Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

One thing to note is that the direct payments that come into Ireland come in in two pillars. There are: Pillar 1 and Pillar 2. Pillar 2 is based on the principle of cost-incurred income forgone. One gets that payment on the basis of either one incurs a cost or one foregoes income. At present, one can deduct expenses under the assessment but one cannot account for income foregone. For instance, one may have to reduce the productivity of one's land and one gets a return payment. One cannot factor in the productivity loss as an expense. The environmental schemes, such as the new suckler cow welfare scheme and the sheep improvement scheme, and the many other Pillar 2 schemes as well, are based on that principle of cost incurred income foregone. I would argue there is an argument there that they should be disregarded in their totality because of that principle.

The same goes with the Pillar 1 payments Mr. Roddy mentioned earlier. The eco-scheme has a similar principle. For instance, one of the eco-scheme measurements is space for nature. If one is above a certain space for nature, one qualifies. One has to do two practices to quality for eco-scheme payment and one of them is the base for nature. Obviously, if one has a higher space for nature, that is a very positive thing but one's productivity on the farm is reduced then. It is a good thing to have higher space for nature but one cannot deduct that expense. That is in Pillar 1 payments. There is an argument that this principle could certainly be used, from the committee's perspective, to say how do we justify a full disregard. There it is. It is an EU principle.

Mrs. Doyle may go into the rest of the PRSI issue.