Mr. Hugh Farrell:

To follow up on that, the forum was initially established to work on disease eradication. A lot of time was put into it. A professor from UCD attended and different issues were discussed. It was all based on what happened in Australia in terms of catheterisation and the mart boards. Every day it was conveyed, from different angles, that this was the way forward. Too much time was spent at that instead of listening to the farming organisations, which pointed out that such an approach was not suitable for farmers in this country, and moving on. We spent too many days repeating ourselves and a lot of time was lost. We were never going to make up ground using that approach because it was not workable. The numbers were too different - it was ranches against farms. Much of the forum's downfall was the insistence on pushing that approach.

Deputy Fitzmaurice asked about forestry. There is a grant for fencing forestry. Normally, that fencing is only maintained for the first five years or so, especially where there is tree felling, but it should be maintained the whole way through because wildlife moves. The grant even covers cheap fencing to stop small wildlife from moving across farms. It should be compulsory. Many of the farms in question are able to claim farm subsidies and the maintenance of a hard boundary should be scrutinised the same as on any other farm and addressed in terms of forestry.

Regarding zero grazing, a farm in Offaly lost a lot of cows. The farmer maintained that it was because of the wildlife that was travelling across the farm. A herd has the choice of where to eat in a zero grazing situation, as the grass is cut and brought in. That is the biggest sign.

As Mr. Punch said regarding the hardship grant, €250 is of no value to any farmer in today's world, particularly when off-farm income is included. That income element will have to be removed.