Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Jan 2013

Vol. 220 No. 6

Address to Seanad Éireann by Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

I welcome Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, to Seanad Éireann. It is her first time to address the House, unlike other MEPs who are former Senators or addressed the House as Ministers or Ministers of State. She is very welcome.

Ms Mairead McGuinness

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the welcome and the invitation to come before the House. As we were called to speak to the Seanad in 2005, I am not quite a novice, but perhaps the L plates are still there. In my presentation I propose to deal with those areas in which I specialise. A very positive aspect of the European Parliament is that it gives members an opportunity to work on committees in areas in which they have specialist knowledge. The areas on which I work and which I examine are agriculture, rural development, environment, food safety and public health.

The title of my paper is, Food for Thought - Ireland and the EU 40 years on. In recent weeks and months we have had much food for thought and perhaps we will debate this later. I certainly want to allude to it in my presentation. If I have time, I will mention the medical devices directive because I have been appointed the shadow rapporteur for the EPP group on this important legislation which has huge implications for improving patient safety and the industry. As Ireland has a large medical devices industry, the Seanad will be interested.

The European Union has gone through many difficult phases, perhaps none more so than the current one, and the House has debated many of the issues. Despite all of the negativity about the European Union and whether it had the ability to pull itself back from the brink, we have managed to calm the situation. I ask people to reflect back to a year ago when there was a huge sense of unease, uncertainty and fear in the population and in politics generally about the ongoing crisis. In as far as we have stabilised the situation, we have calmed the mindset in the European Union, notwithstanding people are still unemployed, including far too many young people. There are also debt burdens and a dimming of the sense of hope we are trying to restore. Things can and will get better, not because we want them to or because we are willing them to improve but because we are taking action to make things better.

The European Union works slowly and in a complex way and markets and media have quite the opposite demands. There is therefore a mismatch between the expectations of what the European Union should be doing and the pace at which the European Union can work because of its institutional organisation and the need to engage. Those in politics need to understand there is a tendency to give a knee-jerk response and get a reaction in the public space, but sometimes we need to be more reflective and hold back on responses to situations because our initial reaction is not always the best or the most long-lasting. I compliment Herman Van Rompuy who as President of the Council is always worth listening to for the very reason that he does not give a headline. He gives depth and commentary which will stand the test of time. This is a good mark of the man given the job he does.

I am glad to say those who predicted the demise of the European Union and certainly the demise of the single currency are less vocal today. We went through a time in the Parliament when it was extremely tense and difficult with unusual fighting matches across the Chamber.

That has certainly eased somewhat, although the difficulties have not gone away and more needs to be done.

I will deal with the farming and food industries. As I am conscious of time, I may abbreviate my remarks, but I will leave my script for Members to consult.

When one looks at Irish agriculture one must take into account how it has evolved in the last 40 years of EU membership. In 1973 agriculture accounted for 18% of GDP, while today it is around 2%. The agri-food sector accounted for 40% of our exports while today it is around 7%. It is, however, much more important than that figure suggests because there is a low import content and there is also less repatriation of profits. It is an important sector which I think this House recognises.

In 1973 the farm workforce was approximately 263,000 or 25% of the total workforce. Today it is significantly less at around 85,000 people or 5% of the workforce. It is enlightening to look back at the evolution of the policy. We joined the EEC and farmers welcomed it because it gave them guaranteed higher prices for their produce than they has been getting before membership.

In 1957 the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy spoke about things that we are still trying to achieve such as increasing agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress, ensuring the rational development of agricultural production, optimum use of resources, ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, stabilising markets, assuring availability of supplies, and ensuring that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. Those objectives were set out in 1957 and they are still as relevant today as they were when first drafted. Farmers responded to these guaranteed higher prices in the 1970s: milk production increased and so did beef and grain. Those with memories, however, will recall that things went too far and in 1984 we had milk quotas. We also had other restrictions because the European agricultural budget situation was going out of control.

In 1992 we had the MacSharry reforms which were a significant departure - moving away from price and market supports to a lower price regime and the introduction of direct payments by way of area aid and livestock payments. We also had Agenda 2000 and the mid-term review of 2003. I mention the latter, in particular, because it was hugely significant. It heralded the introduction of the current single farm payment system. It introduced a concept of cross-compliance which links the payments farmers receive to meeting environmental, food safety, animal and plant health, animal welfare standards, and a requirement to keep land in good agricultural and environmental condition. It also saw the introduction of the rural development policy being strengthened to give farmers assistance with environmental and quality assurance schemes, and animal welfare standards. Ireland opted for full decoupling of payments. On 1 January 2005, therefore, there was no longer a requirement to have an animal to get a payment. There was resistance to it initially but the system came in. Farmers did have to meet these statutory management requirements and there were many inspections around this issue. However, full decoupling came and farmers have learned to live with it.

