Mr. Flor McCarthy:

It has created major problems along the western seaboard. We have been in negotiations for six or seven months. We have made the case at six or seven meetings but they have made no changes. The proposal made by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, yesterday involving the introduction of an independent chairman was welcome. We have said that the collective agreement is totally unworkable. We were informed there would be a major gap between the minimum and maximum but we did not realise anything until the proposals were published, even though we were at the meetings. The proposal published and what was explained to us were totally different. We must have been attending totally different meetings.

The reaction on the ground has been very negative. Individual farmers with 200 sheep may have to reduce their numbers to 46 again. It is a total shambles. There is no way the document in question can be negotiated or changed. I welcome the proposal of the Minister, Deputy Coveney, to bring in an independent chairman and to begin afresh. We accept without a doubt that something must be done on commonages but the proposals brought forward in the past week are not workable. The collective agreement does not make sense. One man doing his job right should not be penalised because one or two others are doing it wrong. At the same time we will support the scheme, even if it is not totally what we want. The IFA is a reasonable organisation and if the scheme is in any way reasonable we will go with it, but the reaction has been savage and the Minister, Deputy Coveney, has got it from his backbench Deputies. They are not hyping it up for nothing. There is a major problem.

Senator Ó Domhnaill commented on the inspections. They are also a major issue in the west. Many inspections are rather subjective. Inspectors come to eligible ground and decide certain people's ground has rushes on it. Three of us could visit the same farm and come out with three different opinions. It is not black and white. I know of a farmer in Kerry who faced an inspection in 2010 and received a 5% reduction in eligible ground. An inspection was carried out again this year and he was informed that he will receive a 100% penalty. There were two inspectors and he was inspected in both years. I could take the view that the inspector from this year was wrong and that the inspector who took off 5% two years ago was right. The farmer expected a 5% reduction in his eligible ground. There should be some way of assessing some of these individuals. Some people are giving 100% penalties. The work of these people should be examined. They are picking on weak individuals working and farming on their own. All these farmers are bachelors. Perhaps their situation has slipped somewhat but a 50% penalty would be savage. Many people are facing 100% penalties and that cannot be condoned. These people are in peripheral areas. The whole inspection system should be examined. Some compassion should be shown because, as the president said, there are issues relating to depression, sickness, old age and various family circumstances.

Many of these people are only barely getting used to the numbers from the reference year. This is the type of terrain they farmed in 2000, 2001 and 2002 from which they established their entitlements. It is not as if there has been a major shift. This was always poor ground and it will always be poor ground. The 100% penalties are occurring in areas close to the shore where the climate is warmer and more encouraging. There is not as much higher bush growth in these areas. Obviously, it is poorer land as well and that should be taken into consideration. We welcome the support of the committee members and we all accept that there must be inspections, but inspections where people face 100% penalties cannot be condoned.

Reference was made to aquaculture and wind energy. There are difficulties facing all of these schemes and with special areas of conservation, SAC, designations. Up to now these were okay because we were compensated for them. At this stage a new look should be taken at the designations because the farmers concerned are having restrictions placed on them. The same applies to aquaculture. Those involved cannot be grant aided if they operate in a SAC or in a proposed natural heritage area, NHA. These are real issues.

I come from an area where there has been a good deal of wind farming and it is disappointing for us that all wind developments seem to be moving to the midlands solely because we are restricted by designations. We have a better asset than those in the midlands but we are losing out because of designations. At this stage the designations are a nail in the coffin for us.

It was not as bad under REPS 4 and we were able to get reasonable compensation. I have raised this matter with the Minister as well with regard to disadvantaged area payments, REPS and the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS. Up to 70% of the funding for these schemes comes from Europe and that should be recognised in the general kitty. The onus is on Deputies to recognise that this money is coming from Europe and that there should be a commitment to the AEOS. If there are 8,000 applicants for the scheme they should all be paid.

There is an attack on the disadvantaged areas scheme. The scheme has been in place since the 1970s. It is a second generation scheme and it is a real support for people. There will be a vicious reaction if it is attacked. I am the second generation to draw down the disadvantaged area payment. Rightly or wrongly people may believe they are entitled to it but if there is any attack on it at this stage there will be problems. Years ago the payment was IR£7,000 but the criteria under which it was paid changed. It was moved over to a land based system and this brought a reduction for the genuine people who were benefiting from it. It is at the stage now where we are only getting €3,300. Any attack on that limit will be met with a vicious reaction.