Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll:

Absolutely, we can forward to the committee what he said. There was no formal document. On the beef data and genomics programme, BDGP, as an example of a complex scheme, which is the way some members presented it, one has to sign up for six years. This is not quite what we wanted. It came from discussions with the Commission as a necessary part of the scheme. To be honest, we can see why. It is to ensure the scheme delivers, but it is also because it is pitched as an agri-environment scheme. That is where it is being placed in the legal framework where the norm is multi-year schemes. One has to use four or five-star bulls and there are many other conditions, all of which is true, but these are all things that deliver real benefits to the farmer. There is nothing put into this scheme that is a waste of time, that should not be done or that will not deliver real benefits. We have major challenges in our beef sector. We have a serious problem with farm level profitability in beef and we have to move the sector on. We also have a significant climate change challenge in beef. Frankly, we saw an opportunity to address both issues simultaneously through a scientifically cutting edge scheme. That is what we are doing. It will deliver almost €300 million to beef farmers but they will have to do a lot for it. I do not deny that and I would not describe it as a simple scheme.

There was welcome for the indication that we are pushing for a more proportionate approach to small discrepancies for small farmers in the outposts. That is something we will push very hard. It makes absolute sense. The current provision does not make sense. We think we can stand up that proposal very well.

Deputy Deering referred to the school milk scheme. The scale in terms of the amount of milk it would absorb is small. The scheme operates in 1,061 schools serving 51,000 students. Therefore, it delivers many benefits in social and health terms.

However, in terms of absorption of quantities of milk, it would not really be in that kind league.

Deputy Penrose referred to Russia. I dealt with the scale of the impact on Ireland. That is where I dealt with that.

It is interesting Deputy Penrose should say that he was an advocate of decoupling and saw it as a simplification opportunity. I can claim to have been in the same boat. I also would agree with him in expressing disappointment. One of our regrets about CAP reform was the splitting of the payment. Ireland advocated that we should not set up a separate greening payment. That was our national position. As holders of the Presidency, we eventually delivered one, but that was our job as holders of the Presidency. Our national position was that there should not be a separate one. We appealed to colleagues to look at a different route, asking that we talk about additional environmental conditionality, if they wanted to talk about that, but that we use the existing good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC, and cross-compliance provisions as the basis for that. Ireland and Austria advocated that and the other 26 countries did not step up to the plate. Ever since, representatives from those countries have been coming to me saying that we were right, but it is a little late. I have some sympathy with the argument that we have ended up splitting schemes a lot across the place. Certainly, with the greening, there is a real level of truth in that regard.

There was a question about appeals.