Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

While I have an open mind regarding Mr. Lynskey's and Mr. Lynch's contributions, I would love to hear the counter-arguments of the other two parties that have been mentioned.

My experience is that most farmers send in everything on paper, including area aid forms and so on. There is a role for the computer. Farming sophistication varies widely depending on land quality. If I am looking at the figures correctly, according to the delegation, some 14,000 or 15,000 of the 110,000 farmers are using software systems. Is it the case that early applications for registering calves and so on are still being processed using the old system of pen and paper?

What the delegation is discussing reminds me of the argument about the two hotels which were always in competition with each other to try to attract the tourists who were coming to the town. Each was only half full but they decided to operate together and filled both hotels. There is a potential market of 110,000 farmers. The delegation has 15,000, but it should sit down with the boys in the Department and get that figure up to 80,000 or 90,000. Contrary to much opinion, this could be easy to do and work. It is somewhat like mobile phones and so on. Some people simply make telephone calls, some make telephone calls and use the diary and others make telephone calls and use e-mail and so on. Many start with the basic system and keep winding it out. Of the 110,000 farmers, how many make their Revenue returns online? Is it higher than the number who make agricultural returns online? If it is, this shows the scale of the market.

There is another conundrum we should consider. Depending on family circumstances and so on, there may be farmers in disadvantaged areas or older farmers. In many such cases one could receive a beautiful e-mailed letter from a 75 year old farmer. One suspects in most cases that a son or daughter is the e-mail expert in the house. In many cases the market might be a good deal bigger. From the State's point of view, if we were to get everything online, it would save the State a great deal of hassle. We have a vested interest, therefore, in trying to get as many people online as possible, just as the Revenue Commissioners has done. Rather than have a petty row between the delegation and the State agencies, we should try to extend the market because there is a considerable upside for the Department, the State and everyone involved in terms of the accuracy of returns and so on.

My final comment relates to State involvement. For years there have been State REPS planners, working through Teagasc, and private planners. They have worked in the same areas. In reality, Teagasc picked up the weaker and the poorer and those who, although they had to pay for the service, might not have been able to afford a private service provider. I never saw a conflict in this because the market varies considerably between the customer who is commercially viable for the delegation and the customer who is commercially viable for the State. In other words, if the State is getting people to do it online, it is saving money at the end of the line, but it might not be a commercial proposition for the delegation, although if the State considered the totality of it, it might be.

Given that there are 15,000 or 20,000 farmers involved, it is sad that we are still at this low level of electronic engagement. That is where we should be looking. I am keen for the committee to examine the other side of the argument to determine whether there are parts of the argument which we are not getting today. This includes reaching out to people that the delegation will never reach out to because it will not be commercially viable to do so. They would not seek that level of electronic engagement which would make it worth the while of the delegation to service them.