Skip to main content
Normal View

Grant Payments

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 2 November 2011

Wednesday, 2 November 2011

Questions (4)

Luke 'Ming' Flanagan

Question:

4 Deputy Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will confirm that in view of the fact that farmers may only include land which they own, rents or leases in their application for a single farm payment or area payment, the same payments will not be impacted upon if they were to continue to exercise their rights to cut turf on bogland which they do not own, rent or lease but merely have turbary rights to; if he will further confirm that in cases adjudicated upon by him, grounds available to a farmer as turbary rights were disallowed when included in applications for single farm payments and area payments; if he will give an assurance that payments to farmers will not be impacted by any issues relating to the cutting of turf on bogs be they special areas of conservation or not; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32708/11]

View answer

Oral answers (53 contributions)

Deputy Luke ‘Ming' Flanagan raised this matter with me on the previous occasion on which I was present for Question Time. I am of the view that the reply I intend to provide is much more complete than that which I delivered on the occasion in question.

Applicants must declare all the land they farm in the particular year for the single payment scheme and the disadvantaged area scheme, be it owned, leased or rented. If, in addition, a farmer is a participant in REPS 4 and has a turbary right, he or she can obtain REPS payment on the turbary plot provided it is declared on the annual SPS application form and he or she has included it on his or her REPS 4 plan. Normally, land used for turf cutting, whether owned, rented, leased or the subject of traditional turbary rights, is declared as "other" or "bog" on the single farm payment application. Such land is not eligible for payment under the single payment scheme or the disadvantaged areas scheme. The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht has primary responsibility for protection of special areas of conservation, SACs. Certain activities are restricted within SACs and can only be carried out with the consent of that Department. These notifiable actions vary depending on the type of habitat that is present on the site.

Where a farmer cuts turf on a bog plot where cutting is prohibited, he or she is liable to be penalised under cross-compliance if the non-compliance comes to light during a cross-compliance inspection or is cross-reported to my Department from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The two key elements in cross-compliance are the requirement for farmers to comply with 18 statutory management requirements set down in EU legislation on the environment, food safety, animal health, welfare, plant health and a requirement to maintain the farm in good agricultural and environmental condition.

The rate of on-farm inspection required for cross-compliance is 1% of those farmers to whom the statutory management requirements or good agricultural and environmental conditions apply. If an applicant is found to be non-compliant, sanctions are provided for in the governing EU regulations and those sanctions will be applied to the single payment scheme, disadvantaged areas scheme and REPS 4.

Next April, if a farmer in receipt of a single farm payment cuts turf, as has been done for hundreds of years, but the land is not declared in his or her single farm payment applications, will he or she be affected? If so, what financial penalties would be involved?

I read that legalistic answer so that it would be on the record for the Deputy, as he has asked for it several times. SACs have been in place since 1997. Raised bogs in such areas are protected. Ireland got a ten-year derogation from ending turf cutting on those raised bogs. Since 2007, we have been giving assurances to the European Commission that we will be consistent with the directives and stop cutting turf in SACs with sensitive raised bogs. The previous Government agreed to this. The European Commission has gone to court and won the case to enforce this.

If people are deliberately breaking the law, then there will be consequences from a cross-compliance point of view. That is how the system works. Deputy Flanagan is a talented communicator in this House. I encourage him to find workable solutions for the difficult situation of turf cutting in SACs that will be within the law. It might involve compensation or relocation of turbary rights. Instead of protest and inciting anger in people, I appeal to Deputy Flanagan to talk to the Minister who is proactive in this area to find an acceptable solution in what is a heated and difficult discussion.

I take the charge that I am inciting people as a bit of an insult.

Is it not accurate?

What would the Minister call one of his party's Deputies who got elected for saying he would sign his name in blood to oppose turf cutting bans? If that is not incitement, what is?

It should be clear to the Minister and to the Government that the ten-year derogation never existed. Fine Gael Deputies have said so in the media on many occasions. In fact, they claim there was a nod and wink to Europe but no official derogation. The Turf Cutters and Contractors Association, for which I am public relations officer, is attempting to find a solution. I will be in Cavan tonight meeting with turf cutters to find out what they believe is the best solution for their particular bog. I will be doing the same tomorrow evening in Clare and in Kinnegad on Saturday. At that stage, I will have met pretty much everyone who cuts turf on all of the 55 bogs in question. The Turf Cutters and Contractors Association will present its solution which goes along with what Fine Gael promised before the election.

Does the Deputy have a question?

Our solution contains three parts. First, there will be compensation, which very few people want. Second, there should be relocation of turbary rights which most people want. Third is re-designation which would involve taking part or full bog areas out of the SACs.

Thank you, Deputy. I call on the Minister.

On that, Deputy Frank Feighan said he would sign his name in blood. If that is not incitement, what is? Furthermore, he got elected on it.

I am not going to get into the politics of throwing a charge against an individual.

The Minister accused me of inciting people, yet Deputy Frank Feighan said he would sign his name in blood against the ending of turf cutting.

Yes, I said Deputy Flanagan was inciting people. What is he doing now?

Please, Deputies.

Deputy Frank Feighan said he would sign his name in blood. Is that not inciting people? It is a lie. That is what it is.

Deputy Flanagan must withdraw that.

What? I must withdraw the fact that we were lied to before the general election.

Will Deputy Flanagan also allow the Minister to continue without interruption?

What about the fact that I was accused of inciting people? Is that acceptable?

Deputy Flanagan knows that a political charge can be made in the Chamber.

I did not have to answer this question. This issue is not my Department's responsibility. I am trying to help Deputy Flanagan by answering this question and giving a better understanding of the connection between cross-compliance and turf cutting.

What about inciting people?

I have asked the Deputy to be constructive in finding a solution for the 53 bogs affected and not to propose solutions that are not legally possible. The idea of re-designating large numbers of SACs——

They are not large numbers.

From my understanding, this will only raise expectations that will be impossible to deliver.

The Minister does not understand the problem. It was possible before the general election. Deputy Feighan promised us it would be done. He would even sign his name in blood.

It is easy to quote someone like that.

Can I get an apology for being accused of inciting people?

Legislation on incitement sees it as a serious matter. However, a political charge made in the House is a different matter.

There is a difference between me making a charge against a Deputy who can then defend himself immediately and the charge made by Deputy Flanagan against a colleague of mine who is not here to defend himself. This is not the first time Deputy Flanagan has done this to Deputy Feighan.

I have a DVD of Deputy Feighan making this promise about signing his name in blood if the Minister would like to see it.

We will move on to Question No. 5.

Deputy Feighan should be here in the Chamber doing his job instead of handing out Christmas cards.

There are six minutes for each question. We must now move on to Deputy Durkan's question.

What did Deputy Flanagan just say?

If Deputy Feighan was not as busy sending out Christmas and birthday cards, he might be here in the Chamber.

Deputy Flanagan is not here too long yet to make judgments on any Member.

Some people think they know it all.

Can we have a bit of order from Deputy Durkan?

Deputy Flanagan should learn a little more.

Populism can be a dangerous thing, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

That is okay as well. I am not allowed to come back on that one.

It is Question Time.

Why did the Minister say that to me?

I said it to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Populism. How did the Minister get elected?

On Deputy Durkan's question——

Populism and the bondholders. I am leaving the Chamber.

Go on and walk out in protest. Good man.

My daddy did not give me a seat.

Top
Share