Vol. 707 No. 5
1 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he was consulted on and approved of Coillte’s proposal to become involved in nursing home development; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17245/10]
My Department has been appraised of the details of Coillte's multi-annual business plan, as submitted in its strategy document, and is supportive of its business strategy.
The company's strategy document, Destination 2012: Make it Happen, submitted to the Department in April 2009 outlined a number of strategies for the future development of the company. Land development is one of those strategies and includes obtaining planning permission for housing and other developments that enhance the value of sites. This is a continuation of a strategy adopted by the company in the past two decades.
The strategy document described possible development projects, which included the development of nursing care facilities. Coillte identified a possible development opportunity in this area based on projected demographics.
The company carried out a feasibility study on the development of nursing care facilities on Coillte properties during the summer of 2009. Coillte advise that the opportunity for new nursing care facilities is strong, given a projected quadruple increase in the population of 65 years and upwards in the next 14 years, the introduction and strict application of new standards of facilities and operations under the auspices of the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, and the introduction of legislation supporting deferred payment for access to facilities — the Fair Deal scheme — which will underpin the viability of nursing home operators.
In the course of its investigations Coillte met a number of potential developers of nursing care facilities who were interested in developing Coillte sites. One such company was Kilbrew Recuperation and Nursing Care, which currently operates an award winning nursing home and independent living facility at Curragha, County Meath.
Following discussions with Kilbrew, Coillte authorised the company to apply for planning permission on behalf of Coillte for five nursing care-independent living developments on Coillte property in December 2009. These planning submissions have been validated by the planning authorities and their designs have been verified to be in compliance with HIQA standards.
The company submitted applications as follows:
|
County |
Nearest town/village |
Site area (hectares) |
No. of beds |
Size of proposed building |
Independent living units/area |
Car park spaces |
|
Wexford |
Wexford |
8.6 |
108 |
6,486m2 (single storey) |
10/584m2 |
59+14 |
|
Cork |
Castlemartyr village |
2.0 |
90 |
5,799m2 (two storey) |
None |
40 |
|
Clare |
Ennis |
3.2 |
82 |
5,559m2 (two storey) |
None |
31 |
|
Galway |
Carrabane Village |
5.6 |
100 |
6,030m2 (two storey) |
9/531m2 |
45+15 |
|
Mayo |
Westport |
1.8 |
86 |
5,393m2 (one & two storey) |
None |
76 |
The current position on the five planning applications is that planning permission has been refused for the site in Wexford; the planning authorities have sought further information relating to the sites in Cork and Clare; and consideration of the applications for the remaining two sites in Galway and Mayo has been deferred.
Coillte has advised that the company's focus is on leveraging the development value of the land and that it is not its intention to get involved in operating nursing homes. Its intention is to realise the value of the sites by selling the planning permitted sites on to third parties.
At the outset I want to avail of the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Connick, on his appointment. I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would wish to join me on that——
I would, and have done so previously.
——and to wish him well in his tenure as Minister of State. By way of observation, and then there were two, which begs the question: who now holds responsibility for the food portfolio? That is an issue for a later question.
At a time when Coillte and the State are missing all of the targets they set — the target in the renewed programme for Government is 10,000 hectares per annum — how appropriate is it that the State forestry body, Coillte, would be involved in nursing home development? The Minister of State will be aware, as I am sure is the Minister, Deputy Smith, that some years ago the question of an internal audit arose and findings against Coillte about State aid premiums being paid to the State forestry body. I do not know if that matter was ever resolved but is there a question in this instance that is equally applicable? We were here before Christmas approving a borrowing facility of up to €400 million for Coillte not knowing anything about the nursing home development. Does an issue arise in this instance about capital allowances being made available to a semi-State body which has support from the State in terms of its financial position? It is unfair competition. This is something that should not be countenanced. All of Coillte's resources should be put into developing forestry and related activities.
I thank the Deputy for raising his concerns with me but would point out to him that under the renewed programme for Government, to which he alluded, there is a strong commitment to forestry. I was somewhat enthused by my initial meetings, not just with the forestry liaison group but the officials within the Department and the other people I have met, and the renewed vigour about the forestry sector. It is one of the few indigenous industries. I am fortunate to have two in my folio in terms of fisheries also, an area in which we see great potential for further development.
