Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Nov 2016

Agriculture Issues: Discussion

Chairman

I welcome members of the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, who are Mr. Henry O'Donnell, national vice chair, Mr. Colm O'Donnell, chairman of the CAP committee, Mr. Joe Condon, vice chair of the CAP committee and Mr. John Cuddy, committee member. We will discuss a number of issues, including GLAS schemes, areas of natural conservation and the reform of the appeals office.

Before we begin, I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the Chairman to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. O'Donnell to make his opening statement.

Mr. Henry O'Donnell

First, as vice chair of the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, I want to thank the committee for affording us the opportunity to discuss issues of major importance to our members. As I am sure members all understand, there are several items that we would like to discuss but on this occasion we will try to concentrate on five and we hope that we can get to address the committee again the near future to discuss other issues.

The first item we want to address is the impact and cost land designations are having on farmers. For those who may not be familiar with these actions, farmers are required to get consent from the National Parks and Wildlife Service or the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine for actions such as controlled burning, topping, clearing scrub, increasing or reducing stock numbers and changing or introducing stock not found in the area. Further restrictions apply to farmers on hill land with a Natura designation, where permission is required for the spreading of lime, inorganic or organic fertiliser including slurry and farm yard manure and the supplementary feeding of livestock. The list goes on.

However, getting permission is just a small part of the problem. Full planning permission is now a requirement from the relevant county councils for any new fence or any other action requiring planning. To get planning permission, farmers need to draft a Natura impact statement costing anything from €1,000 to €3,000. Add to this the cost of an engineer and other planning-related costs and the overall cost often exceeds €4,000. These costs are putting farmers at a competitive disadvantage to farmers who do not have designated land. This is blatantly unfair and we are asking the committee to recommend that these farmers get these State-enforced costs reimbursed by the State.

Another issue relating to land designations is how they restrict landowners' ability to generate income from their land. Options available to other farmers are not available on designated land. This burden imposed on our land has never been acknowledged by the State. This has to change. We have been told in Brussels that they estimate the cost of designation at €150 per hectare per year. We believe it is not unreasonable to expect this. A very poor attempt is being made through GLAS to address this problem with €79 per hectare, but it does not pay on every hectare and this is not acceptable to us. If the money is not available then lift the designations.

To conclude on this matter we emphasise that we are not against the idea of protecting valuable habitats. However, we do not believe that we should take on board the full costs of this. If they are as valuable as everyone says, then work with us and reward us for the cost in having them and protecting them. Failure to do so makes our State no better than the biggest landgrabber of all, Oliver Cromwell.

The second issue we want to address relates to farm inspections and Department appeals. We all know that inspections are a requirement for all farm payments but we also believe that they should not hold up these payments. Almost 4,000 farmers are still awaiting their basic payments and ANC moneys because of small anomalies and the digitising of maps. These payments should have been made to farmers but due to circumstances outside their control they are now left without vital income, four weeks from Christmas. This would not be accepted by any other sector so why are we being victimised? A number of years ago home help workers were left waiting a number of weeks for expenses incurred and there was justified outrage over it. But every year thousands of farmers are left waiting weeks, and often months, for a significant part of their income and it does not seem to matter.

While we are well aware of the work carried out by many Oireachtas Members in trying to sort out individual payments for farmers, we need to sort the overall problem. Inspections on declared reference areas need to be concluded by mid-August, with farmers notified of any problems by mid-September as required under the charter of rights for farmers. Why can this not happen and why, as our State legislators, can members of the committee not insist that this does happen?

Another action that we need to see implemented is payment by the Department on any reference area not in dispute. This action would ensure that almost every farmer was certain of getting payment when due. Why this has not happened we do not know; maybe someone in here can enlighten us. However, the suspicion of farmers affected by this is that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine would lose control if this action was implemented and it would result in a lot more farmers contesting these decisions. Farmers cannot currently contest these decisions because that would delay all their payments.

Finally on this issue, we would like to get clarity on the agricultural appeals office. This office, we believe, is no longer fit for purpose, which may be a conclusion shared in this House as a review of it is included in the programme for Government. Maybe someone in here can clarify what the present situation is. We would like to see it replaced by a new appeals board that has farmer representation on it. We also recommend the following - where a farmer faces a possible penalty following a farm inspection then all decision-making documentation be given to the farmer by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine so the farmer can make an informed decision on a possible appeal; all decisions must be fully enforceable against the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine with the burden of proof on the Department; all decisions should be reached within three months of them first appearing in front of the board and farmers should continue to be paid any benefit not at issue until a final decision is reached; and only information received by the farmer from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine when the original decision was issued is allowed and no further information can be added on the day of the appeal. If successful, the farmer should be awarded expert costs and interest.

I will now deal with GLAS and commonage management plans, taking the issue of commonages first. At the moment we have interim commonage management plans which will ensure commonage farmers get their GLAS payment along with every other GLAS farmer. We welcome this but it seems there could be almost 400 commonages that either have no appointed planner or had a planner appointed who is no longer in a position to complete the interim plan to ensure farmers are paid. The latter seem to be predominantly FRS planners who worked on contract for Teagasc. Our concern is for the farmers on these commonages who may not get a payment due to no fault of theirs. This cannot happen and we would ask that members intervene with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to ensure payment for these farmers. There seems to be no mechanism for a group of commonage farmers to change a commonage planner if they are dissatisfied with their performance, even though they have to pay the planner.

