Mr. Thomas Harty:

I would like to respond to a couple of the points that were made about maps and changes in areas. Someone already mentioned our use of Bing imagery. We were asked a direct question on whether, as a general principle, a farmer can take the reference areas we put in a map to be fixed and not moveable. I suppose the direct answer is "No" for two reasons, one of which is positive. A farmer can bring land back in and make it eligible, for example through scrub removal or topping. The mulching of rushes has already been mentioned. We accept that the reference area can increase at any time, for example where scrub has been removed or there is an issue with rushes. There is a positive acceptance of the fact that reference areas can increase. Obviously, one cannot make a carpark eligible without ripping it out.

Changes can also be made on the negative side. Members will appreciate that what we are talking about is characteristics-driven. They will also appreciate that if someone closes the gate and walks away from the land, in time the characteristics of that land will be such that we cannot make a payment in respect of it. We are saying that the areas are there. They can go up and down for positive reasons in terms of a farmer who wants to bring land back in. As I have explained, the potential also exists for someone to walk away from a farm to such an extent that the necessary characteristics are not met.

I would like to talk about what we do with regard to imagery. The imagery that was sent out or provided in our recent set of maps was Bing imagery. It will be replaced over time, if I can use that word, because we are required to get new imagery over time. The regulations allow us to try to build in a tolerance to deal with what some members have referred to as parcel shifts, twists or moves that have happened even though the land has not changed, in essence. There is a 2% stability threshold in the regulations to deal with cases in which that issue arises even though there has been no real-world change, in essence. We are going to implement and use that threshold to try to counter or manage the circumstances in which the imagery changes.

I was also asked about the related issue of the red lines expanding and shrinking. That can happen for valid reasons; for example, because the area is changing. As we operate the system, we will endeavour at all times to ensure we do not constantly go back. We have taken on board the criticism that has sometimes been made by farmers to the effect that when we draw the field for a second time, the area has changed. We are endeavouring to build stability into the system. If there is stability on the ground, we are not going to try to reassess it. We will use the stability threshold concept to try to keep the area stable.

A question was asked about the availability of access to the imagery. The imagery that the Department has primarily used over the years is called Bing imagery. It has been mentioned already. It is publicly available, albeit without the red lines on it. If people want to see what we are using, they can use the Bing public portal viewer at www.bing.com. If they put in the relevant townland and scroll around, they will see the imagery on the basis of which we have made the determination. That is publicly available. As it stands at the moment, only the farmer himself or his adviser can actually look at the map for the farmer's own land. Technically, the relevant webpage is www.bing.com/maps. If one searches for any townland and zooms in, one will be able to see what we have used to make our determination. I think I have picked up on the main mapping area-related issues that were mentioned. If there are any others, I will come back to them.