Coillte has responsibility for almost 7% of the total land mass of this country. It averages out at about 4% per county and therefore is almost the equivalent of two counties. Surely the Deputy is not arguing the case that we should allow that quantity of land to be sterilised or not used for other purposes. There are opportunities that Coillte has identified. I met with the chief executive officer and the chairman of Coillte last week ahead of the report being published and was impressed with their commitment to the programme. As the Deputy is also aware, there is a review of the said forestry policy under which Coillte's operations will come up for review.
We had the publication of Coillte's profits and, regrettably, the trajectory is going in the wrong direction. The profits for 2009 are approximately €4 million. Given that we have legally binding targets to meet in respect of reducing our CO2 emissions, does the Minister not believe it is financially questionable — I believe it beggars belief — that the State would facilitate investment of scarce resources into nursing homes at a time when, if we do not invest in the core objective of Coillte, that is, afforestation and other biomass initiatives, we will be penalised financially? Coillte should be using every spare euro it has to drive the afforestation programme, which is way off target. It is fine to have 10,000 hectares under the renewed programme for Government but I remind the Minister that in 1994 we planted 20,000 hectares. In 2009, however, we planted 6,500 hectares. How will we increase that figure to 10,000 if we do not insist that Coillte drives all its resources into its core objective, which is afforestation?
The Deputy will understand it is an extremely difficult trading area for any company at this time, and Coillte is no different from any other company. It had a difficult year last year, as did many other companies in the country. There is a business focus to what it is trying to achieve. I would again point out to the Deputy that the interdepartmental group, with Coillte representation dealing exclusively with its functions and operations, is currently sitting and we hope to have a report on that later in the year. At that time we will lay the report before the Houses and the Deputy can repeat his comments at that stage but Coillte has a responsibility. There are opportunities. I see opportunities from the point of view of job creation, investment and a return to the Government and therefore I will support, as best I can, the opportunities that Coillte and the Department will identify to advance those particular opportunities.
Will it be compliant with State aid requirements?
I cannot answer that question. The Deputy will understand that in my new position that is something to which I cannot refer. I will raise the issue with my officials and ask them to respond to the Deputy directly on that issue.
Will they deal with the premiums paid to Coillte as well?
2 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will adjust the agricultural environmental option scheme to allow for a provision by land-holders who are eligible for the scheme to manage roadside verges to ensure against illegal dumping, maintenance of roadside hedgerows and ensuring adequate drainage of surface water from the roads. [17105/10]
Under the new agri-environment options scheme which the Minister, Deputy Smith, launched on 30 March, farmers will be paid to undertake identifiable and verifiable environmental actions and have a menu of options from which to choose. The actions are designed to contribute to the priorities of biodiversity, water quality and climate change. The Government has provided for the launch of the new scheme at a rate of up to €5,000 for approximately 10,000 participants.
The EU regulations governing the agri-environment options scheme allow for the encouragement of the sustainable use of agricultural land through agri-environment payments. The actions described by the Deputy are outside the scope of the regulations and cannot be included in the scheme. The enforcement of national legislation relating to illegal dumping and the maintaining of roadside vegetation is a matter in the first instance for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
I am confident, however, that the agri-environment options scheme will deliver many environmental benefits in other ways. I believe it can build on the success of REPS, which has done so much since 1994 for water quality, biodiversity, conservation and landscape enhancement. It has also brought welcome income benefits to farmers, with more than €342 million paid out to REPS participants last year which was the highest level in any year since the scheme began. Payments due to REPS farmers this year will continue at this high level. Farmers will continue in REPS up to the end of 2014. By the time the scheme finally comes to an end, payments to farmers will have exceeded €3 billion.
The agri-environment options scheme was introduced following long and complex negotiations between my officials and the European Commission, which determined its structure and content. Participants in the new scheme will be paid to undertake identifiable and verifiable environmental actions. They have a menu of options from which to choose those actions which best suit their particular circumstances. My officials have recently sought the Commission's agreement to some minor further changes, which I believe will further enhance the attractiveness of the new scheme to farmers. I will review the position in the light of the experience gained over the coming months in implementing the scheme.
With the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's permission, I, too, wish to warmly congratulate Deputy Connick on his accession to the position of Minister of State. I wish him well and look forward to working with him.
I am disappointed with the Minister of State's response. If the scheme is designed with biodiversity in mind, will the Minister of State acknowledge that hedgerows in particular and road margins and the biodiversity within are being threatened by the illegal dumping of plastics, which, in turn, will have an effect on biodiversity over time? Will he also acknowledge that there could be an opportunity, through this scheme, for farmers to work in partnership with the local authorities to ensure drainage mechanisms are put in place? We could potentially have an arterial drainage type scheme at a local level and could also, by incentivising farmers to maintain the hedge rows, create from this some degree of income.
