Mr. Dermot Kelleher:

I thank Deputy Collins for his questions. A per hectare payment is one thing but the issue is the number of hectares. Many suckler and sheep farmers have 40 ha or less. This is why they were all taken down in approximation. The guy with 300, 500 or 1,000 cows also had plenty of hectares and his cheque is huge. Per hectare does not really matter. Consider what happened the last time with the ordinary sheep or suckler farmer. Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív proved this years ago when he did the work. The average dry-stock farmer in a disadvantaged area has under 40 ha. The majority of small farms in the western half of the country, although not all of them, are around 40 ha. If the number of hectares is the qualification criterion, the farmer with 40 ha who is drawing between €10,000 and €12,000 per year would be taken down because of convergence. It would be lunacy. It would bring the farmer on a payment of €100,000 down by €5,000 or €6,000 but it would bring a lad on €11,000 down to €9,000. It would kill him altogether. I know farmers whose payments were reduced from €11,000 to the €9,000. They had 40 cows and were working hard. They were above the national average. That is scandalous when there are big farmers and industrial farmers making big money.

As for the second question, the most appropriate way to use the rural development budget would be to have a good scheme that would deliver payments of €15,000 under a REPS and higher payments under the suckler, sheep, beef data and genomics programme schemes and beef schemes. The view that no one but a few big lads are viable is not the truth. In truth, most lads are managing, getting bits of farm income and working hard. Over the years, payments to small farmers have been cut and we have been kicked to touch. I hope this answers the Deputy's question.