Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

Our outlook on the whole thing is that in respect of the GAEC, for many years they have all been worried about the "A" part of it but no one was worried about the environmental part of it until now. They are now all jumping up and down about biodiversity and habitats but there is no point in talking about biodiversity when another Minister on the other side of the room is drawing red circles around habitats and areas of high biodiversity, stating that they no longer constitute land. Suckler cows and sheep in disadvantaged areas are actually doing a good job for the environment. They should make up their minds as to what they really need.

On the issue of productive farmers, we believe that an active farmer is one who is producing and working. Some may argue that some farmers work part-time. The former Minister, Joe Walsh, sang that song for years. The argument was that those who cannot make money from suckling cows should get an off-farm income as well. Many farmers were forced to do so. The elephant in the room is that the CAP money came out of the beef and suckler cow schemes and EU premiums. All of the CAP money came out of all of those schemes originally. Since the MacSharry and Fischler reforms, the whole thing has changed. When I was a young fellow I was taught that Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor. Since these reforms came in, we have been taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

It was noted in the Teagasc report of 2019 that dairy farming is four times more profitable than suckler farming and sheep farming is three and half times more profitable than beef or tillage. Still, these farmers are probably drawing the same amount of CAP or more. If we want to rebalance it, we must look after those suckler farmer, the sheep farmer and small tillage farmers in disadvantaged areas who have no other option but to pursue such farming. Looking forward, what is being proposed will mean that farmers will have to move into dairy farming. It is not necessary to build a milking parlour to move into dairy farming. The farmer can lease his or her land, opt for contract rearing or do something else. The smaller farmers are suffering big time. While the money was provided for those people at first, it has since been taken off them constantly.

In respect of convergence, we believe that €60,000 would be a very fair cap. However, one needs to look around it at the minimum, because when an approximation was made a few years ago, those who were due to receive a six-figure sum had it reduced by around €3,000 to €4,000. I know of farmers with smaller hectare farms in disadvantaged areas who were working hard who were brought from €11,000 down to €9,000. It is a much bigger hit for a farmer to take when his or her income is reduced from €11,000 to €9,000 than from €80,000 to €75,000.

We have submitted our proposal.

We believe that farmers with values of between 130 kg and 150 kg per hectare shouldbe entitled to the full payment under the eco scheme. Farmers with values of between 131 kg and 170 kg per hectare should probably be paid at a lower rate. People seeking a derogation should be excluded from the scheme, as should farmers with values below 50 kg per hectare, especially those on low land, as they are not doing anything. Those who can sit at home and do not need to put on their wellies and go out to do work should not be getting money. There are fellows out there - this is coming down the track - who can lease their land and entitlements and sit back. They should not be getting a lot of CAP money. That is all I can say. Mr. Punch is more technical than I am if members have questions. I thank them for listening to us.