Michael Fitzmaurice warns entitlements could vanish under per-ha plan

Under the present proposal, am I correct in saying that entitlements, it was a question I said earlier but we didn't get a chance to go through to the time limits, my understanding is that entitlements will disappear and it will be a per hectare system. Is that correct under the present proposal? That does appear to be the case under the present proposal. There isn't any specific provision for entitlements in the proposal. Okay, so if it's a per hectare proposal, what's going to happen? Do you know how people have leased a lease on farms and have leased entitlements over a period of time? Is there not going to be an awful lot of unsurety in the market from now on of someone doing a lease for five years or seven years when they don't know what's going to come, if you understand me like they don't know what's going to happen in 2028, that there's going to be a fear there and a bit of trepidation that you're not going to continue your lease because the entitlements could be gone in 2028? Yeah, there may well be. I mean, I suppose we'll have to see what the potential impacts might be on the market as such or on the everyday functioning of entitlements and transfer of entitlements in the meantime. But I mean, I'm not sure how people might react to that, but certainly on the basis of what's contained in the proposal, there isn't any provision for entitlements. Have ye done, you know, my worry is that, like, I even saw today on something coming up that there's a 10-year lease in some farm somewhere. Do you understand me? It just caught my eye and there'll be probably entitlements on it. My worry is that there's people who could be sleepwalking into something, a lease in some farm somewhere. Do you understand me? It just caught my eye and there'll be probably entitlements on it. My worry is that there's people could be sleepwalking into something, and it's not, it's how it's going to all materialise in Europe. You have no golden hole that's going to tell you how to be in three years' time. But that there's a, that I'd be just fearful that there'd be farmers sleepwalking into something on a 10-year thing, and then it could all change. Like, is there, is there any thing within the department that you're thinking about going round the country and explaining what's on the table at the moment? Yeah, it's not the finished product, but to make them aware, because I don't think a lot of farmers know that there's a proposal, that if you're pinching age, it's either one or the other, that it's going to be entitlements, that entitlements the proposal at the moment. And we're not saying that's going to happen, but this, the proposal would be going to per hectare. That'd be a 24% cut to the overall budget, and you have to see what you can do with that. I think there's a lot of farmers not aware of what's going on there at the moment, and I'd be afraid that they'd sign up to something in the next year or two that they might regress then for the rest of the 10-year lease. Do you know what I mean? Yeah. And look, I think, in a way, that's probably best helpful in terms of our engagement with stakeholders. You mentioned there about whether or not we'd be doing meetings around the country. We'll see what way we structure the engagement. Or even if you had something that you'd send to farmers of a present proposal that no one can turn around and say, well, I didn't say, I've now signed a lease for 10 years and my entitlements are gone or whatever. Yeah. Well, look, and we are engaging on these issues with the CAP Consultative Committee that we mentioned earlier. That met for the first time in July and met again in September. That has all the stakeholders, all the farming organisations and all the relevant stakeholders on it. So it met in July, September, and we'll meet again before the end of this month. That's the primary forum, I suppose, in which we're sharing and exchanging with people around what's in the proposals from the Commission and getting people's feedback around their views on that. And that will continue to be a regular feature of the engagement with stakeholders over the next period of time. And look, we can look at refining that or tailoring the engagement with stakeholders more widely. But I think what we'll try and do is get agreement from the Stakeholder Consultative Committee maybe in terms of what the best structure might be to engage more widely with farmers and with other stakeholders around the detail of the regulations. At the moment, we're kind of at an early phase where we're exchanging with people and explaining what's in the regulations and getting initial reactions from people. But I think, you know, there'll be scope to adapt and to tailor our engagement with stakeholders accordingly as we go. And we can get feedback as it stands from people on the kinds of measures there that you mentioned. Am I correct in saying, like, that it's about £1.6 billion a year, is it the pot that you talk about? Would that be fair to say? Yes. Yes. Yes. And you're talking about, say, 20 to 24% if we go to that £320 to £360 million. Would that be fair to say? Yes. That's in terms of the proposal now. This isn't a definitive outcome, just the proposal. Yes. I understand that fully and I'm cautioning that part too. But this other money from this other pocket that we're talking about, I just don't understand that side of it. Where is this coming into a fund that everyone will be pulling out of and it's basically whoever is the best fighter gets the most out of it? Well, I suppose that might be putting it too simply. But, yeah, look, at the end of the day, the NRP provides for this general