On the issue of the CMP, it now appears that the plans will not have to be completed until summer 2017. However, the most important thing is that the plans be sustainable and protect all the farmers' payments provided they carry meet all the requirements under the plan. So far, we have not got that confirmed by the Department even though it appears to contradict EU requirements. These require actions in a pillar 2 scheme – GLAS – to be above and beyond actions in a pillar 1 scheme – the basic payment. This fact was made known to us by officials in the EU Commission.

Last Friday, a further bombshell was delivered to commonage farmers seeking to join GLAS 3 in a Department-issued circular. It states commonage farmers "Must have submitted an SPS claim for his/her commonage share in 2014". The question is why? Any other applicant to GLAS 3 qualifies provided he has made an application in 2016. This is blatant discrimination against commonage farmers who have actively engaged in the management of commonages by acquiring dormant shares and becoming active on commonages. Further to this, farmers who entered GLAS 1 and 2 and are unhappy with aspects of their GLAS plans but who have complied fully with them are not now being allowed to transfer into GLAS 3 unless they forgo their 2016 payment. At the same time, there are tillage farmers who are being allowed to switch into GLAS 3 without penalty and, in some cases, they get GLAS plus. We cannot have the Department manipulating the terms and conditions of GLAS to direct pillar 2 moneys to tillage farmers instead of providing them with a proper compensation package for losses suffered due to bad weather conditions. These issues will be brought to Brussels, if necessary.

Moving away from the commonages, one of the biggest issues we have had with GLAS was the apparent exclusion of farmers on private hill land with no Natura designation and farmers on the more marginal land. Both of these groups are farming what we perceive as high-nature-value farmland and, as such, should have been given priority access to any agri-environmental scheme. It appears to us that the fact that they were farming in an environmental friendly way has actually worked against them. Perhaps there is a move to reduce their income and encourage them to go into forestry, especially on the lowlands. These farmers should be given a proper explanation as to why they were excluded.

On the subject of forgotten farmers, there is a group of young farmers under 40 who began farming between 2003 and 2008 and who, for various reasons, were never able to avail of the limited reserves at that time and never got installation aid. These farmers, who have proven their commitment to farming, are being left behind by comparison with other young farmers. We know this issue has been addressed by the joint Oireachtas committee, which recommended that these farmers be looked after and brought up to the national average for basic payment and greening. This commitment to ensure fairness for these farmers has also been included in the programme for Government. We would like to know the current status of these commitments.

Let us consider the areas of natural constraint, ANC, scheme. We understand the review of areas in this scheme should be completed by summer 2017. We provisionally welcome the scientific model and map of constraints being produced by the Department. It should reflect the areas of most constraint. These areas need to be fully compensated under the scheme. The existing scheme payments do not reflect the actual constraint and have been further diluted by political intervention in recent times. As it stands, qualifying lands are paid as follows: mountain type land attracts €109.70 on the first 10 ha and €95.99 on the next 24; lowland and more severely handicapped land attracts €95.99 per hectare on 30 ha; and lowland that is less severely handicapped attracts €82.27 per hectare on 30 ha. Some 75% of agricultural land in Ireland receives an ANC payment. These bands are too narrow, with only €13 separating the payment for mountain-type land, attracting €95.99 per hectare, and the payment for lowland that is less severely handicapped, attracting €82.27 per hectare. The INHFA proposal is to target the payment to reflect fairly the level of constraint of the land type by increasing the rate per hectare, increasing the number of eligible hectares and front-loading payments on the first 20 ha.

With an additional €25 million allocated for the scheme next year, the INHFA is calling for these moneys to be targeted at the areas with the largest level of constraint. We are also requesting that unspent moneys in pillar 2, and particularly in the GLAS scheme, be used to put a meaningful budget in place for the ANC scheme. This will ensure full annual expenditure of rural development programme moneys and, in the process, target moneys at the most vulnerable farmers, who have suffered from successive cuts to this payment in recent times.

We understand this review will present major challenges for many politicians, but we hope they will see what is fair. In the INHFA, we see this as the biggest issue we face over the next 12 months, and we have launched a campaign that will be at full speed by spring 2017.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Donnell for his presentation.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I welcome the two Messrs O'Donnell, Colm and Henry, and also Mr. Joe Condon and Mr. John Cuddy. I thank them for their presentation. I acknowledge the work of their organisation since its inception. They have raised many important issues today and put their case very clearly.

I wish to touch on a couple of the points made, including farm inspections and appeals. These are an issue every year. This year in particular, unfortunately, farmers did not become aware that their land would be examined for digital mapping until they did not receive their payments. The way the Department deals with this is unacceptable. The delegates are asking a question that has been asked to me several times, that is, why the 70% payment is not paid out early in cases where there is a dispute, an over-claim or any other matter. It leaves farmers in very difficult circumstances without any prior warning. The delegates' proposal in this regard is very fair.

Let me touch upon a couple of other issues raised, particularly the issue of commonage. Could I have more detail on the organisation's experience regarding the uptake of the GLAS scheme by farmers with commonage? What percentage of commonage farmers are actually participating? Why is the figure so low? It should be a source of income for farmers on hill-type and commonage land.

A point was made on the ANC schemes. The delegation pointed out that the current payment should be weighted more in favour of hill farms. Are there figures for this? Has this been fleshed out? If so, could the delegates elaborate on it?

