JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Apr 2009

Report on the Common Agricultural Policy and Global Food Security: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome Mairead McGuinness, MEP, before the joint committee to make a presentation on her report on the Common Agricultural Policy and global food security, our first item on the agenda. A copy of the report was circulated to members this week. Before we begin, I draw to members' attention the notice of privilege, which refers to the privilege that applies to all Members of the Oireachtas. Such privilege does not apply to members of the public or witnesses before the joint committee. Members also are reminded not to mention or to cause to be identified any person within or outside the Houses who might be identified in any way by their remarks.

I call on Mairead McGuinness, MEP, who is welcome, to make her presentation. Some of her colleagues will come before the joint committee in the near future. We are delighted to have Members of the European Parliament to make presentations to us.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

I thank the Chairman and members. This is a first and I am pleased to be here. While I hope the Chair's warnings were not directed at me personally — I doubt that was the case — I shall be cautious and conscious of them. I wish to put this report in context. While I do not intend to repeat or read any chunks from it, its context is important.

I took on this report and got it through the European Parliament because we need to know how Europe thinks about agriculture and food. As for its context, there was an enormous increase in the price of agricultural commodities in 2007, riots around the world and concerns about food stocks. However, it constitutes an important benchmark because the European Parliament now supports the report's contents. This is important when considering a point that I will deal with shortly as to the future of the Common Agriculture Policy after 2013.

Given the current economic difficulties in Ireland, we must refocus sharply on indigenous industries and on agriculture in particular. I also wish to mention fishing, even though it is not part of my remit in this regard, because it relates to food. We may have neglected the strategic development of both because of the now failed, fallen and skeletal Celtic tiger.

Another point, which emerges strongly in this report, pertains to the importance of income and price stability to farmers. We saw what happened in 2007 when cereal and milk prices increased massively and people thought it might last forever. Today, milk producers are losing money and Irish grain farmers still have their harvest in storage because the market is so poor. Farmers and family-type farming in particular, which Europe seeks to support through the CAP, cannot survive such dramatic fluctuations in price and income. It is not something we can stand over and we must reshape our policies to provide better stability for farmers. Over the past two days, I visited livestock marts in the East constituency and all that people seek is stability. They do not seek dramatically high prices, although everyone would love them as everyone would love to make more money. However, such people would like to think they have a stable future in agriculture.

I mention the post-2013 position in particular because I fear that given Ireland's present difficulties, no one is focusing on post-2013 agriculture policy with a sufficient level of concern. The legacy left to Europe by Mr. Tony Blair, former leader of the United Kingdom, was that the European Union budget would be reviewed absolutely and completely with particular reference to spending on agriculture. Mr. Tony Blair did not farm, had no understanding of agriculture and certainly did not wish to see any money being spent on agriculture. The agenda for that review is set, the work is under way at all levels in the institutions of Europe, including the budget committee on which I sit, and it is being discussed in the agriculture committee. There should be greater engagement with the review in Ireland because we have a strategic interest in the food industry and the security of our farmers. We are major exporters of food and seek an agriculture policy that will allow this to continue.

My big fear regarding the budget is that Europe will develop an agriculture policy that will be tailored and set by the budget available, rather than sufficient thought being put into developing a policy or providing the resources to meet it. There will be a huge difference in what will emerge at the end and we must realise the implications of too little engagement in this debate. While more immediate issues always get the attention, the future is being discussed and we need to be part of that discussion. I suggest that in a Lisbon two scenario, in which all member states are likely to have a Commissioner, it might be in Ireland's interest to lobby for the agriculture portfolio at this point. These issues will form part of the next Commission's brief and from my perspective, Ireland could do with being in there with a strong voice.

On the budget that was presented in the Dáil this week, clearly, issues have arisen for agriculture that will affect its future. For example, I refer to schemes that compensate farmers, such as the rural environment protection scheme supported by the European Union, which pays farmers to do things in an environmentally friendly way. Environmentally friendly methods increase costs on the farms and such payments were made to be of assistance in that regard. Cuts in such payments will have a negative impact and we must be aware of that.

