Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates from the IFA and the ACA - which is sometimes referred to as the ASA, and its delegates are probably members of the ASA - for attending.

I want to make an observation, as somebody who has had to complete a basic area aid payment form. I have registered to see if I qualify for GLAS, but I am not sure how that will work out, as the land is not in a commonage. There are two issues. One is eligibility, which was an issue long before there was a commonage or GLAS, because of the review of land parcel identification system, LPIS.

That needs to be addressed.

Mr. Dolan made a very relevant point which we also made during our visit to the Commission. I made the point specifically to the lady in the Court of Auditors that the objective of a commonage management plan is to bring land that may not be in good agricultural or environmental condition back into such a state. One has to set out a plan for the overall area.

I disagree with Deputy Ó Cuív in so far as the basic payment scheme is for eligible land for grazing and that may be a lower figure. There is a gross figure and a net figure for grazing. Other things excluded from the net area for grazing, such as orchards or tree groves, should qualify as ecological focus areas or for GLAS. There should be three areas, a gross area, a net area and an area that is an ecological focus area or eligible for a GLAS payment which could form part of it, other than roads, buildings and the usual rock outcrop, although rock outcrop could form part of it.

One of the key points is the time constraint and the rush to get everybody qualified so some payment can be made this year which, in retrospect, is probably ill-advised. Another key issue is tolerance. There has been no mention of appeals but an appeals system should be allowed for any new scheme to which €250 million will be allocated. One thing that worries me about the Court of Auditors' determinations is that it carries out so few inspections in this country, having carried out only six each in Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 throughout the whole country. Furthermore, it based a lot of its findings on commonages on one inspection in the mid-west. Mr. McCabe was with me on our visit to the Court of Auditors and we tried to emphasise to the lady in question that it is very difficult to base a whole determination on one inspection of one farm. That is something to which we need to return.

We must be mindful of the fact an effort is being made to get the scheme open and to get payments out but, parallel to that, a working group needs to be set up. The purpose of holding the hearings in this format is that they are on the public record and they present an opportunity for everybody to put their thoughts, opinions and concerns on the public record. It is hoped that this will then help to kick-start the development of a forum outside this committee to bring all stakeholders together to work towards a common goal.

As has been said, the objective of the €250 million is to create an environmental scheme, although there is no point if it only leads to people walking away from that objective and giving up on the idea of their son or daughter farming the hills in the future, which is something Mr. Dunne, like myself, has seen over the years. Alternatively, they may decide just to neglect the land and farm it the way they always farmed it. They may just do their own thing but that will not achieve the objective of bringing either uplands or ordinary land into good agricultural and environmental condition. We need to be mindful that the bottom line is €250 million of European taxpayers' money and that should be our primary objective at all times.

I thank the witnesses. We went a little over time as the session took an hour and a half, although we started early. We are only 20 minutes behind. We will suspend to allow the witnesses to withdraw and others to take their place.