Mr. Vincent Roddy:

I thank Mr. Condon for that. To cover Deputy Carthy's points, on the first question on the implications for our members and for all farmers, we would have major concerns. We would see it not as just a rewetting and a farming issue of farming. There is a property rights' issue here if EU legislation can dictate what happens with one's property and if it can insist that one has to rewet it. This is different from what is happening with the designations because they told one what one cannot do. This is not only going to tell one what one cannot do but it is also going to tell one what one has to do. That has clear implications for property rights and we need to be very aware of that. That is not just with farming. Once we start to impinge on property rights as regards farmland, we have to ask the question as to where that stops. We need to be clear on that.

As regards Deputy Carthy's question on international trade, when he asked that question I was thinking about whether we are going to expect farmers to rewet land and take large areas of land out of agricultural use while at the same time trading with Brazil where more rainforests are cut away. That does not make sense. Maybe it makes sense to people at EU level if they want to sell Audis or other things to Brazil. There is that trade side of things. From our point of view, it cannot and should not happen.

On the implementation of this at EU level, first, when one looks at the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, and I know we had differing views here on CAP, approximately 70% of what was originally proposed by the Commission was in the final CAP plan. Approximately, 30% was changed. What we have to think about here is the 70% that is there, if that is where we end up. We need to make sure the harder elements are taken out. I would like to think that this would not happen at all but I am also a realist and I know that maybe we will have to find a landing ground in there.

As regards the member state, we have asked that this committee turns this down and passes a motion stating it will not entertain it and put pressure back on the Cabinet. As to whether that will happen, we hope it will happen but I do not know if the committee has the power to do that. It will be down to what flexibility member states get. The CAP allowed for a certain level of flexibility. Will that flexibility be in this as well? I will finish on that.