Mr. Jason Fitzgerald:

Other farming organisations have been very supportive and we could not say anything negative about them. We have much in common with the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association. The Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, and the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, have all been very helpful. We have no complaints whatsoever about them. Everyone seems to be pushing in the same direction now and we hope that is the case.

On the National Parks and Wildlife Service, there is a monitoring committee working at present that is giving consideration to renegotiating the agreement I spoke about at the start of the meeting. We are trying to get on that committee and feel we have a right to be on it. Some of our farmers are among those most seriously affected. Despite a letter to the Minister and previous letters to people on the national parks side, we have yet to receive a positive response. I hope this committee, if it is within its remit, might suggest that we should be allowed onto that committee. We believe that so doing would greatly enhance our presence, alongside other farming organisations.

We are looking at the legal issue. The State has unlimited resources at its disposal, which enables it to take on a legal challenge. Our organisation consists of 4,000 farmers. Some people are terrified of court. If the goodwill of the Oireachtas and the Government cannot achieve fairness and address this issue comprehensively, which in fairness is due to these farmers after ten years, then of course legal action is a possibility.

Deputies Brassil and Michael Moynihan, among others, spoke about bureaucratic problems and getting planning permission. A farmer might be complying with health and safety grounds in respect of putting up a fence to keep their cattle in. I am aware of one farmer in mid-Cork who recently applied for a targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS, grant. He had to carry out an environmental assessment. By the time he had completed it had cost him more than he would have got in the grant. The cost of applying for these schemes is far above what is available in the grants. These are the people who need the grants. A farmer cannot now get a grant to fence his land because of the cost involved. Companies involved in solar schemes and so on have no interest in getting into a legal battle. It is going to cost them and will take their time. They add up the costs and see that it is not worth it. The reason Coillte was able to do it is because it was State land, the company has a lot of it and perhaps it was able to come to an agreement that other farmers would not be in a position to reach.

Deputy Brassil also mentioned the scheme and how far the €25 million might go. We initially believed that we would receive €35 million for these areas. However, that did not materialise.

As for the €25 million, in fairness to the hen harrier project, it has done a very good job in giving out the money. It is running the scheme for a very small margin, which is very welcome. However, the manner in which the rest of the money is being distributed is causing us some concern. The distributor of the scheme is getting 14%, which is quite low. Around €18 million of the €25 million is going towards paying for habitat. However, to get that money, a farm needs to get ten out of ten in its application. Every farmer would have to get ten out of ten to use up that €18 million. That is not going to happen. The farmers in the Burren have been doing this since 2010 but they rarely get ten out of ten. We estimated an average score for farmers of around six. There is room to improve, but-----