Victor Boyhan: Public lands first, no farm severance

Thank you Cathaoirleach, firstly I want to welcome our guests here today to engage in what is really a very, very controversial issue. My apologies, I've had to go in and out because there was a Senate debate on our rural future, private housing and agricultural lands, rural housing, so very similar topics, so I had to be there too. But just to say, I suppose in all of my years on this committee, this subject has perhaps, we've had more, I certainly from my office have had more responses and engagement right across the country, be it urban or be it rural. And there were many vexed issues and legitimate issues that have caused people to be very vexed. I suppose when I looked again in preparing coming here today, I looked at all the submissions we had received and one that continues to come out to me is the one that was prepared, and indeed we had her here, Cleona O'Shea, who presented on behalf of the National Greenway Action Association. And there were very powerful, central messages that are continuing to be echoed in all the emails and correspondence I've received in relation to this matter. And in the submission from the National Greenway Action Association, they talked about the need for a national reset. And I think what they meant about that, I went through some of the issues. So I'm going to be, I know we're under pressure of time, but the reoccurring themes that keep coming back are, you know, public lands first. At all times, we should be examining public lands first as a strategy. Secondly, private land only by genuine voluntary agreement. That's by voluntary agreement, genuine voluntary agreement. The no farm severance. I mean, remember here, put the context of why you're here today. We're the Joint Office of Agriculture and Food in the Marines, so agriculture and food. That's our primary function and focus. All of these other issues are side issues. I won't say side shows, but they're side issues in terms of what our focus here. We are there to support farmers. We are there to support the family farm. We are here to support growers and people who engage. So that's our primary focus. We must also remember that it is an asset that has been worked. People have toiled hard and sweat to accumulate their holdings and grow their holdings physically as well as produce. So innately, we in Irish people who are involved in agriculture, we value our family's homestead. We value our land. It's worked hard for, and it's not going to be prized away from them. So I think that's the background as I see it, and I want to share that with you. Private land only, we're genuinely voluntary agreement. No farm severance. I am familiar with places that run from, for those who don't know it, from over to Waterford, but from Ballator, Timmerlyn, all of that section there that runs south of a tie, and the interchanges all along that strip into Curlow. And I know family members whose farms are severed not once, twice in holdings, and the impact that causes and the fragmentation that causes. And it doesn't present new holdings for new planning opportunities for them. It's severance of land without any on the road connectivity in many cases. So that's an issue. So the whole of farm impact assessment. We, in terms of planning for proper planning and sustainable agriculture into the future, and that's really important. So therefore, sustainable farm holdings are critically important, not severed land holdings. So that has to be at the back of our mind as policy makers. And then I think there's this need, and should be a requirement, of the mandatory involvement of the Department of Agriculture, where productive land is in any way affected or in any way compromised. So they're just some views I want to share with you, and I'd be interested in... I will, but I suppose more importantly, I want to get the points over, because more importantly, it's not you, it's not me. It's the people who are looking into that camera tonight at this debate. They want to understand the issues. I think I've sort of articulated them pretty well myself, if I say so. So perhaps we'll start with you, Mr O'Connor. Thank you, Senator. And I largely agree with you there. Public lands, in the first instance, agree. Private lands, only through voluntary agreement. Certainly, our preference is always through voluntary agreement, with CPO only as a last resort. And the point that I've answered previously to another member of the committee around severance of land is, I think there is an... Sorry, there is an acknowledgement from TII that perhaps the approach to date has been somewhat too rigid in trying to get the most efficient route. And if we can skirt around a landowner's property, that should be something that we look at more so than we have in the past. And we see that as an opportunity to reset that as part of the overall strategic review that the Department of Transport are undertaking. And I think your themes and the broader interaction with other policy priorities is exactly where those issues should be highlighted again, because we do have that opportunity to revise the strategy over the next few months. The mandatory requirement... Could I just ask, Mr... Just to finish that, yeah? Could we just finish that one point? Very briefly. The mandatory requirement of the Department of Agriculture to be involved. We have this review of strategy, so I think the Department... Are you personally... Can you say to us today, this committee, that you, Mr. Laughlin and Connor, support that idea? I think everybody should be involved. I'm asking you directly. It's a strategic review run by the Department of Transport, so I'm happy to go back to the Department of Transport and encourage them. Are you personally committed to it? Can you put on the record here that you are committed to that course? That they should form... The mandatory Department of Agriculture involvement. Yeah, absolutely. Great. I'd encourage them to... And you support it? Yeah. Actively. Thank you. Actively.