In the context of the environment and linked to the budget comments I have made, from my perspective it is clear that in future, payments will be even more velcroed to the environmental issues with which we are dealing across the European Union. Therefore, we will be obliged to develop a system of regulation that does not choke production on farms and that is proportionate. I am appalled to think that another layer of inspections to be carried out by county councils has just been announced when there already is a system in place whereby the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food performs such inspections. It does a disservice to those who are subject to the inspections and is unnecessary. Unfortunately, it also gives the European Union — which I am here to defend — a bad name when much of what comes about as over-regulation has an Irish-produced stamp on it.

I wish to deal with the global situation because a great deal of my report discusses two major issues. The first is that in a world in which one may think food is plentiful, there is not sufficient food. While a problem exists at present regarding low commodity prices, in the long term all studies show that food shortages will arise. The world must consider how to research and develop production and how to so do sustainably in respect of water management. All these issues are of great significance and must be dealt with. At present, the world only has food stocks for 40 days. However, before the First World War it had many volumes more and had stocks for more than a year. We must examine why that has happened and how dangerous it is. There is civil unrest in places where there is insufficient food.

The report contains an interesting figure, which shocked people when I raised it. We like to think the EU gives a great deal of money to the Third World. Unfortunately, Ireland will give less because of its budgetary problems. This is deeply regrettable. There is something rotten in a system that allows the percentage spent on agriculture, food production and rural development in Third World countries to drop from 17% in 1980 to 3% in 2006. Why did agriculture and rural development become less important in the developing world when we know that the basis of our development was agriculture and rural development? We must reverse that mind set. The world is dealing with that. The UN and FAO believe this is the case and must be examined.

It was difficult to get this report on the agenda but when I succeeded, the support was enormous across political groups in the European Parliament. From an Irish perspective, we have a statement of widespread backing that a common agricultural policy should be continued after 2013. This should be one that preserves our family farm structure across the EU and battles for a policy that provides price and income stability for farmers. We have not won that. Otherwise, farmers will not survive and there will be no agriculture and food industry. I look forward to the questions.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Like the Chairman, I welcome Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP. She is a refreshing member of the European Parliament. When I was a Senator we developed an innovation whereby MEPs attended the House, told their tales and answered questions. Mairead McGuinness was one of the first to do so. We found the exercise striking and interesting. I am delighted the Chairman has taken this initiative.

Ms McGuinness stated that Ireland should look to exports, which are our only hope. The figure for exports, despite a decline, is not in too serious a decline. Farming, allied to food, is indigenous and in the export business is of great importance. Somehow, people in Ireland have not come to that realisation. They see farming and agricultural activity as a hand-out activity, not an activity that contributes in a real way to exports. If there is a way we can nullify this feeling and put farming on a business footing for what it does, whether this includes Ireland as a food island, it is important we do this. Otherwise farming is tagged with that.

I approve of what Ms McGuinness said about Mr. Tony Blair. I am not targeting him but the UK has been bound up with diminishing the role of agriculture as part of its economic life. It did away with the secretary of state with responsibility for agriculture some years ago and changed the title to the vague secretary of state with responsibility for rural regeneration.

I refer to the economic recession and the focus on people and allotments. We have a huge field of asylum seekers and 400 mobile homes. They come and they go and the lady in charge of them tells me that they seek their allotments so that each family can sow and grow its own food. That is in vogue and it was in vogue during the Second World War and afterwards. Now, because of the recession and the need for a return to nature, dirtying one's hands and growing vegetables is something tangible that one can do for oneself. It is not so much for the economy except that one provides one's relations or neighbours with the food. I applaud the report of Ms McGuinness and the breadth of vision she brings to agriculture. She does so in a modern, consumer way, which is very good.