In 2008 we had the health check which confirmed that milk quotas would be abolished in 2015. Given that they have been in place since the early 1980s, it is a significant policy departure and it also deepened the decoupling process for other member states that have not gone the way we had. We are now in a current round of reforms and last week the European Parliament's agriculture committee exercised its first major vote under co-decision on agriculture policy. As we managed to distill some 8,000 amendments to around 25 or 30, it was a major piece of work. More importantly, we managed to get support for the compromise amendments.

For the first time, the European Parliament has the same power as the Council on agriculture policy and has, therefore, brought more openness and democracy to the process. However, it has also brought a layer of complexity which requires MEPs to table amendments and then try to reach compromises within and between groups. While the experience so far has not been easy - I was one of the lead negotiators - it can work.

We delivered a vote last week, which will go before the full plenary of Parliament in March.

Allied with the vote we will take in March on our position on Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, reform - I will refer to some of the details shortly - I hope we also will vote on the European Union's budget for the period from 2014 to 2020. This is hugely significant because without figures, we will not be able to sign off on the actual detail of the reforms. As Members are aware, there was an attempt to agree the figures late last year between the Heads of State and Government. Unfortunately, that failed and will meet again in early February. The fact the meeting has been called is a positive sign. My optimistic side would consider the possibility that the Heads of State and Government can agree figures that are reasonable. While Members are aware there is an attempt to cut €75 billion from the Commission's proposal, it might be possible to reach some sort of compromise on this. Thereafter, it would be a question of whether the Parliament could be persuaded that this was an adequate budget, because Members should remember the Parliament can reject or accept a budget but cannot amend it. However, it is an interesting political dynamic, in that the Parliament will look twice the figures and it cannot be taken for granted that it would simply assent to whatever was on the table. In the event that the Parliament does agree and the vote on the budget goes through and if we can vote through our agriculture compromises in plenary session - some difficult issues will arise in the plenary vote - thereafter we will be free to open discussions with the Council. As with all deals, it will be that the Commission, the Council and the members of our negotiating team, of which I will be one, will sit down and will try to thrash out an agreement at an overarching level for the European Union that maintains a Common Agricultural Policy and that fits and gives flexibility to member states which have different issues.

I regret there has been very little debate about the new aspects of the policy but perhaps this House could take up some of these points. The idea is framed that we want a greener and fairer Common Agricultural Policy and one concept that is talked about is to use public money for public goods. To put it at its simplest, the view is that in agriculture, farmers sell their produce but do not receive sufficient reward from the marketplace to value in the public goods dimension, that is, their welfare standards, environmental contributions and management of the landscape. Consequently, the thrust of policy is to suggest that increasingly, money will be available to support farmers dedicated towards the delivery of public goods. In my contributions, I always have stated that food also is a public good and one cannot divorce one from the other and therefore, a link must be kept. However, the proposal is that 30% of direct payments to farmers would be directly linked to delivering more environmental measures such as crop diversification, permanent pasture and provision of ecological focus areas. Those Members who are familiar with farming would regard those as being the bit in the field one did not farm because it was left for nature. However, under these proposals we would be obliged to plan some of these back into the system. I acknowledge there is a great deal of controversy around this proposal. Some of these issues, particularly the 30% issue, will be decided by the Heads of State and Government because it is part of the multiannual financial framework, MFF, discussion. As Members are aware, there are member states within the Council, that seek to cut the payments and there are others which seek to have agriculture contribute more in respect of both greening and climate actions. Consequently, there is a big push in that direction. I spoke at the Oxford farming conference earlier this month and made the point that I understood the focus on the payments because in 2011, which was a relatively good year, more than 73% of farm incomes came from the single farm payment. Consequently, Members can discern the reason this is so important to farmers who are out in the fields - one could not be out in the fields today because it is so wet, which will have an impact on farm incomes - and who rely so much on this payment. However, a deeper debate is needed on the direction of the policy. While we have tried to do this in the European Parliament, national parliaments and Members of this House could help us in that regard.

I mentioned the reliance on the single farm payment. This is something about which I have a concern because we regard agriculture as being the backbone of our recovery and it can and will be that. Moreover, we have a good reputation for food. However, that industry is being built on a sector that is heavily reliant on a Common Agricultural Policy.