I thank Deputies Sherlock and Creed for their best wishes. I, too, look forward to working with them. I agree with Deputy Sherlock in regard to litter being a difficulty throughout the country. Like him I, too, am working with my colleagues at constituency level, including the local authority, county council and tidy towns committees to address this issue on our roadways.
The Deputy will understand the difficult economic background pertaining to the announcement of this scheme. But for the heavy pressure applied by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Minister for Finance we would not have been able to achieve the introduction of this scheme. We sought Commission approval for the scheme, which was difficult to get through. The figures initially started at approximately €1,400 per farmer. Through the negotiation skills of my colleagues and intervention by the Minister for Finance that figure was increased to a level of €5,000 maximum. We must now justify and account for every penny we spend. This is a much more flexible and simpler scheme to operate. Like Deputy Sherlock I, too, was visited in my office by many farmers last year in regard to the announcement of the finishing of REPS. The introduction of this new scheme is a welcome addition. I believe the feedback to this announcement will be positive. I expect a large number of people will apply for and benefit from it.
I believe this is a missed opportunity. If the scheme is so diverse, is not a whole farm scheme and relates to issues such as tree planting, moor land grazing, lake catchments, mixed grazing and conservation of wild bird habitat then I honestly believe an opportunity has gone abegging to do something to stem the tide of illegal dumping and to bring farmers and landowners into partnership in terms of seeking to alleviate that problem. I accept the Minister of State's response.
All Deputies are disappointed at the level of litter in our hedgerows and on roadsides around the country. This is an issue which I am sure we are all focused on trying to improve. I remind the Deputy that the scheme is being reviewed on an ongoing basis. I understand the Minister will be keeping a close eye on potential additions that may be required if systems or actions are not working. Currently, 12 actions are covered under the scheme.
3 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the level of discrepancy and wrongful clarification of carcases identified during the 415 control visits to meat plans in 2009 to monitor the accuracy and performance of cattle grading machines, involving 41,000 carcases; if this information is available for each of the past three years; the steps being taken to improve the clarification process and to remedy errors identified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17246/10]
Beef carcase classification is traditionally based on a visual assessment of the carcase by a human classifier and, prior to the introduction of mechanical classification, critics would have regarded such human assessment as subjective, prone to error and lacking consistency.
Mechanical classification was introduced in Ireland more than five years ago and is now well established and accepted as an independent, objective and consistent system for classifying beef carcases. The mechanical classification system is objective because it makes use of certain measurements of the carcase, by the machine, to determine carcase classification as opposed to the subjective visual assessment of the human grader.
Since the introduction of mechanical classification, officials of my Department have carried out regular unannounced inspections of meat plants to monitor the accuracy and performance of the classification machines. This assessment of the classification, for both conformation and fat, is carried out using sub-classes within each main class in order to further refine the classification assessment of the beef carcase. For example, conformation main class O can be divided into sub-classes O+ and O-, with O+ being the best in this main class and O- the worst.
My officials check the machine classification results of at least 80 carcases during control visits. On each occasion, the performance of the machine is compared to the performance criteria laid down in the relevant EU regulations. Overall, the classification machines continue to operate well within the performance thresholds provided for in the relevant EU regulations.
Since the introduction of machine classification, all data concerning machine checks by my officials are stored electronically, which facilitates accurate and comprehensive monitoring of the machine performance.
For the purposes of clarification, I am not advocating we revert to the human classification system. I am in favour of the mechanical classification system. The Minister will be aware of two issues, namely, recent media reports regarding the level of discrepancy in the mechanical classification system and the extraordinary angst among farmers in regard to the introduction of the new quality payment system and new grade of classifications. Under the previous system, there were five grades of classification. We now have multiples of that number. What can be done to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the current classification system?
I am glad Deputy Creed referred to the report in one of our daily national newspapers which totally misinterpreted the data given to them, causing as he correctly stated, anxiety among farmers who are sending cattle for slaughter and payment. I assure Deputy Creed — it is important to put this on record — that there is large-scale checking by human classifiers of the mechanical results. There are certain performance criteria laid down in respect of EU tolerance limits. In 2009, 41,034 carcases were checked. On average, within the tolerance level the bias is -0.06. The tolerance level in Europe is plus or minus 0.3. We are actually five times below the top of the tolerance level and as such are very accurate in regard to the analysis carried out. Those are the figures in regard to conformation. In regard to fat, we are only at a level that is one-sixth of what is tolerated. I hope I am making myself clear. We are accurate.
