Professor Gerry Boyle:

There may be a bit of confusion about the knowledge transfer scheme and long-standing activity. Teagasc originated the term "knowledge transfer" a long time ago. The advisory service gives advice and is nothing to do with the scheme. The knowledge group schemes are a different matter and I am well aware of the issues that have arisen but I am talking about the relationship advisers have with farmers on a day-to-day basis.

Deputies Fitzmaurice and Cahill raised the difficulties around the single farm payment. We carried out analysis of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy a couple of years ago, and will do more when the scenarios firm up a bit more. It is not fully appreciated but the tillage sector was revealed to have, proportionately, the single greatest negative impact. Some 75% of family farm income is accounted for by the single farm payment. Any cut in that, such as has been mooted in the event of a hard Brexit, would reflect this.

If a hard Brexit were to occur, there would be approximately the same or a little less negative impact on family farm income. Family farm income is essentially the net margin, having substracted from revenue all variable and fixed costs and added the single farm payment.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice asked a question about the distribution of payments that I am reluctant to answer directly because it involves a political issue. I am well aware of the debate in that regard and the discussions taking place on capping and so on which is at the core of the Deputy's question. We can analyse the impact of different caps, but it is not really our business to comment on where the cap should be or if there should be one. In particular, we would be concerned about the impact of any reform on the productive commercial sector of Irish agriculture. That was a point of debate on the last occasion and will be on the next.

There were many detailed remarks that, with the permission of the Chairman, I will ask my colleagues to address as quickly as possible.