectare in the case of arable aid. Accordingly, farmers who had let their entire land during the reference period cannot establish entitlements. However, if such farmers can demonstrate to the satisfaction of my Department that they were obliged to lease their land because of reasons of force majeure, or exceptional circumstances, they may request that entitlements be established for them on the basis of the years 1997, 1998 and 1999. The main group of farmers who will not have entitlements established for them are those who were not actively farming and drawing down premia payments during the reference period.
The Minister said that farmers who did not draw down premia payments during the reference period will not have entitlements established for them. In that context is he also referring to 1997, 1998 and 1999? Does the Minister agree that it would be undesirable if several groups emerged to argue against the Fischler proposals similar to the milk rights group, which was in operation for nearly 20 years and the concerns of which were only recently addressed? Would he agree that there is something inherently unfair about a system whereby someone who leased their land, be it without any unusual circumstances, had no indication that such leasing would lead to a negative economic impact for them down the road, and that something must be done to address the difficulty these people have? I know that many of the farming organisations have adopted an attitude of, "tough luck – you lost out", but if we are interested in fairness in our society we must address these difficulties.
To what is the Minister referring when he points to force majeure? What of an individual who was sick for a long period, for example, someone not necessarily in the farm retirement scheme, who leased his or her land? What about the individual who never farmed for premia? I recently spoke to a vet who has about 400 clients, approximately ten of whom never claimed premia. Ten is not a huge number, but enough to have major implications for those involved. Can the Minister give any indication that those people will be facilitated in any manner?
Force majeure, or exceptional circumstances, could be any of the following: the death of a farmer during the relevant period; long-term professional incapacity, that is, sickness; a severe natural disaster gravely affecting the holdings of agricultural land; the accidental destruction of livestock on the holding if, for example, they fell victim to an electric storm; or epizootic diseases affecting part or all of the farmer's livestock, forcing a farmer to destock during the period as a result of one of those diseases. A farmer applying for force majeure will have to provide appropriate evidence and each case will be examined on its merits. The Department and I intend to make a decision next year to establish an appeals body for difficult and exceptional cases, which will be dealt with as equitably as possible. In the case of force majeure, the quotas given to people will be taken from our annual entitlement of quota and there will, therefore, be a reduction in the overall national quota. If there is a very large number of force majeure cases, over the ceiling, that could mean a linear reduction in our national quota entitlement.
Could the Minister confirm that entitlements will come from the national reserve and will he outline what he considers will be the reserve? I understand the figure is 3%. Will payments come from the national reserve or from the entitlements outside the reserve?
I welcome the announcement by the Minister that he is going to establish an appeals body and I ask him to do so as soon as possible. I see no reason why it can not be set up straightaway in the new year so that the appeals can be dealt with as quickly as possible, allowing those who are adjudged to qualify to get their payments at the end of next year.
The first category to be catered for is the force majeure category. Those payments will come from the top of our national ceiling when there is a deduction of up to 3% for the national reserve, and that will be made up from our gross entitlements to create this national reserve. Farmers may apply for an allocation of entitlements from the national reserve. They will, for example, include farmers who start this year, qualifying perhaps because of their age. Other likely categories are farmers who receive a holding or part of a holding by way of an inheritance; farmers who bought a holding or part of a holding in the reference period, or not later than 31 May 2003; farmers who entered into a multi-annual lease of a holding or part of a holding; and farmers who made investments or purchased land in the reference period, or not later than 31 May 2003. That type of farmer, younger farmers, particularly, with an appropriate green certificate or qualification, will have priority entitlements from the national reserve.
Is the 3% a rolling figure or is it re-established every year?
We are well over the time. We must move on to Question No. 110.