Overall some very good points have been made and some very fair questions have been posed. I suggest that the committee forward those questions and points to the Minister so he can return with a comprehensive response addressing them. We will try to achieve progress on this.

Chairman

That is the ultimate aim today.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I welcome the delegates.

The issues the witnesses raised are raised with us regularly by people from all parts of the country. Land designation is an ongoing problem, particularly in the west of Ireland. It has a major impact on many farmers.

I wonder about the forgotten farmers and the fact that we have had no money available and no possibility of anything being done for them. There is nothing for people who are new to farming or for returning emigrants, although it is in the programme for Government. How much will it cost? When I speak to the Minister, he says the only way a reserve can be established is by taking a little from everybody else, which would be highly unpopular. I am sure others have had the same experience. If we could put a figure on it, we could work back from there.

When we questioned the Commissioner about the areas of natural constraint, he and the people from the Department gave us the impression that there was a certain flexibility and 5% overall could be moved outside the areas. For example, if it was going to be done on a district electoral division, DED, basis, and if there were areas outside that, it could be spread outside it. The opportunity will be to try to weight the money towards the areas that need it most. The challenge is to try to make it happen and ensure the farmers who are trying to survive on marginal land, particularly in the west of Ireland and places such as Donegal and Connemara, the places for which it was originally designed, benefit most from it. This is not to say there are not bad parts of land in other counties. There are mountainous areas throughout the midlands that all deserve to get it. There must be an emphasis not just on the designation but on the payments to ensure the latter are adequate to reflect the level of disadvantage.

I fully concur regarding farm appeals. The agriculture appeals office needs to be reformed, and the court case that was taken earlier this year reflected this. There are issues, and it is an opportunity rather than a problem to try to sort it out. I welcome that the witnesses are putting pressure on, and hopefully other farming organisations are also doing it, to make it happen and ensure the farmer's voice is heard at the table.

Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

The witnesses are very welcome. The organisation is young. From the first meetings it had, it was obvious that there was a huge sector of farmers who did not feel they were being represented properly or that their voices were being heard. They are dealing with issues that are not being raised enough by the range of farming organisations out there. While the witnesses wanted to raise other matters today, the matters they have raised are very important and I commend them.

The first question is on the charter of rights we are all told about regarding inspections. The witnesses made a perfectly reasonable, sensible proposal that inspections be concluded by mid-August and that any problems be notified by mid-September to allow people to deal with issues in due course and receive their payments. What is the point of the charter of rights for farmers if it is not being implemented? It is a very grand title, but what is the point if it is not working? The witnesses have met the Minister, Deputy Michael Creed. What are he and his departmental officials saying? As the Chairman indicated, the committee will raise the matters with the Minister and his Department.

I am based in Donegal, where the areas of natural constraint issue is very important. If a scheme that is supposed to assist farmers who are in areas of natural constraints is being diluted, it is not fair. It will impact on the west of Ireland particularly in a very unfair way. I listened to Mr. O'Donnell speaking on the agriculture show on Highland Radio and he said he had been in Brussels. What was he told in Brussels and how does he feel it should instruct the Department's deliberations when it is seeking to review the scheme and make it fair for all farmers? I thank the witnesses for coming in.

Mr. Henry O'Donnell

I will deal with the uptake of commonage farmers. We may feel it is not wise to comment too much on it until we see what the third tranche of GLAS brings. It is open and will close on 15 December 2016, after which we will then have a very clear picture of the exact number of commonage farmers have joined. Fewer farmers have joined than should have, given the roadblocks that have been put in their way. We are anxious to see whether many more farmers join in the third tranche. A number of farmers are possibly in agri-environment options schemes, AEOS, and their choices are very limited. If they want to continue in an agri-environment scheme, they will have to go into GLAS. We have dealt with a number of issues related to GLAS and commonages and have, hopefully, got some progress and resolution on the major issues farmers have.

Given that no plans have been completed and the Department has not issued any software to planners, we still have a grey area in which we are not exactly sure what a commonage management plan will entail and what the final result will be. This is not proper but it is the way it is. It has been an ongoing situation in which there are many issues with GLAS that we are not happy with. A number of them have yet to be resolved and we have large numbers of questions for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on it.

There has been a small amount of progress on farm inspections, at least regarding simple issues with maps. We have asked the Department to deal with issues beforehand rather than leaving it until the farmer is due to be paid. Although an element of it has been done, it has not been done in digital mapping and it is stopping quite a proportion of payments.

Mr. John Cuddy

I was surprised to hear there were ongoing issues regarding notice of inspections. Deputy McConalogue said farmers had not been notified of inspections and penalties had been applied. Deputy Martin Kenny mentioned the O'Connor case. Mr. Justice Michael White was critical of the Department's failure to apply the farmers' charter and said notice and inspection documentation should be provided to farmers. In our presentation we have suggested that all decision-making documentation be provided to farmers as early as possible. The reason we are seeking this is so a farmer can make an informed decision as to whether to pursue an appeal, if it is necessary. In light of the O'Connor case and the negotiations we have had with the Department, it surprises me that the Department has continued not to notify farmers of various reductions. It is worrying in the circumstances.

