Mr. Brendan Joyce:

Deputy Ó Cuív questioned whether the existing area should remain in place. My answer is that it absolutely should as there is no alternative. Senator Ó Clochartaigh and a number of Senators questioned the amount of time available, but that is not the farmers' problem. We found ourselves in a position where we have no choice but to set up a working group. Deputy Kyne referred to it and it is the only forum where we can get this right. If there is a compromise, whereby the farmer puts in the existing eligible area in the short term, as proposed by Deputy Ó Cuív, that must be the route we go. The alternative is that the Department goes with the status quo, which is an absolute disaster and is putting us in grave danger of facing more penalties from Brussels by the threat of land abandonment, which is a massive threat in these areas.

Deputy Kyne questioned whether we have brought this up with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The NPWS has a massive role to play in this. If I want to fence my commonage or do any activity, I must apply for planning permission. I must carry out an appropriate assessment, yet I have been on a commonage in recent weeks where the number of cattle, as a result of the ineligible part being taken out, has reduced from 240 to just over 100 if the farmers implement what they are being told to do. That will have a massive impact on the commonage, and the NPWS has to question it. We have requested a meeting with the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, and we hope it will happen soon. That cannot be allowed to happen without question. They say history repeats itself but we were the victims of the history in the 1990s when many of us faced destocking as a knee-jerk reaction to a penalty. There were areas that needed destocking, as mentioned by Senator Comiskey, but many faced 30% destocking without any study to justify it. Many of the areas found they had the correct level of stock or needed more, but that point was never amended.

Deputy Fitzmaurice asked about the charter of rights. Unfortunately, we do not sit on the committee at present but we are hopeful that will be rectified. With regard to where the charter of rights is at, many of the farms we visited faced substantial penalties.

Some of these faced a 100% penalty on 2014 payments. This was subsequently reversed, yet they must submit over 60% of their land as being ineligible for 2015 purposes. All inspections should be subject to what is called a control report so that the farmer is aware an inspection is happening. If it is an on-the-spot inspection, the farmer must be informed before that inspector enters the farm. That never happened in the case of commonages inspected in the past.

The charter of rights is a significant issue. In my opinion, it should be implemented on a statutory basis. If it that is not the case, we might as well go back to Maam Cross and write it on the side of the bar counter because that is about as much value as it will have.

Turning to Deputy Pringle's question on the GLAS, as highlighted by the ACA, many farmers cannot access a reasonable level of payment from this scheme because low-input permanent pasture is rendered completely ineligible for payments if it has as much as one bit of heather in it. Compounding that, as the ACA said, many farmers cannot split their parcels to avail of measures that are on their farm. That is totally unacceptable and will mean that farmers who could legitimately make a case for coming closer to the maximum payment will realistically sit somewhere over €2,000 to €3,000. We have a massive problem with that.

The Chairman made the point that this has serious implications for the €250 million in GLAS. That is true, but the real issue here relates to eligibility for Pillar 1 payments on land that is currently eligible. We have no problem with an inspection process. It is required. Regarding Deputy Kyne's question, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is under pressure from European audits and has made this clear in the meetings we have had with its representatives. I have no difficulty with that. I believe, having spoken with some people in Brussels, that if the regulation is clear, Brussels will not have a problem with eligibility in many, although not all, of the cases with which we currently see issues. The eligibility of those areas, that is, what constitutes sufficient agricultural activity, is critical. That is the nub of the issue. The timeline in question is seven weeks. Right now, this is a significant issue for agriculture in areas like those in which we are farming. I believe that can happen quite quickly if the will is there and a result can be obtained if there is broad consensus on this.