Ms McGuinness referred to fishing. Members of all parties are very discontented at the carry on with eel fishing. I know Ms McGuinness is aware of it. I met some of her constituents. I am no longer in the East constituency. I never thought the town of Athlone would be in a constituency called North-West but so it is. Such are the exigencies. Unfortunately, I must meet some eel fishermen who thought they would meet Ms McGuinness. They are pretty late and would want to hurry up. I know Ms McGuinness is involved in the eel fishing business.

The secretariat provided us with every country in Europe and what it sought in respect of eel fishing. How many have sought derogation? I applaud whoever sought this information and put it together. Was that the work of the Chairman?

Chairman

It was Mr. John Hamilton, the representative in Brussels.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

It is very good. We see that Ireland is the foolish country. John Millington Synge said it 100 years ago when he talked about "The Playboy — but isn't it a foolish country we are?" We did not seek derogation. We agreed not to fish for 99 years. There will be not a fishing rod out for an eel in Ireland apart from Northern Ireland. We are told to regard this as one island, but when one goes to the North of Ireland one may fish for eels but south of the Border there is a ban for 99 years. Ireland contributes 2% to the eel fisheries of Europe and has offered to support a ban for 99 years.

Deputy Billy Timmins

Deputy O'Rourke is being very harsh, it is only 90.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

What is the difference between 90 and 99? We will all be gone, as will many others.

Slovenia sought and has since received derogation. It does not have to produce anything or move away from anything in eel fisheries. Whoever put this dossier together makes it clear that the sluice gate policies of the ESB have been targeted as entrapment methods. This was included in the report. I do not know if this was a grand collusion between the Department with responsibility for marine, the ESB, over-zealous officials and Europe, whose representatives could not believe their ears when a country trailed the option of no more eels for 90 years which would help them make up for the countries that quite rightfully put forward much more modest depletion proposals. Ms McGuinness said she was here for agriculture and fisheries. I thank her for taking questions. I compliment her on her work and wish her luck. I should not say that; I will be clobbered.

Chairman

The UK last night amended its proposal to go for the overkill as well.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

That does not make it right. The UK was not right about agriculture.

Chairman

Correct, the UK was not right about many other matters as well. I remind members that we will deal with that in detail at 2 p.m.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I welcome Ms McGuinness and thank her for her work in the European Parliament on behalf of our citizens. We are proud of her achievements and her commitment and of how she manages to keep in touch with people with regard to Europe. It is difficult to relay what happens in Brussels to individuals and she does this very successfully.

Notwithstanding the warning about discussing eels, Ms McGuinness mentioned over-regulation in Ireland. Does she have a view on why this is the case? When we first heard about the 90 year ban we thought it was incredible and, if I remember correctly, it caused Senator Leyden to storm out the door when he thought it was a fait accompli. We can make comparisons with other countries which seconded it to regional areas or ignored the EU. This is symptomatic of a difficulty this country has with regard to the over-implementation of EU regulations. It is incumbent on this committee, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and the various sectoral committees to go through this with a fine-tooth comb and ensure it does not happen.

Ms McGuinness may not be familiar with the detail of the eel——

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

I am.

Deputy Billy Timmins

It is incredible that such a ban could be introduced relative to what else happened.

I remember examining information on food and veterinary inspections. The Argentinians and Brazilians were pulled up for not doing this or that and Ireland was pulled up for over-regulating. These inspections can be viewed on the Internet. Ms McGuinness stated that we have a food reserve of only 40 days and that we need to research and develop production. Does Ms McGuinness have a view on the production of GM foods? Does she have a view on the impact of the bio-fuels policy on the availability of food?

In recent times due to economic difficulties we have abolished the farm retirement and installation aid schemes. These were introduced to assist in the transfer of land to bring a younger cohort into the industry. Does the MEP have a view on this? How is it viewed in Europe? Is it seen as a retrograde step? Since the downturn in our economy has Ms McGuinness noticed a renewed vigour and energy among the agricultural community? They were well behind the slip-stream of IT and the pharmaceuticals industry and now realisation is dawning that our old indigenous industry is probably the best way for us to get our balance of payments up.

