Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Department officials. I welcome the improved certainty the document provides through the pictures, notwithstanding the fact there are still some issues. Since the start of the single payment, or whatever it was originally called, many features were ineligible, such as rock, ponds, dense scrub and so on, and that is a given. The main concern I had recently was in regard to the re-evaluation of commonages. I see that the Department has in recent weeks changed the forage areas for places like Derrybrien and Roxborough, and Kilderry will hopefully be next.

The point on burning is important given there are various types of burning. There are people who carry out genuine controlled burning but there can be malicious burning and a neighbouring farmer might just decide to do something that could have unintended consequences, particularly if another farmer would lose their payments. There can also be accidental burning, for example, if someone throws away a cigarette or if there is a glass bottle in the sunshine. This is the type of thing that can happen and I have concerns in this regard. While I see where the Department is coming from in terms of stopping uncontrolled burning, the consequences of ruling it out entirely for payment is extreme, in my opinion. Some burning is accidental and there can be a forest fire that can just take off across thousands of acres. I have serious reservations about this and believe it needs to be looked at again because, within a short period, we see the burnt areas becoming green again.

The terms and conditions of the basic payment scheme state that a farmer must exclude bogland unfit for grazing and areas used for commercial turf production. However, today's document states that bogland, whether used for turf production or not, is not eligible. What exactly is meant in that definition of "bogland"? I understand the high bank of raised bogs has always been ineligible. Is the Department referring to areas where turf is spread on the land, which might sometimes happen. Are re-vegetated turf banks eligible? If it does not have some more in-depth description, the word "bogland" could lead to unjustified deductions.

With regard to the pro ratapenalties, again, it is very hard to define whether a parcel has 10%, 11%, 12% or even 8% or 9%. One cannot be definitive and say it has exactly 10.1% and, therefore, it falls into a 20% reduction coefficient. I would be concerned about how it is possible to be so definitive. If the measurement is, say, 10.2%, there is suddenly a 20% reduction. It is like the case of over-declared areas, where if a farmer had 3.1%, it had a major impact. To go from zero to 20%, when one might be going from 10% to just 10.1% of ineligible area, is extreme.

I welcome the move on the SACs and SPAs and the fact that some certainty is given for those areas that were declared in 2008. Some farmers were caught out when they were not able to clear parts of SACs and SPAs that became scrubby because they did not have permission to clear them.

In his opening statement Dr. Smyth said: "Under the regulations the following Natura areas, while they are ineligible, will continue to benefit from payment under the basic payments scheme." Should this state "while they may be ineligible"? Can he explain why he said "while they are ineligible"?

On a question to Mr. Lorcan O'Shea, Deputy Barry referred to GLAS. NHAs are not eligible in the same way as the SACs and SPAs. Is that an oversight or is it something that has come from on high? Most NHAs are also SACs or SPAs but there are some NHAs that are not. Will there be any change on that?