Deputy Creed rightly pointed out that there were criticisms in the past of the human classifier system. That was a subjective exercise. Any of us can go out and look at animals and give our views in regard to what they might be worth and so on. That is a human, subjective assessment and, naturally, people's views will vary. The mechanical classification brings this to a new level and we should be satisfied with it. I trust this accurate report will be carried into the future. I understand the anxiety among farmers, to which the Deputy referred, who read a report that misinterpreted the data supplied.
I monitor the Minister's statements and I did not see any reference to it. It would have been useful if a clarification had been issued on the matter. As I recall, the report suggested up to 10% or 20% were wrongly classified.
Yes. It was ridiculous.
That amounts to hundreds of thousands of carcases and it could have raised the spectre of pluses or minuses for the individuals and payments on individual carcases. However, I welcome the Minister's clarification on the matter in the context of the new quality payment system, which is having a difficult bedding-in time, but which I support in principle. It should have operated side-by-side with the old system for a period. It would have been wiser to proceed with its introduction in that way.
It is very important to put on record for everyone that the machines have continued to perform very well when assessed using the performance criteria laid down in the EU regulations. As I remarked earlier, classification was based on a visual assessment of the beef carcass by the classifier. Since the introduction of the mechanical classification of beef carcases, the performance of the classification machine in each beef processing plant has been monitored by regular unannounced inspections by officials from the Department. The classification results of beef carcases are downloaded from a mechanical classification system onto a hand-held computer and the official assesses the result of at least 80 carcases previously classified by the machine. This assessment of classification is carried out using subclasses for each main class. The performance of the machine is determined using the same scoring criteria laid down in the EU regulation for authorisation purposes. As I indicated earlier, by and large, the checks are essentially in balance when both checks are carried out.
4 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the strategic objectives he will achieve through the delivery of his recently announced sheep scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17247/10]
The sheep sector is a valuable part of the economy with two-thirds of its product destined for export and its future dependent on its ability to meet the needs of the market. I have always acknowledged this fact and have developed a strategy to provide specific supports to the sector.
On the financial side, I assigned €7 million from the 2009 single farm payment national reserve to 13,000 hill sheep farmers under the uplands sheep payment. As the Deputy is aware, earlier this month I launched a three-year €54 million grassland sheep scheme, the funding for which comes from unused single payment funds. Its main objective was to provide a much-needed boost to sheep farmers' incomes. As the scheme focuses on flocks with breeding ewes, it should also provide an incentive to farmers to maintain their production levels, which is vital for the future of a viable sheep industry in Ireland. This scheme should underpin other initiatives being taken to assist the sector. Bord Bia will spend up to €1 million this year on the promotion of sheep and lamb at home and abroad and Teagasc has allocated almost €1.5 million for sheep research during the course of this year.
Work is also being undertaken by the Department, its State agencies and the industry on foot of the recommendations of the sheep industry development strategy group, commonly known as the Malone report.
This report provides a clear framework for progress for the sector. While the responsibility for implementing most of the group's recommendations fall on the industry, several are within the remit of the Department and the state agencies under its aegis, which have made significant progress in implementing them.
I refer to some of the initiatives taken, including the establishment of Sheep Ireland to take over the Department's current breed improvement programme and develop a new one. An interim sheep board, comprising representatives of farming organisations and breeders, will oversee this process with the Irish Cattle Breeders Federation providing the technical and professional service required. Another initiative is the establishment of the lamb quality assurance scheme in 2007. This scheme is operated by Bord Bia and now has approximately 8,085 participants. In addition, Bord Bia has also intensified its efforts to promote lamb on the home and export markets. Together with its UK and French counterparts, it is part of a generic promotion campaign on the important French market. Finally, Teagasc has developed a comprehensive plan to restructure its sheep support services, including a better farm programme for sheep, which aims to establish focal points for the on-farm implementation, development and evaluation of technology relevant to the sheep sector. This approach provides an opportunity to engage with sheep farmers on the use of the latest management practices and to identify research and development needs.