Ms McGuinness mentioned that it was important for Ireland to lobby for the agricultural commissionership. Will she elaborate on this? Does Ms McGuinness have anyone in mind who might have the expertise, apart from herself?

Deputy Joe Costello

I wish to be associated with the remarks made by my colleagues in welcoming Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP. The report she has produced appears to be a very fine one which includes comments by various bodies and the Department of Foreign Affairs. She has hit the right note in the sense that matters have moved on considerably since the world trade talks we discussed last year and the years beforehand. Now, we have a new emphasis on food security and quality and a realisation, with regard to meeting our Kyoto and EU targets and those that will come from Copenhagen later this year, that transport, whether by sea, air or road, is a major contributor to our carbon emissions. The idea of cheap food is no longer the major ingredient in the world's thinking, nor should it be. It is quality and security of food that should be the major considerations.

One can understand the background to this. As Ms McGuinness mentioned, the United Kingdom has always sought a cheap food policy because it is a major industrial nation, as is Germany. France and Italy are the only countries as well as Ireland to take up the cudgels on the side of indigenous agriculture. In many ways, food has been sidelined because the major economies have concentrated instead on production and have wanted cheap food. It is time it became the central plank of EU policy and I agree with Ms McGuinness on the suggestion that it might be time to seek the agricultural commissionership given that we may have a commissionership for everybody depending on whether the Lisbon treaty is accepted in the autumn.

The other side of the coin is that proportionally, we are an enormously large food exporting country. Approximately 90% of our beef is exported as is 75% of our lamb. We export throughout the world and as a small island we cannot consume anything like the amount we produce. Clearly, we need the markets and a certain dichotomy exists in supporting a strong indigenous market while at the same time being a major exporter. The European Union is our major market and is adjacent to us.

Concern with regard to developing counties was expressed in some of the comments made on the document. Agriculture accounts for 70% of the labour force in developing countries and women in particular are employed in this sector. How do we tie in our support for indigenous production without undermining the major employment sector of developing countries?

With regard to the fishing industry, the main complaint of fishermen is that they do not have an industry and have been deprived of major potential for the industry from the word go in 1972. At present, they can fish in only 20% of the Irish fishing area. Have suggestions been made to revisit this situation? Is there a mechanism to do so? Fishing stocks are declining everywhere. I am not sure to what extent Ms McGuinness has addressed the issue of fish farming. Does she see it as the way forward in terms of fish stocks and how they can replace wild marine stocks?

Recently, France adopted a strong position on genetically modified food. I am not sure of Ireland's position. We seem to make noises that we are very sensitive to the issue and are very concerned that nothing would be done to undermine the quality of fresh food that has not been genetically modified. Have we made a formal decision on this? Are we sitting on the ditch and speaking out of both sides of our mouths?

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

On the organic ditch.

Chairman

I remind members that the discussion on the fishing sector will begin at 2 p.m. and I ask members to restrict themselves. Deputy Costello did not mention the slippery subject.

Senator Terry Leyden

I extend a very warm welcome to Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP and thank her for attending the meeting. Her committee has prepared an excellent report and I am very impressed that it has been endorsed by all of the other committees of the European Parliament. This give the report enormous strength. I also note the advice that we should lobby for the next agricultural commissionership to be filled by an Irish person. I was in Government when Mr. Ray MacSharry was Commissioner. He had an open door when we went to him on behalf of projects including Kepak Athleague. He was outstanding. He did not get the credit he deserved as Commissioner. It would be a wonderful move even in the context of the Lisbon treaty if we were to lobby for that commissionership.

Agriculture is the one stalwart here that gives hope. I live on a farm although I cannot claim to farm every day. My wife is an organic farmer and my son also works on the farm. We produce quality beef and lamb. I can see the care farmers take with their land. We are only custodians of our land. We own it in theory.

