Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Common Agricultural Policy.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 18 February 2004

Wednesday, 18 February 2004

Ceisteanna (18)

Billy Timmins

Ceist:

87 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the plans he has to deal with those people on the farm retirement scheme who will lose out under the changes proposed in the mid-term review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4978/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

My Department is involved in working groups and is in continuing discussions with the European Commission on the detailed rules for implementing the mid-term review agreement. While it may be some time before the position is clear, I have already raised, and will continue to raise, a number of issues relating to farmers who have retired under the early retirement schemes, and the implications for them of decoupling and the single payment scheme.

The legal position regarding the single payment system, as laid down in the Council regulation, is that entitlements are not linked to land but to farmers who were active producers during the reference period and remain active farmers in 2005. A farmer who joined the early retirement scheme has undertaken to give up farming permanently and therefore he or she cannot be regarded as a farmer when the time comes to activate single payment entitlements in 2005.

While retired farmers cannot activate entitlements earned during the reference period, the Commission, following negotiations, indicated that it favours arrangements that will allow family members who take over these holdings to have access to the national reserve. This would include cases in which the land was leased to a non-family member at the time of retirement because a family member, usually a son or daughter, was not yet ready or eligible as a transferee at the time, but subsequently takes over the farm. I will continue to work to secure as favourable an outcome as possible to these and other issues affecting retired farmers, having regard to the legitimate aspirations of the various stakeholders involved.

Will the Minister indicate when the full legal text with respect to the Fischler proposals will be decided? How many of those participating in the farm retirement scheme stand to lose out if the final proposal does not include a facility for people who did not transfer to relatives? I am aware that many of those on the scheme who leased to family members will not be affected, but I have received many letters on the issue, as I am sure the Minister has. I note the presence of Deputy Wilkinson who is compiling a report on the issue.

A system in which a person who enters into an agreement is heavily penalised several years later on the basis of agreed practices is inherently unfair, and let us not pretend people are not being penalised. Does the European Commission have available to it a mechanism which would facilitate those affected by the measures? While I accept that when someone takes a piece of the cake, someone else must forfeit it, is it possible, perhaps through modulation or some other method, to make a once-off payment to members of the scheme who can show they lost out significantly under the system?

I do not have a precise figure on the number of those affected, but some 10,000 farmers are on the retirement scheme. I expect that the vast majority of them are in a regular position, that is, members of their families took over the farm when they retired. We are probably talking about a couple of thousand people. As I stated, I am in negotiations with technical experts in Brussels with regard to this group.

As regards the final text, in discussion with Commissioner Fischler on Tuesday, I noted the importance of receiving the final text, which we were promised by Christmas, as quickly as possible. He informed me we should have it by mid-March, in other words, in one month. This is important for everybody concerned because people want to know where they stand with some degree of certainty, which will not be possible until we receive the final version of the legal text.

As the Deputy is aware, we will begin to implement the mid-term review from 1 January next. The Department, therefore, wants entitlements to be issued and appeals heard and so forth before that date.

In discussions with the European Commission, the Department secured favourable arrangements for those on the scheme who were not farming during the reference period but subsequently took over the farm. Given that the farmer, as opposed to the farm, receives the entitlement, in the event that a retired farmer let his or her land to somebody else, the person who farmed the land during the reference period will be eligible for the entitlements. We have received a favourable response from the Commissioner with regard to circumstances in which a family member has taken over the family farm subsequent to the reference period. This was one of the main complaints of those on the scheme.

Does the Minister have a definition of "family member"? Does it extend to nieces or nephews? Apart from those on the farm retirement scheme, many more people stand to lose, particularly those along the western seaboard who sold weanlings and so forth. Does the Minister have any proposals on behalf of this group? Did he receive many submissions on this issue under the force majeure clause, for which the closing date was a couple of weeks ago? Do many people in this category stand to lose out?

While we have not yet received the legal detailed text, we understand the term "family member" refers to immediate family members. We will not know for certain, however, until we receive a copy of the text in about four weeks. I will provide the Deputy with a copy immediately.

With regard to others who may be affected — I will answer a question on force majeure later — we intend to deal with this matter quickly because it must be addressed as part of our preparations for the implementation of the mid-term review on 1 January next.

Barr
Roinn