That is why we are fighting hard on the budget side and on the orientation of the policy. We must not do anything to suddenly pull the rug from under farmers. We must ensure those who are producing continue to receive support to do that, particularly where we have increased market volatility. If we look at dairy produce or any of the other commodity areas, we see greater market volatility, which is very difficult for farmers to deal with on a daily basis.

Some of the income points revealed by Teagasc for last year are worth looking at. Average farm income was down 12%. Year on year, farmers can suffer swings in their incomes. In the good year of 2011, an average family farm income was €24,462. I know dairy farmers' incomes are higher but many of our farmers are in dry stock and suckling so average incomes in agriculture are low. There is the same story across the rest of the European Union. In general, farm incomes are about 50% of the average of the rest of the population. The line we should push is that we eat on the back of low income farming.

That brings me to another part of the debate at European Union level and within member states. If there is less support for farming through the public purse and a drive for budgetary austerity in the European Union, what is happening to the food market? I have been involved in an initiative on this in the European Parliament, and since 2010, the Commission has been investigating the food supply chain. The fact the Commission set up a round table of all the stakeholders and major players, such as distributors, manufacturers and retailers, meant that something was wrong. The Commission now accepts there is a problem in the food supply chain, that it does not function as it should and needs greater scrutiny. That is the case in my opinion. To some extent we had a crisis in the banking sector because people thought the banks were regulated and everything was fine. It was only after the crisis that we realised the sector was poorly regulated and needed further scrutiny. The food chain is much more vulnerable. Food is essential for us all and good food is particularly important for our children.

We have a situation, however, where there are a large number of producers, smaller numbers along the supply chain and then a major concentration of power at the retail end. Shoppers have very little idea when they buy a product of where it comes from, although that is a separate issue, and what the price was along the line. There is a greater need for transparency along the food supply chain.

There is also some difficult and sharp practice in the chain. It is interesting that the Commission, with the stakeholders, drew up a list of areas that were wrong and needed to be corrected. As a result of that process, an agreement for a voluntary code of practice has been drawn up. It is a gentleman's agreement, although that makes me smile because there must be gentlemen at the table for such an agreement. Let us be clear, however, about what it means. I was at the last meeting of the stakeholder forum and it was interesting that all those involved in the process want a voluntary agreement because there is a threat of legislation at EU level on the relationships along the supply chain. It is recognised that such legislation would be extraordinarily difficult but there is the threat. Later this week the Commission will adopt a Green Paper on unfair trading practices in the entire retail supply chain. I would prefer it to deal with food separately, but it has decided to look at all of the supply chain.

It is interesting that the only groups that would not sign up to the voluntary code were the farming organisations which wanted a legislative process. I bring this to the attention of the House because there has been discussion in all member states about the imbalance of power. In the United Kingdom an adjudicator has been appointed and she has the power to investigate practices in the supply chain and it will be possible to complain anonymously. Britain is not the only member state where this is happening. I have dealt with other member states where this is being done because of the concentration of power.

Producers constantly argue that they receive very little of the price we pay for food, which is not to say food prices should rise. We need to recognise, however, the way in which food prices are determined if we are to decide whether the process is fair and equitable. Senators should be interested in this issue and I believe they are.

A question arises in this regard for those who are interested in competition law. When we have moments to spare, some other Members of the European Parliament and I discuss whether competition law, as it applies, works to the betterment of food consumers or whether it should be examined more forensically. If the objective of competition law is simply to deliver cheap food, what are the consequences of this approach further back in the food chain? We saw the consequences of this approach in a recent case which indicated that it may not be such a good idea.

I want to move to the issue that has dominated the conversation of those who are involved in the food and agriculture sector, namely, the finding of horse DNA in burgers. I am aware that the matter was widely discussed and debated in the House. I compliment the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, on obtaining and, with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, forensically revealing the details of the case. Ireland has led the way on this issue. For example, the FSAI is the only food safety authority in Europe that uses DNA testing for authenticity. We have shown great leadership on this issue and have been very open with the relevant information. The issue of authenticity of food is much higher up on the agenda as a result of the work done in this country.

Many Senators will understand the traceability systems we have in place. For example, farmers here participate in a process involving birth certificates, ear tags and registrations. There is a sense, therefore, that people felt let down by the circumstances of the most recent case involving horse DNA in burgers. We have also grown more aware of the complexity of the food supply chain. I am tempted to try to quote Professor Patrick Wall who is a rock of sense on these issues. He observed that food manufacturers must trust carefully all of their suppliers and if they are unable to fully trust their suppliers, they should not use their products.