We have provided a walk through our land, the Suck Valley Way, so that people can enjoy the land and the view. This is a Leader project with tourism benefits. Most food produced in Ireland is organic, but we are approved organic farmers. There is a premium to be paid for that, although it is not enough. We should intensify our work in respect of farming. There are jobs available. The Minister could review the transfer of farm scheme for young farmers and the training of young farmers. Maybe Ms McGuinness, MEP, would support that type of policy for her constituency. There is significant growth potential.

I regret the loss of the sugar industry here. We gave it up too fast as we did the eels. We had a very good industry and the private company received the biggest compensation paid in this State. The farmers and employees did not get a share of that great EU largesse. I agree with Ms McGuinness, MEP, that over-regulation is not the fault of the European Parliament or Commission but is our fault; for example county councils are involved in farming now. A farmer doing his best suddenly receives calls or visits without any advance notice. It is not fair. Some of these inspections are made simply to keep people in work. I propose that this committee endorse the report and promote its contents and recommendations.

It is a scandal that we import from the Netherlands and elsewhere vegetables such as carrots, cabbages and onions that can be produced here. They can be produced here with a bit of effort and support. We should insist that consumers buy Irish food, beef, lamb, pork, chicken, if they want to protect jobs here. When Irish vegetables are not available they should not buy imported products.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Grow your own.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I welcome Ms McGuinness, MEP. I agree with Senator Leyden's point about buying Irish. I try in supermarkets to identify Irish products but our labelling is misleading. Until we address the issue of proper labelling, whether EU branded with countries of origin within the EU, we will be at nothing. This has a bearing on the quality of the food, how it is produced and our ability to distinguish between Irish and foreign products. This arose in respect of pork. There was a court case about the labelling of smoked 'wild Irish' salmon that had been farmed and the case fell on a point of law. We must have honest, true labelling where it can be seen. Bord Iascaigh Mhara can work as hard as it likes but until that is a regulation we are at nothing.

As global food demand is rising at approximately 3% a year, will future EU common agricultural policies recognise the value of producing as much food within the EU as possible? Whether it be a large farm or a small farm in Austria with seven dairy cows wearing bells around their necks each has a value in food production. Putting them all together we can maximise our ability to produce food for ourselves within the EU. The EU Common Agricultural Policy must set itself a benchmark.

What is the EU policy on GM foods? With all due respect to organic producers, there are two arguments for conventional versus organic farms. Some time ago at a meeting about the greening of Irish agriculture in Dublin Castle a lady from Holland said that organic production was not as carbon efficient as conventional farming. If global food demand rises at its present rate is it possible to provide food security for the planet by organic production? I do not think so. Organic production has a place and people should have that choice but if we choose environmentally considerate conventional farming we should be able to produce enough food for ourselves with proper labelling. This does not have to be as intensive as it was in the 1970s and 1980s when environmental issues where thrown to the wind. The Common Agricultural Policy should be based on that principle. I thank the Chairman for allowing me to contribute to the discussion.

Chairman

The Deputy is more than welcome. Every Member of the Houses has the right to speak at the committee.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I warmly welcome Ms McGuinness, MEP, and thank her for coming here and for her presentation and work. I wish her well. It looks as if she is a racing certainty which makes life easy for her facing into the European elections.

I thank her for this report. I have not had time to peruse it. I apologise for not being here for her presentation but I was at another meeting which I left to make sure I would be here. What is her estimate of the next round of financial perspectives for the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013? Does she detect that the European Union can take action to assist the global crisis that is bedevilling all member states?

Chairman

The committee members have all made valid points. We have all strongly supported the need to promote and give adequate space to the food producers here and not allow ourselves to be browbeaten by anybody in Europe or the WTO or Doha or wherever else on the basis that the future would entail something other than food. Food is a daily requirement for the world's population and there is a serious shortage. All the ideas that have come over the years to control market prices by dumping were unnecessary. Modern marketing techniques and simple intelligence should be sufficient to enable everyone to work out a plan in everyone's interests.