allocation for member states. What's NRP? National? National Regional Partnership Plans. Right. So the fund is provided for, and like I said, there is a ring-fenced amount for CAP. And yes, there will have to be a debate if that structure remains in place, if it remains unchanged at the end of negotiations. Notwithstanding, again, like I said, some of the difficulties that are surrounding that and the questions that member states have around that. But if that were to survive the process, then yes, you would be into a point then where nationally we would have to decide, OK, there's a ring-fenced allocation for CAP. What is the scope, for instance, for bringing more money in from the wider NRP allocation? And what does that mean in terms of the overall balance across the various funds? And how do we maybe, first of all, ensure that we can maximise the increase that we can get for CAP, and then make sure that the CAP's integration, if you like, with other funds is managed appropriately and to the maximum benefit? So, again, there would be a process there, no doubt. I presume that the Department would be like, we were given, I think, like, between $130 and $150 million out of the Department of Agriculture to oversee it every five years. And that would be fair to say, I presume you're going to be looking at funds like that, because if we're going to shaft our own farmers, we're hardly going to be sending the money out of the country. Well, I'm not going to speculate on how the Department might spend its money in the future, Deputy, or where cuts or otherwise might be made to fund different measures. I mean, I think we'll be working within the confines of what we can as far as the allocation is concerned from the EU budget. Thank you. In relation to, say, what's the process, Paul? Is it that it's going to, there's to it and fro it over and back between all countries. When do we know, or how, is it the ministers then that will decide the budget, or what more will be coming, or when is there an indication that we'll be making progress on it? I think, is it Spain that's in charge at the moment? Who's pushing this, like, to try and, or has Ireland an opportunity when we're, when we have the head of the EU, or when we have that, looking after that for the six months? Have we the opportunity to try and drive this on? Like, some of them at the moment are gone mad in the climate crack that they want us to sign everything that we're going to be carbon neutral by 24 to nearly. At the moment, Spain, I think, is trying to get that over the line and to be one of the things they'll be shouting about. Could we, and will we, or is it going to be a government decision that we will try and focus and get this sorted over the line while we have presidency? Or isn't it a good opportunity for a country that's really based in, or very, you know, reliant on agriculture, that it would be in our own interest, when we have basically the ball in our court and all the people coming over to us for once, that we'd sort of put them into a corner and, and try and get it over the line as good as we could, as fast as we can in our own interest. Is that the thinking within the department? Well, I think, um, this is probably more of a government perspective now rather than just the department, because the negotiations on the budget are led by the Department of Finance and the Department of Foreign Affairs jointly. Are they? Yeah, they are, and that's... On the agricultural budget? On the overall budget, the overall budget, yeah. And agriculture, we have an input to those negotiations in terms of what the outcome might, might be for the agricultural proportion of that. But in an overall sense, the negotiations on the overall budget are led jointly by finance and foreign affairs, in cooperation with the Department of Teachers, and then with input from all of the relevant departments as appropriate, including ourselves. So the process is, is a kind of a, what you might call a horizontal one, because it looks at a whole different range of, of different headings and different, um, funding streams within the overall budget. Um, and that, uh, coordination, that central coordination by finance and foreign affairs, means that it, it goes through the, the, the committee of permanent represent, representatives of Brussels at, at, uh, EU level. So it goes to a corporate, then to the general affairs council, and then ultimately it feeds through to the European council, which is heads of state, uh, and they agree finally on, uh, conclusions then, which again, hopefully will be around late 2026, early 27. So that's the process, and that's the kind of the, the, uh, the way in which it will happen at EU level. From the point of view of the Irish presidency, well, look, yes, if, if we are in a position to get it across the line, as you say, we will do that, but we'll do it in the context of our presidency role, being honest broker, and trying to, uh, get a solution that satisfies all member states. The very same we did, way that we did back in 2013, the last time we had the presidency, uh, we achieved agreement on the budgetary framework, uh, as well as achieving agreement on the cap, uh, proposes the cap package as well. So if it falls to us during our presidency, uh, then absolutely, we'd be ready to, to bring that across the line. But that will very much depend on the progress that's made in the negotiations over the next 12 months, over the next nine months or so before our presidency, uh, how much progress the Danes make. It's the Danes that are in the seat at the moment, uh, and the Cypriots make in the first half, in the first half of next year. Um, and we'll just, we'll, we'll wait