Mr. Henry O'Donnell

Deputy Charlie McConalogue mentioned the areas of natural constraint, ANC, scheme and the possibility of putting figures on what we are seeking. We are very anxious to see the scientific map which has been produced and which, on the face of it, should show the constraints. On a very provisional basis, we feel the payment on the most constrained land in the country could be doubled.

We have a good deal of work to do when we see further proposals from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine as to what will be done. We are anxiously awaiting those proposals and, in the meantime, the figures we have are provisional. As members will see from the document, the difference currently between the highest level of constraint and the lowest is negligible. Nobody can justify that.

Deputy Martin Kenny mentioned the forgotten farmers. We have an approximate figure in this regard of some €5 million. It is not a large amount and should easily be achievable to pay out.

Deputy Martin Kenny

Does that figure take into account new entrants and returning emigrants? There is no point in dealing with the existing group of forgotten farmers and then having a new group in the same situation next year.

Mr. Henry O'Donnell

The national reserve needs to be reinstated. It is a slightly different issue from the one we are discussing but it will have an impact into the future. There must be fairness in that regard. We have to encourage new entrants if farming is to survive and move with the times. That will require a pot of money for new entrants.

The Deputy referred to comments by the Commissioner on the ANC scheme. Touching on the point made by Senator Mac Lochlainn in this regard, when we spoke to officials in Brussels, they said it was the EU that had instigated the review of the ANC scheme because there is dissatisfaction with how payments are currently made. We were encouraged to hear that and would like to see a simple statement to the effect that the money has to be paid where the constraint is and that the constraint must be proven. We hope the scientific map will be useful in that regard. There is a lot more work to be done after that to ensure that where a constraint is identified, it is compensated for fully rather than partially.

I ask Mr. Cuddy to comment on the charter of rights.

Mr. John Cuddy

In the O'Connor case, which I appreciate is under appeal, Mr. Justice White was critical of the fact the Department had spent a lot of time negotiating a charter that has no binding effect in law. It does have a guiding effect, but the judge argued the Department should be held to account where it has entered into an agreement with farmers and should enforce that agreement. Certainly, our members would like to see full enforcement of the charter.

Mr. Henry O'Donnell

Going back to the ANC scheme and our visit to Brussels, there are wide parameters available to the Government in this regard. Payments can range from a minimum of €20 per hectare up to a maximum of €250 per hectare. There is a great deal of discretion but it must be used very carefully.

Chairman

Will the delegates address Deputy Martin Kenny's question about the agriculture appeals office?

Deputy Martin Kenny

To reiterate, I asked about the reform of the office, a process in which farmers have been involved. Did the delegates receive any indication that progress is being made on that and has the engagement thus far been useful?

Mr. John Cuddy

I was not present at that meeting. As I understand it, there has been no major discussion around reform of the Agriculture Appeals Act.

Mr. Colm O'Donnell

Deputy McConalogue referred to the idea of releasing 70% of the payment, even where there is a dispute on the land eligibility aspect. The national reserve possibly was not managed as well as it ought to have been. There was €25 million in the pot at one time but it now seems there is no reserve for 2016. There may be a small amount of money coming back in due to farmers who did not get land leases in place or were not able to draw down the money. However, for new entrants into the future, there is a good deal of concern. Something similar happened under the last round of CAP payments. It was unfortunate that in the latter years there was a very limited amount of money there. It may have been a failure to have dished out all the money in one year. One could get payment on a maximum of 90 hectares. It might have been wiser, in hindsight, to have looked at managing that money better. The only idea that has come to the table so far on this matter, and it is not very popular, is to go again and cream money off each individual's single basic payment. There have already been enough cuts, however, with more than 10% taken from the most recent basic payment. It is a situation we have landed ourselves in and I am not sure what is the best route forward.

On the ANC scheme, there is a provision under Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation 1305 of 2013 to identify areas with a specific constraint. This has already been identified in the case of Ireland through the designation of the offshore islands. A template is there to look at significantly increasing areas not just with a natural constraint but with a specific constraint. The INHFA will be considering, among other proposals, what might be possible in that regard. A specific constraint is something that is very definite; it is a permanent thing. We hope the committee will look favourably at our proposals in this regard. Mr. Condon might like to elaborate on that issue.

Mr. Joe Condon

If Ireland were to opt to take on a specific constraint, the requirement would be based on biophysical criteria and there being two or more of those constraints on an area of land. The ANC payment on its own can be paid on just a single constraint. It is our opinion that hill commonages could fit neatly within this category of specific constraints. Some of the pairings that have been suggested in Brussels involve two or more criteria at 20% margin of threshold. In other words, if one had steep slope and a shallow routing system or peat soil and excess soil moisture, one would qualify. Many other pairings would also fit into those areas. Deputy Martin Kenny referred to percentages. In the case of a specific constraint, 10% of the total area of the country can be included. The other requirement is that there be a similar farming system. The areas we are looking at are geographically contiguous with each other and can be definable as an economic and administrative identity. There is an opportunity there. There are other opportunities from an ANC perspective whereby the member state may take into account the severity of the identified permanent constraint affecting farming or the farming systems within the areas in question. Those are two areas in respect of which we see flexibility and which, with the right political will, can be delivered on for the farmers most in need of those payments.

Mr. Colm O'Donnell

Deputy McConalogue asked why the uptake was so low on the commonage management plan option under GLAS.