We had an interesting meeting last night in the audio visual room with AWEPA which brought in representatives of African countries. There was an interesting parallel to draw. There is a notion that we do not have common interests whereas we have much more in common than appears to be the case. Unfortunately, in recent years, people have tended to go off on a tangent and we hear things to the effect that to some people rural development means weaning the agriculture sector from agricultural pursuits — cessation or scaling down of the agriculture sector and its replacement with some sort of national park. Unfortunately, that would have huge consequences for a country like ours and for Europe. The points made have been consistent with those raised before in the committee. Members have always strongly supported sustainability and food security.

I too congratulate Ms McGuinness on the report and I note the comments made by the other committees. It is important that Ireland's MEPs are seen to take a lead in this area.

Ms Mairead McGuinness

Given my expertise in eel fishing, I will begin with that issue. This is a simple matter with huge consequences for a small number of people involved in eel fishing or eel smoking. One particular business will be destroyed by the decision. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources made some remarks on the topic during his visit to the European Parliament in the past month. When asked about the issue, he said it would cost too much to introduce a reduction in eel fishing; in other words, the policing of a cut back of production would outweigh the benefits, so the decision was taken to ban it completely. There is no EU requirement to ban eel fishing. We all acknowledge there is a problem with the stocks but rather than hit it with a mallet, thereby killing it, we might look at other options. Why would it cost so much to police? We might do something that is not quite as shocking as banning the practice outright. I have been lobbied by this small number of people but the Minister himself said it is easier to ban than to police. It is a political decision made by the Government.

Deputy O'Rourke made some nice points about farmers' markets and allotments. I grow some food but I will not feed the world. However, I like people to get their hands dirty. I worked on "Ear to the Ground" and I know Irish people have a great affinity with the soil, agriculture and the farming community. We saw that during the last Lisbon treaty campaign where people in urban areas were genuinely concerned about the worries of farmers about WTO. We must keep our links to the soil.

Farmers' markets and organic produce, however, are not the solution for Irish agriculture. To some extent, the debate between organic and conventional does no service to either. We must make the best use of the good soil and water we have. They are about the only things they cannot take from us. We must maximise their value through organic and conventional production. Conventional sounds dull but it is what we eat in large quantities and we look well on it.

I was shadowing a report on GM foods in the European Parliament. It has been shelved twice because it is so contentious. When I shadowed it, I was lobbied strongly by those opposed to GM research production. There was a requirement to sign a petition to get my name on their website to look good publicly. I was one of a few Irish MEPs who refused to sign it because I did some research and found out that in Ireland we import significant quantities of very good quality animal feed some of which is genetically modified. The tags on my husband's sheep ration are labelled as genetically modified and those sheep are healthy and well, as is their meat.

There is dishonesty in this debate and we must be clear that at European level it is like the nuclear debate. We plug into a grid and our kettle will be boiled by nuclear power but we will not build a nuclear power station here. We do not need one, so I am not promoting that, but we must look honestly at the issue. There is no GM crop currently available that Ireland would want to grow but Spanish farmers want to grow genetically modified maize that helps them prevent weevil infestation.

Europe has a negative view of GM and that affects the view here. The Minister of State that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is focused on issues surrounding organic food and perhaps finds GM difficult. My bottom line on GM is that if we had good, publicly funded research on genetically modified crops and forms of agriculture the public have faith in, there would be no political issue. The difficulty is that we allow companies to do the research but they use the results of the research that are more commercially suited to their interests than to the public interest.

