Mr. John Keane:

From our reading of the draft plan that was put in front of us on 8 August and that which was put in front of us a number of weeks ago, and in the context of the funding outlined to us by the Minister at the end of October, there is no wording or text within the draft CAP strategic plan to address the issue of forgotten farmers. Similarly, a funding allocation has not been set aside within any of the proposals or the documentation released by the Minister. I find it difficult to believe, therefore, that within the context of the CAP as it stands, with both the wording and the financial allocation, and given the Department and the Minister have stated no more money will be found, the Department could say it will be dealt with in the context of the current CAP, unless there is something that will be imminently released that we are not aware of. That is our currently position on forgotten farmers.

We would not accept that a number of forgotten farmers would not be supported by whatever measure is brought in to support them. All those people who are now farmers were young farmers when, through no fault of their own, they fell through the system. It does not matter whether they were 34 years old at the time and they are now in their mid-40s, or whether they were 21 years old at the time and are still young farmers. They were left out at that time and, therefore, they should all be treated equally.

On eco-schemes, we believe that from a productive point of view there is an opportunity, among the schemes we have measured such the additional days at grass, the antimicrobial resistance piece and the hedgerow management, that all farmers can access. There is the wider question from a farming perspective of practical application on the ground. When the suite of measures contained in the agri-environment climate measures, AECM, under Pillar 2, for the general measure of 30,000 farmers, is compared with the number of eco-schemes, a number of measures under the AECM under Pillar 2 under the general measure contain a higher payment rate than those measures contained in the eco-scheme under Pillar 1.

From a practical farmer's point of view, why would he or she not access the measures under the AECM under Pillar 2, get a higher rate of payment and forgo those eco-schemes under Pillar 1 because the payment rate is lower? That is why we need to see an increase in the number of schemes that diverge from those proposed under the general measures under the AECM in Pillar 2. We fully recognise the AECM has a limit of 30,000 farmers under the general measure, which we think is not enough, but from a practical sense we need farmers to have measures under eco-schemes they can access that are notably different from those under the measures in the general eco-scheme under Pillar 2, given that the higher rate of payment is contained in Pillar 2. At the same time, we need farmers to be able to draw down the €74 per hectare payment under Pillar 1, if 85% of farmers took up the schemes. I hope that answers the question.