Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I thank the Senator. I hope I have clarified the issues on disadvantaged area payments, commonage and new eligibility.

A number of Senators have asked about the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS. To be absolutely clear I would love to be able to introduce a new REPS that would be generous and encourage environmental and sustainable farming but I cannot afford to do so. We do not have the money to do it. When one must make choices with the money one has one must choose the key areas to which one allocates one's resources to obtain the maximum dividend from an environmental point of view or from the point of view of whatever other target one sets. I do not have the money to put in place a full AEOS for all farmers leaving REPS at present. If I find the resources to do so in the meantime I will happily re-examine it but what we are trying to do is introduce a limited AEOS.

This year may well be about drawing down payments next year, but limited to the areas which in my view need priority treatment which are special areas of conservation, SACs. Someone farming in an area with a series of limitations because it is a special area of conservation, which include determining the amount of fertiliser one can use and one's stocking rates, must be compensated for this. We are trying to put in place a limited AEOS, which will not be as generous as the previous REPS but at least will be an acknowledgement that those farming in special areas of conservation must have some preferential treatment in terms of support schemes put in place. This is why in AEOS 2, which I put together last year, those in SACs automatically qualify. Those outside SACs will qualify if they are under the ceiling in terms of the number of applicants.

I am not in a position to promise any more than this but the Department will try to follow through on my commitment to put together an AEOS for SACs. It may not be sanctioned by the Department of Finance because it does not like new schemes at present because they cost money and will continue do so; it is not about only one year. We will try to put it together and I am reasonably confident we will be able to do so. However, we must find savings elsewhere to finance it.

Another question I wish to answer, because I do not want to return to the matter of the disadvantaged area payments scheme, is on the 80 km rule and farmers in disadvantaged areas trying to expand their productivity by leasing land outside of the disadvantaged area. If one's primary farm is in a disadvantaged area, leasing land in a non-disadvantaged area will not impact on one's payment. I clarified this recently at the AGM of the IFA. If one's primary farm is in a non-disadvantaged area and one leases land in a disadvantaged area to obtain payments, one will receive a percentage payment based on the percentage of the overall land holding which is in the disadvantaged area. Someone outside the disadvantaged area taking land for perfectly valid reasons in a disadvantaged area is not in the same category in terms of being a disadvantaged farmer as someone whose entire holding is in a disadvantaged area. This is why these changes have been made and they were worked out while listening to the concerns of farmers.

I take Senator White's point on male dominance in some organisations. To be perfectly honest I cannot answer on behalf of the ICMSA. I am not familiar with the case and it would be dangerous for me to start making comments.