and see then at what point, uh, is the negotiation and is it at a ripe enough stage that we can then take it across the line in our presidency? And in, in relation to the changes you see in your opinion from the proposals that's there at the moment, and I'm looking at this with what I say face value, there seems to be a shift away altogether from food production or being, uh, are doing things fairly good. It seems to be a shift away that, uh, it'll be no longer an entitlement you have, which I would consider that farmers that have entitlements were a property right, and they were classed as a property right, because the department, if someone, uh, passed away, uh, if they hadn't their will made, uh, if they hadn't said on I be quite my entire, my everything I own, your entitlements didn't go, they went back to the National Reserve, because they were classed as a property right. So they're going to be, going by the proposal that the EU is doing at the moment, they're going to be a property right that they're trying to extinguish, first of all, which I would query big time, because, um, we all, everyone who is as public reps are dealing with someone that unfortunately passed away, and some people have it put in on their will and more don't, and, but it, if they have it in on their will, it's a right that's going across to someone else, which is an interesting, other countries mightn't have that, but we have it, which might be complicated, and what I'm saying to you is, it looks to me, as we're moving away totally, uh, on the new cap, that it's more about frogs and, and, and, and environment than it is about actually food, uh, it's about climate and environment than it is about food. Uh, well, I suppose if you're asking my opinion on that deputy, um, I can only give you my opinion, and, uh, I think the reality is that, um, as I mentioned earlier on, the cap has evolved over the last 20, 30 years into a policy now that doesn't just focus on the provision of food or doesn't just provoke, uh, focus on competitiveness or just on income support, but it also now focuses on environmental sustainability and, uh, and the need to, to achieve our climate ambitions and biodiversity ambitions and other things, and it's around, the cap has evolved now to a policy that is aimed at all three of those elements of sustainability, economic sustainability, social, but also environmental, and we are on a path, we are, we are on an evolution here, um, and a process that has, uh, resulted in, yes, more demands from an environmental perspective on farmers, but that is because the nature of the, the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis that we're facing and the nature of the questions at EU level about what should we be spending our money on, uh, are becoming more pointed, um, and I think it's probably fair to say that at EU level we're trying to satisfy all of those objectives, we're trying to have that economic sustainability, support farmers, provide income support in terms of, uh, supporting activity in rural areas, we're trying to make sure also that we can achieve environmental sustainability and the cap proposal, the regulatory proposal that's here, it continues on that suite of measures, that balance across those different components as it, as it has at the moment, uh, within the current, uh, cap regulation, um, but it does evolve them further and it does talk about now integrating in a, in a, in a bigger way maybe, uh, the pillar one, the traditional pillar one and pillar two approach. So from an environmental point of view last time we had this green architecture where we had pillar one with conditionality and we had pillar one with ecosystem services, with eco-schemes, and then pillar two added another layer of environmental ambition on top with acres in terms of, of the environmental achievement. Um, that is still a component of the overall regulation this time, except it's been, uh, pulled into, if you like, the same fund, the 8.1 billion, um, but there is still a concentration on trying to further evolve that, that green architecture, if you like, or to develop that further, um, and for us then to be able to report to the EU in terms of our achievements as far as environmental sustainability is concerned. So I wouldn't say it's a complete move away from food production or from competitiveness or income support for farmers, but it is a more, uh, it's a more nuanced policy now. It's, it's because we have to achieve far more objectives and because of the environmental sustainability. And as I mentioned earlier on, above all, I think, uh, the level of EU funding that's going into the camp has increasingly been reliant on over the last number of years around the, the environmental sustainability and the environmental ambition, uh, of, uh, of spending in agriculture as well, because all areas of, of, EU spending have had to make that adjustment and make that evolution to a more environmentally, uh, focused. Just on one thing, you talk about environmental and in fairness to the acres, there was never more farmers taken into it than the last scheme. Yeah. And my understanding is the government, am I right in saying the government funded that, that the state funded it, partly out of, uh, am I right? In acres, you mean, is that on the page? Acres, yeah. Yeah. Well, it's co-funded. It's, it's, it's, it's funded by the state and by the EU. And what's the percentage each way apart? Oh, I think it's, uh, 60, 60, 40, isn't it? I think it's 60 national, 40 percent EU, yeah. Okay. So it's 250 million a year is 60, 40. So we, we pay from national funds up front and then we recoup that from, okay. All right. Thanks. Thanks. Do you want to ask it? Yeah.