The support provided for processing facilities under the beef and sheepmeat capital investment fund underlines the Government's commitment to the sector. Also, under the rural development programme, an indicative figure of €8 million has been allocated for sheep fencing and mobile handling facilities to help sheep farmers in reducing labour input. I am confident all the initiatives outlined will be of significant assistance in developing a strong and sustainable sheep sector in future.
The Minister's credibility with the sheep farming community is at an all-time low. Even the €7 million promised for upland farmers has not been paid in full to date, never mind the €27 million promised in May 2007, which was a figment of Fianna Fáil's imagination in the lead-up to the election.
We are where we are in terms of the national economy and its finances because the stock response to any problem is to throw money at it. This is why I am critical of the €54 million sheep scheme announced by the Minister. All it does is throw money at the problem and it has no strategic objective underpinning it and such a provision should have been considered. Since the critical issue in the sheep industry is the free-fall of breeding ewe numbers in recent years, it would have been a desirable objective for the Minister to have indicated to participants in the scheme that one of the objectives over the three years should be to increase ewe breeding numbers by 5%. At least that would have reversed the free-fall and provided a sustainable future for the industry. That is one objective that could have been achieved.
I totally disagree with Deputy Creed. We are not throwing money at anything. We are providing a very valuable investment.
The Minister is simply throwing money at it. There is no objective.
I noticed Deputy Creed's statement on the Wednesday after Easter when I launched the scheme. I recall that he both welcomed it and criticised it the same sentence.
It is an art form.
I am pleased the Minister reads my press releases.
Of course I do. I introduced the €7 million upland sheep scheme last year. That was the totality of the funding available from the unused funds to which I had access in 2009. I stated I would dedicate that funding to the sheep sector because of the difficulties it has gone through. More than €5 million of that €7 million has been paid out. Queries were made to certain people. It is not all——
What about the €27 million?
The figure was €7 million in 2009.
What about the €27 million promised in May 2007?
We are discussing the upland sheep scheme now. More than €5 million has been paid down. We have introduced schemes that are altogether administratively simple, under which we do not have a necessary inspection process that costs money. I refer to the new €18 million scheme. Department officials were engaged in widespread consultation with each of the farming organisations. We sought a balance between the needs of the sheep farmers on hill land and low land. I believe one of the first things we must do is arrest the decline in the flock numbers in the country.
What has the Minister done about it?
We are providing assistance now. Sheep farmers and their representatives have warmly welcomed this investment, which is very important and will maintain an increased——
I call Deputy Creed for a brief supplementary question.
The fact that the farm organisations welcome it does not of itself make it correct or right. It does not mean that when one is spending public or taxpayers' money one simply throws it at a problem without any strategic objective underpinning it. Notwithstanding the fact that the IFA and others have welcomed it, I stand by my criticism that throwing €18 million at the sheep sector is not the solution. We should have sought to spend the €18 million but to seek a return for that investment. We seek for those involved to increase breeding ewe numbers and improve the gene pool of the national flock by running a pedigree ram with the flock or whatever. These are strategic objectives but I regret to say this scheme has all the hallmarks of the Fianna Fáil strategy that got us into the mess we are in by throwing public money at problems with no strategic objectives underpinning them.
I totally reject what Deputy Creed has said. I refer to genetics. We have established Sheep Ireland which will be very important for improving the genetics. People will not remain in a sector if they do not get an adequate return.
The Minister should have realised that during the past two years while they were losing their shirt.
The market decides that as well. This is a support to help the industry maintain a critical mass such that we have adequate product for the processing industry as well. We export two thirds of what we produce in this country. This very important sector is worth €250 million per annum. The targeted additional funding that is to be provided will arrest the decline in numbers that has occurred over recent years. I believe it will set the sector on a firm footing to expand, rather than stand still, in the future.
5 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of his most recent discussions on the issue of ongoing review of the Common Agriculture Policy post 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16889/10]
I launched a consultation process with stakeholders in July 2009 to obtain their views on the EU agriculture policies which will serve Ireland and the EU best in the years to come. I am pleased with the responses I received, which will help to inform our position during the important negotiations that lie ahead. In this House last month, I announced my intention to establish a consultative committee on the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013. The first meeting of this committee is scheduled to take place on 12 May. The committee comprises all the major farming and agriculture representative organisations that are involved in social partnership, as well as a number of academics. The EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Dr. Dacian Ciolos, recently launched a public consultation process to give all stakeholders and interested parties an opportunity to express their views on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy. In parallel with this process, the Commission has called for specific submissions on rural development in the context of CAP after 2013. My Department has written to interested stakeholders to advise them how to participate in both consultation processes and to encourage them to do so, to ensure Ireland's voice is heard at every stage. Commissioner Ciolos will host a conference in July to discuss the findings from these consultations.