That is a political issue for Ireland, where Teagasc is involved in GM research, although we are perhaps not doing enough. I have been to Brazil and other countries where there is a trend towards genetically modified crop production but I would like this country to have an honest and open debate about it where people listen carefully. I do not want a pre-Lisbon treaty debate on GM, where everyone shouts and no one listens, I want us to analyse the facts and be guided by them. That debate is not happening in Ireland and our view is muddled as a result. The French have gone soft on GM but that is a political issue at national level so politics dictates this path. I would hate researchers from the European Union to leave and go to the USA where it is much more accepted or that Europe would fall behind in terms of research, although perhaps we will do what we normally do: watch what happens elsewhere and adopt the best. It may not be such a bad policy but we must have the debate.

I am glad there is support for the issue of a Commissioner in this committee. We must think about it. Whoever we send, we need hard workers in Europe, people who step up to the plate and talk straight when it comes to agriculture. Mr. Ray MacSharry was mentioned. He was one part of a significant change in agricultural policy, Franz Fischler came next. Ireland is the only country that fully decoupled its payments from production.

The issues for Ireland post 2013 are harsher than for any other country. How will we say to Irish farmers that we are looking at levelling payments on a per hectare basis? For instance, perhaps the Chairman gets €10,000 in single farm payment and Deputy Treacy gets €20,000——

Deputy Noel Treacy

It would be the other way round.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

——and we would take from the latter. I merely set it out because we must have this debate internally in Ireland. It may not be as blunt as I suggest, but we need to start talking about this because it will arise and we need to deal with it. While I will not name a Commissioner, we need to look at it. It is important we have a strong person, male or female, in that role.

On the issue of standards, a great deal can be induced here. Lest the committee be under any illusion, I do not agree that we do not need regulation or inspection, and I am the first to say so to farmers. Farmers should lobby for the best possible regulation and inspection so that their product is fully guaranteed and has a market. Consider what happened with dioxin when there was one part of the chain labelled by a Minister as being low risk which turned out to cost us vast amounts in terms of money and reputation. Farmers should lobby for the best regulation. What we have now is bureaucratic over-regulation that is not focused on the objective of ensuring that the chain of supply runs properly and that all the requirements of legislation are met.

I mentioned the double inspections of county councils. We have invested millions of euro in on-farm storage. We should not need people to go out to check this. Teagasc officials have been out there. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's officials have been out there. How many more people will tick a box to say it is fine? The problem with regulation in Ireland — we say it in banking and we know it in farming — is that it is a clipboard and pen exercise rather than real checks. It is important for us to grapple with this.

I disagree slightly on the allotments issue. I like the fact that people are rooted and that they would buy Irish in Ireland. I would like also the French and the Germans to buy Irish. In saying that we will only buy Irish, we should be conscious that we need to persuade our EU friends to buy Irish.

In reply to Deputy Andrew Doyle, labelling is an issue on which I worked very hard. We only achieved labelling of beef because we had a crisis, and many people in the industry resisted labelling. Thankfully, however, it has worked in Ireland's favour where Irish beef is labelled and purchased as Irish because it is good quality. It is only on that basis that we will sell in future.

The second point is that we are currently battling with poultry meat labelling. In the European Parliament I tabled amendments to insist that we get a date of slaughter on to poultry meat. What is happening in the case of poultry meat, in particular, is a complete unknown. It arrives in blocks, we hardly know from where. It can be defrosted and refrozen, and defrosted and sold as fresh Irish. Such is the complexity of labelling, but then the food industry is complex in itself.

We are debating this hotly in the European Parliament and there is considerable support for what Deputy Doyle has spoken of, country of origin labelling and clarity of labelling. However, not everybody in the food industry sees it like that because their interests are perhaps less clear. Speaking from a consumer point of view, when I go out to buy a product, particularly meat, I want to know where it comes from, and consumers deserve to know. I was chair of a consumer liaison panel many years ago and we pushed and fought for that, and we are still doing it. We are closer to winning that battle.

