Mr. Paul Dillon:

We were careful to get detailed advice on this particular eligibility issue before we took this course of action. The advice we got was strong in terms of how we should interpret the regulations. They are EU regulations on declaring land eligibility. We got strong advice to the effect that this was the proper way to interpret it. We explained this already but maybe we need to explain it again. The distinction is in the difference in the burden of proof for eligibility and other types of penalties. We were satisfied with the advice we got before we took this course of action.

Deputies raised the question of whether it could be changed at EU level. In theory, of course it can be changed. We are in the middle of the consultation process on how the new Common Agricultural Policy is to be implemented and what level of obligation we are going to place on farmers. All of these things are up for discussion under the new CAP.

Senator Daly asked a specific question. Did we specifically go to the Commission and ask before we did this? No, we did not, but we got advice on the interpretation of the rules and how we should apply them. As I have said, the interpretation we got was clear. The burden of proof for eligibility rules is far higher than for other rules. That was why we acted the way we did. Mr. McKiernan may wish to say a little more.