Broad discussions on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy have been under way since the second half of 2008, when the French Presidency held a first policy debate at an informal meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. Since then, every Presidency has contributed to the debate. The Czech Presidency focused on the issue of direct payments to farmers and the Swedish Presidency focused on rural development issues. At the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in March, the Spanish Presidency got agreement on its conclusions on the role of market management measures after 2013. The Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies, which make up the trio Presidency up to 30 June 2011, fully endorsed these conclusions. In addition to the discussions at Council level, my officials and I continue to engage with other member states and the Commission bilaterally on the future of the CAP. In this regard, I recently met the new Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development to outline my objectives, including the need for a robust and properly funded CAP. Commissioner Ciolos has accepted my invitation to visit Ireland in July. This will be a timely visit as it will be just in advance of the publication of the Commission's formal communication on the future of the CAP. I will take this opportunity to remind the Commissioner that my overarching view, which I have repeatedly expressed at meetings of the Council and bilaterally to my ministerial colleagues, is that we need a strong and adequately resourced Common Agricultural Policy after 2013.
I wish the Minister well in his negotiations. I believe 2010 will be a critical year. I suggest that the Commission's final document will differ little from the policy outline it will publish later this year. Does the Minister agree that the first critical phase of the negotiations on the post-2013 Common Agricultural Policy will involve securing an adequate EU-wide budget for the policy? The second critical phase will involve ensuring we retain as much as possible of the €1.3 billion we currently get. There seems to be a great deal of talk about shifting funds from Pillar 1 to the rural development side under Pillar 2. Does the Minister agree that we cannot have vibrant rural communities and rural enterprises if we do not have viable farming enterprises? Does he accept that any attempt to switch funding from the farm gate to the broader rural community is misguided in so far as it might endeavour to revitalise or retain a vibrant rural economy?
My first meeting with the new Commissioner after his appointment was a week after he took office. I emphasised that the agricultural community throughout the EU should be transmitting a better message to the citizens of the Union. I said we need to remind those outside the agrifood sector that the Common Agricultural Policy benefits every citizen in the Union. I pointed out that the policy is hugely important from the perspectives of food security, rural development and the provision of public goods. I made those points to strengthen our proposals, plans and arguments in favour of an adequately resourced Common Agricultural Policy. That is a fundamental starting point. At the most recent European Council meeting of Heads of Government, the Taoiseach and another Head of Government were instrumental in strongly advocating that the EU 2020 document should make adequate reference to the potential of the agrifood sector to contribute significantly to economic renewal in Europe, for example by providing more jobs. All of that has to be considered in the context of the importance of the Common Agricultural Policy. Far too often, we read ill-informed commentary at national level to the effect that the policy is designed to transfer funds to the farming community. It is a ridiculous argument. The objective of the Common Agricultural Policy is to give the citizens of Europe a secure supply of safe food. It generates many other benefits in areas like regional and rural development.
Two other issues that relate to the Common Agricultural Policy are beginning to move centre stage. I refer to the issues of energy security and climate change. Is the Minister exploring the possibility that additional funding for Irish agriculture could be secured, if not through the CAP process itself, through related initiatives? Is that an option? In the context of the political impetus at EU level to address the issues of climate change and energy security, is it possible that we would be rewarded for having a model of agricultural production with a low carbon base?
I suggest that the agrifood sector should derive more funding from the research, development and innovation directorate. We discussed that issue with the new EU Commissioner, Mrs. Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, quite recently. I did not respond to the point the Deputy made earlier about the importance of Pillar 1. I am totally committed to Pillar 1. If we ensure direct payments continue to be made to farmers, we will provide some stability with regard to income levels. Adequate market management measures and stronger anti-volatility measures are of similar importance. With regard to climate change, which is hugely important, I have consistently argued at EU level that the Common Agricultural Policy can contribute to the enhancement of the environment through its environmental schemes. I have always said that the Union's efficient food production systems should not, under any circumstances, be threatened by any new international environment or climate change agreement. If we were to lessen the food production base in Europe, by definition we would move production to less efficient systems. All aspects of the farming and agrifood sector will be considered in the context of the important discussions that are under way. I have informed the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that Commissioner Ciolos will be asked to address the committee, with its agreement, during his forthcoming visit to Ireland.