By the time the first application for GLAS 1 finished, there was a push to get as many plans as possible over the line. There were 2,700 out of a possible 4,500 in there but when the actual numbers were approved for the scheme, the percentage of commonages that were included was, unfortunately, low, partly due to the fact that there were insufficient planners who were skilled enough to take on this work. This work took in the old commonage framework plan, botanists and environmentalists. It took 600 people about two years to compile those commonage framework plans. It must be sustainable and done properly. The fact that Farm Relief Services, FRS, was granted a lot of these plans in block and has now backed out has left some farmers in limbo like the 400 referred to. I accept that the Department is working to try to get around this. We do not sit on that charter of rights at the moment. We are a new organisation and hope that the committee recommends that we get a seat on it.

Chairman

Before we move on to the next round of questions, a point was made about payment. The point about the payment of the 70% has been made here on numerous occasions in the past couple of weeks and was brought up when the Commissioner, Minister and Secretary General appeared before us. The full amount of 70% should be paid and if there is a dispute over a piece of land, it should be taken out of the remaining 30%. We have been continually told that this cannot be done because of legal matters in Europe. The same answer has been given time and again. I think everyone around the table would be on the same page regarding paying out, particularly this year, which has been difficult all round. The feeling was that whatever the penalty would be, it would not amount to 30% of the total amount. We suggested to all concerned that 70% should be paid to everybody and if there is a penalty, it should be stopped at 30% but apparently it cannot be done on any level. At the same time, I hear what the witnesses are saying.

Deputy Jackie Cahill

My apologies to Mr. O'Donnell. I had to go out while he was making his presentation. I compliment the witnesses for the detail in their presentations. As a new organisation, the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association is definitely going to ruffle a couple of feathers. Its presentation was top class. I did not have a copy of the presentation before the meeting but, hopefully, it will be e-mailed to me afterwards. In respect of land designation and the restrictions applied to farmers with designated land, the compensation structure for land that is designated is just not up to scratch. If one is restricted in terms of what one can do with one's land, compensation should be there to match it. This area must be seriously examined regardless of whether it involves the hen harrier or whatever else causes the land to be designated. The hen harrier is a major issue in my county where there are restrictions on what can be done on vast tracts of land but the compensation is not there to match them.

Points have been made about the independence of the appeal board. I have had a lot of dealings with the board. Former Department staff sit on the appeal board even though it aspires to be independent. For the sake of farmers' confidence in the appeal board, the staff who manage the process should not be former staff of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I am not questioning their integrity but for the sake of farmers' confidence in the appeal board, it would be a major step forward if the staff manning the appeal board were not former Department staff.

In respect of the association's proposal for the areas of natural constraint, ANC, payment, the association definitely has the ingredients to start a civil war. I can see exactly where the association is coming from. The review of the ANC scheme will be a significant debate for the next 12 months or year and a half. The association has made very valid arguments about areas of natural disadvantage and that the parameter for payments is very narrow. Regardless of whatever pot of money is there and the way it is going to be divided, there will be many political arguments to and fro about the payment of the ANC. I compliment the association for the way it put forward its case today. It highlighted the differential between €20 and €250 of scope for payment. The parameters that are there at the moment are very narrow. There will be much scrutiny of it when this review happens. It will be a very lively debate. An organisation like the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, which has a mandate from hill farmers, will make a very strong argument when the review of this payment is being discussed.

I agree with Mr. O'Donnell about the national reserve. I do not think trying to refuel the national reserve from the single farm payment is a runner. Every farmer has suffered very significant cuts with the way the single farm payment has gone over the past number of years. The parameters for the national reserve were far too wide. We tried to accommodate everyone when national reserve payments were made a year and a half or two years ago and we spread the butter too thin. Sales of entitlements are the only way that can be funded going forward and that will not put any meaningful amount of money into a reserve to cater for the cases that come before us.

The restriction on stocking rates and commonages and how that is being dealt with were not mentioned today. Farmers were forced to de-stock on hills a number of years ago, which created huge difficulties. Are witnesses happy with the stocking levels allowed now, particularly on hill commonages? I compliment them on an excellent presentation. The association will definitely ruffle feathers for the constituency it represents and has made very valid arguments.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Most of my questions have probably been dealt with at this stage. I have some comments and questions about the presentation. I fully agree with what the witnesses said about the appeal board. It seems perfectly reasonable that farmers should be given information in terms of when they decide to appeal a decision or not. It makes perfect sense. In respect of GLAS and privately owned hills, do the witnesses think that GLAS 3 provides an opportunity to facilitate any of those farmers or is it a lost cause for them at this stage? I am interested in the witnesses' comments about tillage farmers switching to GLAS 3 in lieu of a compensation package for them. What is the extent of that in terms of GLAS and implications for other farmers who have been hoping to get into the scheme? Have the witnesses raised what they call State-enforced costs of complying with land designations with the European Commission in terms of recouping some of those costs? What response did they get?

Senator Rose Conway-Walsh

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. They certainly fill a gap in the farming community, which is why I asked the committee to include the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association in the discussions around all these issues.

I agree with the way these issues are being tackled.

In the context of the review of the areas of natural constraint, ANC, scheme it is absolutely crucial that payments reflect the level of constraint. There is precedent here in terms of the approach to this in Objective 1 status. When Objective 1 status was extended throughout the country, it was diluted for the real areas of disadvantage. We will be supporting that review and are looking forward to seeing the mapping of it. It is crucial that in areas such as the one I come from, where there are severe constraints, payments to farmers reflect the level of constraint. We all want to manage the land properly and to be responsible with regard to the farming of land but there must be a quid pro quo for that.