It links in to the problem which is the one area on which the European Commission and I fight all the time. If we have high production standards in the European Union, let us defend them at the WTO but let us also not import food from outside of the European Union that does not meet those standards. The Commission hears what I am saying and has not fully taken it on board. If we do not acknowledge our high standards and protect them, it leads to considerable frustration among producers in Europe, and certainly among Irish farmers. On Brazilian beef, for example, the Irish Farmers' Association and the Irish Farmers’ Journal led that charge. The agriculture committee of which I am the only Irish full member, with the support of its chairman, Mr. Neil Parish, MEP, went to Brazil and battled on this. We went into the Parliament there and they were not that welcoming but they accepted our point. This is an issue that is still to be fought and it is particularly important. Rest assured, work is being done on labelling.

A point I mentioned in my preamble was raised by Deputy Treacy. It is the most important point of my contribution, that is, the post-2013 issue, the Tony Blair legacy, whether the budget will fit the policy or the policy will be cut to fit a smaller budget. It involves significant challenges. The debate is under way in Europe and I am not so sure Ireland is properly engaged. We need to get out there and start fighting our case. The new member states from Eastern Europe are looking for higher payments. There is commitment to an agriculture policy but we do not know whether there is a commitment to the resources. Ireland's voice needs to be heard a little louder on that matter.

Deputy Treacy asked if the EU can assist the global crisis. I would make two points in that regard. The difficulty for Irish agriculture is that there is an economic downturn, not only in Ireland. Obviously, across other member states there is a problem, which is not as severe as in Ireland but which is affecting prices for agricultural commodities. The global crisis has hit dairying. The Russians were not buying milk products. There is a knock-on effect. We need to see the European Union working for global recovery and recovery in the European Union, in particular. The sector of which we speak requires that because in better times there are better prices.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, mentioned the importance of the European Union, the Lisbon treaty and all of these matters for Ireland's future, and they are vital. If the Lisbon treaty is passed, the European Parliament will have a stronger voice in agriculture matters. I wanted this report put through the Parliament as a statement of our view before this arose so that we would have something from which to work. It is not a blank sheet. We have an important statement of intent from the European Parliament.

Those who lobby on agriculture must work more with the Parliament than perhaps they had to in the past, and that is no bad development. The Parliament supports agriculture, but only if the arguments are strong, forceful and well thought through. Agriculture needs to sharpen its arguments. On the public perception of the single farm payment, for example, it is very visible who is getting what and there is a notion that one is getting too much and another is not getting enough. We will have to understand the system which is why I would have liked the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Commission to explain on the website how the payments work. We are looking at changes to top-level payments. Remember, however, that other countries do not want that. They have larger farms with many workers so that what looks like a large payment is not quite just for an individual. Clarity of the debate will be required and it is a difficult area. It is an area I know well but even I find it difficult always to explain the minutiae of it.

On balance, however, there is support for agriculture in rural areas. I had Portuguese television station employees over with me on Friday last talking about Ireland and the environment. The crew were struck by Ireland's living countryside because there is considerable desertification in the rest of Europe. I hope we do not go to anything like that sort of scenario because a living countryside is really important, as are vibrant communities. At the heart of that where I am from in County Meath, and where I was from in County Louth, was the fact that people who farm the land are part of a community and provide. The minute they make money, they do not buy jewellery and fur coats. At least mine did not; they invested in the farm. I think I have answered most of the questions raised. I will leave it at that unless there are supplementary questions.

Chairman

I thank Ms McGuinness, MEP, for her presentation. I also thank the members for raising their questions and issues, and those in the Visitors' Gallery who have an interest. Incidentally, this report is of considerable use and interest to the Members of the Oireachtas and should be used as a basis for discussion in debate. We will discuss how that might be made available for that purpose.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

Is it possible to get that report sent to the members of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Chairman

We will arrange that. I again thank Ms McGuinness, MEP. Shortly, there will be another one of her colleagues at another meeting for a similar presentation as part and parcel of involving the committee in the work with which it is charged.

Sitting suspended at 1.10 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.