Mr. John Comer:

Deputy Ó Cuív has left, but we discussed many of these issues at a forum in Carrick-on-Shannon not too long ago. I have covered much of this area in my introduction, in which I recognised that there would be anomalies. However, 85% to 87% of those who were active in the historical years are still active. Some 1,640 people are in receipt of more than €50,000 per annum and only a few hundred receive more than €100,000. That number is insignificant compared with the overall package. It looks wrong and the aesthetics are not great, but there are 110,000 farmers.

I was asked about payments. Across the 27 member states, the average single farm payment is €4,000. In Ireland, it is €9,000. Proportionate approximation was applied at member state level because the Germans, French, Austrians and others did not want to shift the budgets too dramatically. Deputy Ó Cuív's suggestion of giving people a lift of €30 on the first ten or 15 hectares sounds lovely, but the reality is that most of those involved might not be full-time farmers and might have sizeable off-farm incomes. For example, they could be gardaí, teachers, solicitors, doctors, etc. The money will go to them.

Our organisation is trying to protect the one constant, that is, the family farm unit, a labour unit that produces enough to make a living with the incorporation of the single farm payment. It is as simple as that. The amount involved usually hovers between €20,000 and €50,000, depending on one's borrowings. I hate characterising farmers, but someone who has 1,000 acres of hill and 50 sheep could theoretically be called active. However, he or she has plenty of time to generate other income. Such farmers are not solely dependent on farming and have developed other ways to live. I do not want to segregate farmers, but giving €30 on the first ten hectares would be disastrous. It would create more anomalies than it would solve.

Senior departmental officials have crunched the numbers. We support the position taken by the Department to lessen the impact of the change in funding. A gradual convergence is fine. By 2020, the vista across food production in Europe will be different than it is now and there will be many plans to shift the emphasis back onto coupled payments.

Senator Comiskey mentioned young farmers. We support his comments. The issue of commonages must be sorted. The notion of collective responsibility is lunacy. I do not know how anyone could have come up with it outside of a communist society. If four farmers who have sheep on a hill are dependent on one another, it is a recipe for disaster and must be rectified. A commonsensical approach must be taken.

The rural environment protection scheme, REPS, was also mentioned. A whole-farm approach is the best in that regard. Under the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, each item of expenditure is receipted and only parts of a farm are involved. To be successful, a scheme must take a whole-farm basis.

The suckler cow scheme has been prioritised and is funded from the Exchequer, but we are not in favour of coupling payments in the next CAP budget. There is no justification for recoupling those moneys. With one hand a linear cut of 5%, 10% or so on would be applied to everyone and, with the other, it would be given back again, only with terms and condition attached, including the requirement to keep the cow. Beef prices are high because of the law of supply and demand. Numbers have decreased and prices have increased. If payments are coupled, farmers will need to keep their animals, which will lead to a decrease in prices. Recoupling in respect of a small percentage now would be detrimental for farmers. The situation might be different if everything was recoupled, but our organisation is against recoupling just 5% or 10%.

Senator Comiskey referred to land conveyancing. We have serious issues in this regard, but they are not specific to farmers. Every citizen is affected, as all property transfers are involved. The only element that is excluded is the physical transaction of cash. One will even be required to have two solicitors to conduct the transfer of a share in a council house. Heretofore, it was always advisable to have a second solicitor, but that is different from being required to set up a new account with a second solicitor and duplicating the searches. What sticks in my craw is the fact that the Law Society implemented this statutory instrument and its members are getting the business. I want to make the Houses aware that this expensive and impractical approach will not solve the problem.

I believe I have covered everything, but members might remind me if I have left anything out. Post-2015 was mentioned.

We have lots of ideas on that, which Mr. McCormack will outline.