In terms of the inspections, I met a farmer recently at a meeting in Belmullet who said that he had received no notice whatsoever of an inspection. The inspector just arrived at his door to carry out an inspection. He was not even at home at the time. There were no animal welfare or pollution concerns on his farm. This must stop because outside of those two aforementioned areas, farmers must be given notice of any inspection. In the context of the O'Connor case and the control sheets not being available, Sinn Féin as a party has asked that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine would appear before the Committee of Public Accounts although obviously that cannot happen before the O'Connor case is concluded. I submitted a question to the Department asking whether it had calculated the aggregate cost to the Exchequer should the outcome of that case be in favour of the farmers. Serious questions must be asked about the potential cost to the Exchequer.

The issue of the 30% and the 70% has been going on for a very long time. It makes no sense whatsoever and again, we have put it to the Department. I propose that this committee requests the written legal opinion that stops the 70% from being paid. It is a nonsense to hold up the files for so long. Eventually, 70% is paid and five days later, the remaining 30% is paid but in the meantime, the farmer must do without the income. I ask the committee to agree to examine that legal opinion.

Several years ago I spoke on Mid-West Radio and said that it would soon require planning permission to put up a fence. People thought that I was off my head at the time when that was coming down the line. We have seen that work its way through and the huge costs that are involved in fencing. That is why I like the witnesses' very strong statement in that regard. State enforced costs should be and must be reimbursed by the State. My party is fully supportive of that position.

I wish to raise an issue that is particularly pertinent in the area from which I come, namely flooding. I refer specifically to the criteria used for the cost-benefit analyses of putting flood defences in place. It is right that homes should be included in any cost-benefit analysis but agricultural land should also be included. Land is the main determinant of agricultural productivity and it must be included in any cost-benefit analysis. Another issue that must be dealt with is responsibility for lakes and rivers in the context of the flooding of farm land. Huge investments are being made in improving the land for agricultural purposes but when it is flooded, everyone stands back. Everyone has the authority but nobody has the responsibility in those circumstances. I would ask that the witnesses would work with us in determining who is responsible for the rivers and lakes. I also ask them to work with us on securing the inclusion of agricultural land in cost-benefit analyses of flood prevention schemes.

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. The Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association is doing great work. I commend in particular Mr. Vincent Roddy and Mr. John Moran from my own area. The association is really filling a gap in terms of looking after farmers who have been and continue to be marginalised by successive Governments.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. The issue of the forgotten farmer was referred to but that was included in the programme for Government. I was there when that was being done although things did not work out in the end. There is a group of farmers who deserve support. I was in Brussels and it was made clear to me that the EU authorities have no objection to including such a category. I note what Deputy Jackie Cahill has said but Fianna Fáil has signed up to an agreement with the Government and the forgotten farmer is included in the programme for Government. I do not think that anyone would object to that being progressed. It is the number of such farmers that is in dispute. A number came out from the Department that I would not agree with and we need to do a root and branch analysis of the number of people involved. I do not think it is anywhere near the 3,600 identified by the Department. I think that is way off the mark. That is the first thing that should be done. If one is talking about the funding for that, not a linear cut, there is a commitment in the programme for Government to provide €150,000 for 100. Obviously there is a few quid there that may fill the holes.

On the issue of designation, I would be on a different side of the argument. I would be above on high bogs whereas the witnesses would be on the mountains. That said, I understand fully what they are saying. Young farmers are being driven away from mountain land. People may laugh at this but soon the dogs will forget how to go up the mountains if we keep going down the road we are on. Young fellas are walking away from the land. It is a trade in itself, the way a farmer goes up the mountain herding sheep and comes down again, bringing the dog with him. Sadly, with the cuts for sheep farmers in mountain areas from Donegal all the way down and even in Wicklow, farmers who have a bit of lowland are putting their sheep onto it and areas are growing wild as a result. We should have learned our lesson on that issue from the Burren in County Clare.

On the question of the appeals office, there is no Deputy here whose phone was not lit up after that court case with the amount of appeals that were going to be resubmitted. To be quite frank about it, I know of appeals that have been won on the first round and they have gone into the appeals board but have been left sitting there. Some farmers have been waiting for two years for their money. That is intolerable and unacceptable. There is a commitment to change that and the farmer organisations, as well as politicians, need to step up to the mark on the issue of the appeals board. It has to change because we cannot have people waiting for two years for money, hanging in there. Some of them will not survive.

I agree with what was said about the areas of natural constraint scheme. If the State wants a farmer to allow flora and fauna to grow on his land, it must pay. If it does not want to pay, then it must let the farmer dig his drains. I know of a farmer in Sligo who had to pay €4,000 to put up a fence although all of the materials only cost €500. That is totally unacceptable. It is another way of making an area of trees and scrub land and driving people out. That is the big agenda, in my opinion, in most of the hill areas and most of the west of Ireland. We are going to be the pawns of the country. The witnesses referred to Cromwell. He said that we should go to Connacht but others are trying to put us out into the sea.

There are 90,000 farmers in receipt of ANC payments. The witnesses referred to 5% but farmers on some of the finest land in Ireland are getting ANC payments as well as farmers on some of the worst land. The witnesses said that the islands get twice the rate of the mainland. The programme for Government contains a commitment to provide €25 million next year which may ensure that nobody goes up or down too much and that should be of help.

