Mr. Tom Moran:

The members asked interesting questions, some of which I presume will be raised by other members so it might be as well to deal with them. I will begin with the one that has been raised by a number of Deputies and Senators. I want to be clear on the milk issue. The decision has been taken that quotas will end as and from next year, and it was reconfirmed under the health check. As part of the exit from milk quotas it was decided that there would be a year by year increase in the EU quota to ensure there would be an easing out and a soft landing, which is particularly applicable to countries like Ireland. No increase was provided for in the very last year. What was provided for was a report from the Commission to the Council on the state of the market. Some years ago, Ireland and a small number of member states were conscious of the fact that this soft landing would not necessarily apply equitably across all countries and were of the view that some would have a hard landing. With a number of other countries, therefore - Denmark, Luxembourg and Netherlands - Ireland started to press for some form of an adjustment in the last year. That is all we are talking about. The obvious possibility of adjustment would have been to have a further increase in quotas. Another one would be adjustment in the levy. They are now not possible because of Council regulations, which cannot be changed.

There is one final mechanism that could be used, namely, an adjustment to the fat coefficient. It is a technical term that essentially means a lift in the quantity of solids in milk that can be produced in the last year. As I said, the supporters of that adjustment idea have grown considerably in number. Equally, the opponents have been adamant that the quota regime should not be touched in the last year in that the decision has been taken to end it next year, that it should be left as it stands until then, and that there will not be a quota from that time.

A number of issues emerged in the debate about adjusting the last year. It is no secret that not every member state likes the end of quotas but that decision has been taken, and we are not going back on that. However, in the debate about the last year, other countries have begun to suggest some other mechanism to deal with crises. The Commission's response, and it is something with which we would agree, is that there are market management measures provided for under CAP reform and in the event of a dip in prices, a supply issue or a volatility related issue, even though the broad prognosis is for an increase in the market, continued increase in demand and a strong optimistic output for milk, market management measures would be applied quickly.

The Commission has also set up the idea of a price observatory to gather information quickly and accurately across the milk market and to be able anticipate in that regard. We would have no difficulty with that.

Allied with those other countries we want to see if we can get an adjustment to the fat coeffiient in the last year, which makes perfect sense in Ireland's view. However, Ireland, and all those member states, would not countenance any hint, subtle or otherwise, towards supply control from the end of quotas onwards for the reason mentioned, namely, farmers and the industry invested. That train has left the station. Quotas are gone, and Ireland is gearing up towards at least a 50% increase. As far as we are concerned, that is finished. I would not be concerned in the slightest on that question. We will still try next week to get an adjustment to the fat coefficient in the last year.

On the question of commonages and so on, commonages spill over Pillars 1 and 2. I know Deputy Ó Cuív and others have a strong interest in and attachment to them. They are a difficult concept to handle within the Common Agricultural Policy, probably because the concept is not generally shared across other member states, but some key factors apply, one of which is the principle of active farming. Active farming has been spelt out clearly in the new Common Agricultural Policy. If payments are to go to active farmers, by definition, active farmers must be defined and if they are defined, it must be done by some means. The way we do it is by the actual farming. In commonage terms it means the holding stock. In other words, if someone farming on a commonage wants to claim a Pillar 1 single payment, they must stock in line with commonage framework plans coming down the track. If, however, they apply under GLAS, the new environmental scheme, by definition they must do more than is required under Pillar 1. If someone has land in commonage, they must add some further environmental condition to get the newly announced payment of €120 per hectare.

Another condition that relates to the GLAS one, and it was mentioned previously, is the idea of a collective. There is shared ownership but there is also shared responsibility, and there was a consultation process on the level of that. There was a figure of 80% at the beginning but at the latter stages of consultation, having listened to the arguments, including from here and elsewhere, it was decided that the more appropriate figure would be 50%. However, there must be a collective sharing of responsibility for managing the commonage in line with environmental practice. That means there must be a common plan that covers 50% of the active farmers on the commonage or 50% of the land. There was a change to that last week or the week before, which was welcomed by the organisations because of the serious engagement we had on it.

Regarding beef-----