Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

First, it is important to be accurate in this Chamber. As I have stated clearly to the Deputy previously, I am hopeful a limited AEOS scheme will be opened in September. I acknowledge it will be limited and it primarily will be focused on Natura areas and on those farmers who farm in commonage areas. In respect of the disadvantaged areas scheme, DAS, the entire point of what the Department is trying to do is to try to protect the incomes of those to whom the Deputy has just referred, because people in disadvantaged areas need that income. They are limited in respect of the return they can get from the marketplace because of the limitations on productivity on their land, their soil or whatever. This is the reason I sought to try to protect the income of people who are farming in disadvantaged areas by changing the eligibility in such a way that people who are not farming fully in disadvantaged areas would not receive the same level of payment as those who are. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and I revert to the entire point of what I was trying to do. Unlike the previous Government, which simply applied cuts to everyone, I tried to differentiate between those who need the money most and those who do not and now I am being criticised for it. If people are getting a raw deal because of the payment or because of the change in eligibility I have made, I want them to use an appeals process and my Department will try to look at that in as generous a way as it can.

On the retrospective payment issue, people tell me all the time in respect of the 2014 reference year for the CAP, for example, that if one intends to set a reference year, one must set it in the past and not in the future because otherwise, everyone simply would change behaviour in the future. This is the reason I picked the most recent year in the past, 2011, to be the reference year. This is not about retrospective change but is about setting a reference year to distinguish between people who should be getting a full DAS payment and those who should not. Were one simply to change it for this year, everyone would simply have increased their stocking rate to have the bare minimum necessary to draw down a payment. The Department was trying to save money and to distinguish between those who should be getting a full payment and those who should not. If we have made mistakes in certain case studies and for certain people, they should use the appeals mechanism to enable the Department to look after them.

See this speech in context