Other than that, all I can say to the witnesses is to keep up the work they are doing.

The designation side of it is a nightmare. I have been doing it for ten years and one has to stick at it. Common sense has to prevail. A livelihood cannot be taken from someone because they live in a certain part of the country. Everyone has a right to earn a living and stay in the area they are in and not be driven out because it is made a wilderness.

Chairman

The forgotten farmers issue is one we have discussed at this committee on numerous occasions not only in this term, but the last one also. One of the difficulties we seem to come up against is the number involved. Neither the Department nor any of the farm organisations across the board seem to be able to put a number on it. Getting a definite number has to be the starting point.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

It would be very easy for the Department to know how many guys are under 40 and how many drew the installation aid. That will be black and white stuff for anybody.

Chairman

The farming organisations do not know either.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

It is easy to know the age of someone and whether they got the installation aid from the BPS form they filled in. The third part is whether they have a green cert. They would not draw the installation aid if they did not have a green cert. In my opinion the numbers are way above. I ask the committee to look at this issue. I am not a member of the committee and I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to speak. We need to get to the nuts and bolts of how many of these farmers exist.

Chairman

There is a bigger question that has not been mentioned at all. In the previous part of the meeting, we dealt with Brexit and where we will go on the next CAP. It is only a couple of years away and the pot will potentially be smaller. Will we be asked to contribute more to the pot or will we be asked to accept less? That is the big question. Deputy Cahill mentioned civil war a few minutes ago. We could have more war in that regard. I will come back to the witnesses at this point.

Mr. Henry O'Donnell

I will pass that question to my colleagues but I will make a number of comments first. I am heartened to hear that Deputy Cahill feels if we have land designation restrictions we should have compensation to match. It is quite a simple concept. On the face of it, what we are looking for seems very reasonable. I hope that in future we will get somewhere down that road.

On the issue of the appeals board, I agree that having a particular number of Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine staff on it does not give a proper idea to a farmer that it is totally impartial and independent. There have been comments on the ANC payment and a huge debate. I am very glad we are here. I do not know if the debate would have been as huge if we were not here. We welcome it and are ready for it. It is very much our money and we will get it for our members. We have right and fairness on our side and we look forward to the debate.

Stocking rights on commonages were mentioned. Farmers have recently been asked to sign an interim commonage plan. Our concept of that is that it is a document that has to be signed to enable the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to pay commonage farmers. We accept it for what it is. The planners doing the plans have discretion to change the stocking rights which are coming from the framework plans. I am sure in many cases they will and that is where we stand with that. Some have interim plans where the commonage management planner has put a note to say he or she does not think the current rates are correct and they may be amended whenever the plan is done. That will come with the completion of the plan.

Deputy Pringle mentioned the privately owned hill in GLAS. This is a huge issue for us. We feel it is grossly unfair that this very environmentally sensitive land is not included in an agri-environment scheme. We are coming to the conclusion that perhaps it was not included because it was felt there was no danger of that land being damaged from an environmental point of view as the farmers involved are farming it responsibly. We also feel that those farming it are in a very poor economic situation and they need support. They need access to an agri-environment scheme. That is the position with the enclosed hill land.

I do not want to sit here and say we are against tillage farmers getting into GLAS. I will put it in the context that the terms and conditions of GLAS have been amended slightly to encourage more tillage farmers. At the same time, it would appear the terms and conditions have been amended slightly to make it more difficult for commonage farmers, who have an environmental priority asset, to get in. There are farmers who have taken the initiative and taken up shares in commonages, which were dormant. They are becoming active on commonages and now we see that unless they had it on their basic payment application in 2014, they are excluded from the commonage being a priority asset. They are also excluded from any payment on that commonage. There is a provision for new entrants, which is fine, but we really do not understand why this was put in for commonage farmers. We have nothing against tillage farmers getting into GLAS. They have a big role to play in the protection of the environment as well. We welcome that but, on one hand, the terms and conditions are being adjusted to suit them and, on the other, we have seen the terms and conditions adjusted in a way that does not suit our commonage farmers so we take issue with that. Neither will probably include a huge number of farmers but there is a principle here that we feel we do not understand. That is the position on that.

I am glad to hear that Senator Conway-Walsh asked for us to be included in this discussion.

(Interruptions).

Chairman

Will members keep their phones turned off, if possible?

Senator Rose Conway-Walsh

I am sorry about that.

Mr. Henry O'Donnell

On the ANC, it is great to hear the Senator is supportive of where we are going with our campaign. The issue of inspections without notice was raised. We have a huge issue with all inspections. There is a lot of talk about farmers in rural and isolated areas having issues with stress, depression and suicide. A survey was done at the ploughing championships last year where farmers were asked what was the most stressful event they faced. The answer was the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine inspection. There is definitely something wrong there.

We take on board the points that were made about flooding. As a new organisation, we are hit with so many issues but we are developing and dealing with them all and it is quite a task. We take on board everything the members have said.

Deputy Fitzmaurice mentioned the forgotten farmers and I agree with him. We need to quantify how many there are. On his point about the appeals and that end of things, our complaint is that farmers cannot wait for the procedure currently in place to be completed to get their money. It puts them out of business in the meantime. There must be a better way. I will pass to some of my colleagues.

