Mr. James Healy:

We see that being addressed through our definition of "active farmer". In our CAP document, we have proposed a very strong, demanding definition of "active farmer" that implies productivity, business improvement and a farmer who is planning and developing in the right direction. A feedlot or large corporation would not meet what is required in our definition of "active farmer", but it requires us all to demand what I propose in the next CAP reform.

Deputy McConalogue mentioned Europe being 102% self-sufficient. It boggles the mind that a trading bloc that is 102% self-sufficient would open itself up to third-country suppliers supplying poorer-quality product and oversupplying the market further. When it comes to trade deals, while we accept there has to be compromise on all sides, I do not see the benefit to Europe, as a trading bloc, of saturating the market with a product in which it is already self-sufficient.

On the beef grid, members will have seen in our sustainable beef policy document, which we released today and which we sent members before our arrival, that we make some of the same points made by the ICSA on reform of the grid and the exploration of using DEXA scanners, the X-ray machines. At a recent meeting of our young farmer committee, a farmer from New Zealand informed us about how farmers in New Zealand are paid for beef and the element of the payment concerned with eating quality and all the aspects involved in that regard. Given the product we have and given that we have mentioned PGIs, as will representatives of every farming organisation that will sit in front of the committee, this is a matter that should possibly be explored to ensure a greater return to the farmer.

On the beef data and genomics programme, we have sat before a number of committees at this stage and said that, while our members are not 100% happy with it, it is certainly pushing the sector in the right direction. Our members regard it as pushing the right message and driving advancements, developments and the necessary technical skills to improve the sector overall. Some of what was introduced through the BEEP or the associated payment is also pushing in the right direction. Dairy farmers have such control and knowledge of their key performance indicators and production figures. Every other sector needs to match them. There are some that do. Every sector across the board needs to get to a level whereby those involved know their business and costs inside out and are maximising everything they can.

The fifth quarter and the control of outlets for offal and such products need to be examined by the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. The options for farmers when killing their animals are certainly greatly restricted by comparison with those of ten, 15 or 20 years ago. This has come about through greater control of the outlets through one or two routes.

On some of the more specific questions on young farmers, as somebody with an off-farm job, like a very large majority of the farmers, I regard forward-selling of beef and contracts as a way of increasing income certainty for young farmers. As we mentioned in our presentation, it could come through the producer organisations or young farmers agreeing to reach certain specifications and weights that the processors have no problem telling us they require. If a farmer can guarantee that he will supply a certain amount of product of a certain specification, he deserves to be awarded for the ability to produce that at a given time. The future of the businesses is inextricably linked to having young farmers to produce the product. The age demographic is there for everyone to see. Ten years could see a great change in the number of beef farmers in this country if we are not careful.

On the question of whether we would tell young farmers to enter beef farming, the young farmers are speaking with their feet already. I recently interviewed for the Teagasc-FBD Insurance Student of the Year competition. There are a large number of participants who had beef animals at home who were considering moving to other sectors. If their land did not allow for dairy, they were considering sheep. They see no major reason for optimism or reason for entering beef farming as a way of having a sustainable income. They do not necessarily expect to be full-time beef farmers, but even justifying being a part-time beef farmer is very difficult for them.

With regard to Deputy Cahill's question, on a cap of €70,000 on stamp duty, stock relief and the succession farm partnership, we have made representations to this committee and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and we have made representations at European level. There is certainly a contradiction in terms because, on the one hand, the Commission is putting forward incentives to encourage young farmers into the sector while, on the other, although a cap of €70,000 might be regarded as enormous in some countries, the relief is eaten up very quickly in this country because the rate of stamp duty is 6%. What is certainly holding up the transfer of land is the uncertainty. Until the advice is given, I cannot say for certain how much of a hold-up there will be.

If it appears that the relief will be on the 6%, that will cause a major hold-up in the transfer of farms to younger hands. I would encourage the committee to keep up the pressure on that as much as possible.

I did not get to mention one issue in my presentation. The last convening of the beef forum did not happen but we expressed our belief that while it might not have been as constructive as we had hoped, there was no benefit gained from not being around the table. Every farm organisation coming before the committee will have a slightly different view of how that should happen, but more unity across the farm organisations is required. When we sit down at the table, there is a unified voice on one side and unless we, as farm representatives, can unify our voices, I do not know how much can be achieved at the table. That might be something for us to consider.