Mr. Colm O'Donnell

I have one or two points. Mr. Henry O'Donnell has covered quite a bit of it. To reply to Deputy Cahill, we are not here to create civil war but I take on board that it will be a contentious issue and one where there has to be a political willingness and consensus. We would like to be involved in that process as a national farming organisation and have an input with all the stakeholders who will no doubt have a public forum on this.

The current situation with stocking rates on commonages and how it is working was mentioned. Part of the reason for the problem of sustainable levels of stock on these hills is a compulsory cull way back and also a lack of a review in the commonage framework plan.

The review was supposed to be done in five years but we were 13 years in before it took place. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has put together sustainable figures based on the different land types. We are calling for a review of the commonage management plan mid-term through GLAS. Such a review is vital in order to see whether the plans are sustainable and are working well. We need to ensure the farmers who are in the scheme remain viable.

Regarding the low-input permanent pasture parcels, these might be areas where the fellows with the privately owned mountain, to whom Mr. Henry O'Donnell referred, cannot build a payment under GLAS. If there is a small amount of heather, they are excluded from that option. It was one of the only measures open to them, other than the traditional hay meadow that probably was not as suitable as this particular measure for the individuals in question. They have high nature value land but are excluded from building a payment. Bird boxes, bait boxes and so on do not build one a payment. These farmers cannot get up to anywhere near the national average payment. That issue needs to be examined and reviewed.

For everyone who has a designation on their land, there are 39 notifiable actions. Deputy Fitzmaurice mentioned fencing. Under health and safety, the fencing of lands, whether they have a designation or not, must surely be an issue. It is a requirement under the basic payment scheme, but the appeals that have come through in respect of farmers who have tried to fence off their land and farm it make reference to the fencing being obtrusive and degrading of the landscape. The bottom line is that farmers have to farm that land. Deputy Fitzmaurice is right about the dog and the farmer continuing to go up the side of the hill. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has a role here because it is the authority for screening and approval of these notifiable actions. We have to deal with the NPWS, the Department and the county councils. I appreciate what Senator Conway-Walsh said about State-enforced costs, which we referred to in our opening statement.

Mr. Joe Condon

One solution might be to include a proviso reflecting the fact that where the farming custom in an area was established over a period of time, the EU allows for a type of farming known as established local practices. The proviso would state that if this process is in place, there will be no need for planning. In some areas and commonages it is just a management plot that is fenced off and there is no intention that it become a permanent fixture. Something like that could be added to the legislation to allow farmers to see whether they fall into this category on the basis that their farming methods through the years fulfil the established practice criterion. If there is a huge process to go into and inspectors need to come out and so on, farmers will tend not to do that work. Being conservative and cautious people, farmers will say to themselves that perhaps they should not draw those people on them. In that context, simplification seems to be the way forward. We should allow farmers to farm in the way they are accustomed to farming and not penalise them in any way for so doing. People look to see whether a farmer in another part of the country has the freedom to go out in the morning and drive a stake in the ground without having to ask permission. We must take away any such uncertainty from farmers if at all possible. They face enough uncertainty as it is. If we all work together, solutions can be found to these problems.

Mr. Colm O'Donnell

I am aware of a case in Connemara where a farmer installed fencing along a public road, which was a designated area, having gone through all the proper channels, and that action was subject to appeal. Surely this particular farmer has the right to farm his lands? This was not commonage; it was privately owned land in a designated area. There has to be some degree of common sense here. Perhaps fencing along public roads should be exempt from planning. One either owns the land or one does not.

Mr. John Cuddy

I will briefly revert to a comment made earlier about the independence of the Agriculture Appeals Office. It is saddening to note that after 15 years in existence, that statutory body is still not sufficiently independent. In regard to notices of inspections, Senator Conway-Walsh referred to the notice period, which is set out in regulations. Again, it is disappointing that the Department, which is fully aware of these regulations, is still not applying them. I ask the committee to consider revisiting the reform of the Agriculture Appeals Act in a dedicated session at some point. There is a lot that needs to be discussed before we begin the reform process but we are essentially faced with an emergency given the number of farmers who have issues when it comes to appeals.

Chairman

The appeals office issue has been discussed by this committee before. It is an issue that is impacting right across the country and we will probably consider it again in due course. I note Mr. Cuddy's comments in this regard. I thank the delegates for coming before the committee and giving us the benefit of their enlightening and informative presentation on the range of issues that are of most concern to them at this time. We will compile a report of the meeting and send it to the Minister for review. We will follow up on individual issues as we proceed through our programme of work.

Mr. Henry O'Donnell

I ask the Chairman to allow me a final comment. There is an EU monitoring committee for the rural development programme. We have written to the Department asking to be included as part of Ireland's representation on this committee. The reply we received was that the Department is happy with the current composition of the group. It is very relevant to an organisation like ours, with so many environmental concerns and so many dealings with Pillar 2 funding and schemes, that we have an input into the process. We ask the committee to request that the Department reconsider this matter. We have a very valuable contribution to make.

Chairman

I do not see a problem with that.

Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Mr. Colm O'Donnell noted that the delegates are not part of the process concerning the charter of rights. Would they like our support to ensure their inclusion in those discussions?

Mr. Colm O'Donnell

Very much so.

Chairman

I am sure members are in general agreement on both of those matters. That concludes our meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 7 p.m. until 4.20 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 December 2016.