I wrote to the Commission on this issue and have no doubt from the response I received this morning that the recent case involved a breach of EU labelling laws. If a non-beef product is in a beef burger, this should be stated on the label. This is extremely important, especially as regards other animal species. Animal species and the preparations used must be stated on all minced beef products. If horsemeat or another ingredient is in minced beef, this should be identified on the label.

The relevant legislation is being strengthened. From December 2014, a regulation on the provision of food information to consumers will require, in the case of meat products or meat preparations containing added protein, including hydrolysed proteins of different animal origin, that the name of the food will bear an indication of the presence of such proteins and their origin. Accordingly, a beef burger containing horse protein would have to be designated under the name "beef burger with horse protein".

While the idea of labelling is crucial, a label will stick on anything and anything can be put on a label.

Ms McGuinness is going over time.

Ms Mairead McGuinness

I will conclude. What we need to do is check and recheck for accuracy. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland should be complimented on the work it did in recent weeks.

I welcome Ms McGuinness to the House and thank her for her comprehensive presentation. I also applaud her for her continuing contribution and wearing the green jersey in the European Parliament, particularly in her area of expertise. I will raise a couple of issues she may wish to address.

In the last day or two her colleague, Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP, has criticised what he believes will be a massive reduction in EU Structural Funds. He reports that 43.5% or almost €200 million will be taken out of the Structural Funds between 2014 and 2020. He has asked that a special provisional allocation of up to €345 million go towards the Border, midlands and western, BMW, region. He makes the point that the criteria used are flawed and outdated due to the figures being used by the Commission with regard to wealth. The reference years used predate the devastating economic crisis and rising unemployment levels across Ireland and particularly in the BMW region. The unemployment rate now stands at 16.5% across the region, which is 20% below the EU target set under the Europe 2020 strategy for growth. Perhaps Ms McGuinness might comment on this.

There is also the question of payments. The IFA takes the view that any redistribution of payments must not undermine the viability of family farms and must be on the basis of objective criteria. As Ms McGuinness is aware, there in an ongoing debate in this country about what are termed "active farmers". Will she outline what she believes to be the definition of active farmers? Like my friend and colleague, Senator Comiskey, I come from a severely disadvantaged area where there are primarily stock farmers and hardly any form of tillage. About 99% of the land in County Leitrim is marginal and does not grow anything much other than trees, which I understand are supposed to be a key area of growth but that has brought its own legacy. I am curious to establish this. On the one hand, there is a view that the proposals on the direct payments will benefit approximately 75% of farmers across the country, in areas where there are both tillage and dairy farmers, yet, on the other, there appears to be some resistance to this on the basis that there will be a continuation of direct payments to corporate bodies and the very rich and that this could somehow undermine the continuing viability of the family farm. Where I come from farming is part-time to a large extent. People try to get extra off-farm income. However, the money they receive directly from Europe goes into the local towns and villages and the local economy. Any disruption or significant reduction of that will have a knock-on effect on the local economy. I am curious to hear Ms McGuinness's views on the issue of payments.

There is also the rural development programme and greening. There appears to be controversy about the greening proposals. Members of the agriculture committee visited Germany a few weeks ago and I was interested to find that the Germans are very concerned about the greening measures also. It was salutary to discover that they were also concerned for what they termed their disadvantaged areas. I understood that all of Germany had lush, fertile land, but that is not strictly the case. We might be able to engage in common cause with them in that regard. We secured funding of €350 million under the rural development programme. Again, there is concern that this could be reduced. Will Ms McGuinness comment on this? There is also discussion about capping the payments due to the large sums of money some individuals have been getting.

I welcome Ms Mairead McGuinness to the House. We are delighted to have her here for this discussion on "Food for Thought - Ireland and the EU 40 years on". As she is aware, prior to its accession to the European Union Ireland had a predominantly agriculture based economy, and society was heavily dependent on agriculture. We were mainly dependent on the UK market and struggling to shake off the effects of years of protectionist policies. While Irish products were readily accepted on the UK market, the advantage was limited. British policy at the time was to allow the entry of overseas agricultural products but at low prices. That left little profit for the Irish producer and it constrained wages and development within the sector. The 1960s saw a move away from this policy and with British accession to the EEC likely at that time, participation by Ireland was very attractive.

Irish EEC membership provided access to the Common Market and the Common Agricultural Policy offered security and provided pricing levels for goods fixed at the higher rates than previously available to the Irish producer. Membership of the Common Market and, subsequently, the Single Market transformed the Irish agricultural sector and food production across the Continent. The Single Market created access to a market of 500 million people for Irish goods by removing administrative burdens for Irish food exporters.

The Common Agricultural Policy introduced a means of securing food production in Europe while alleviating the pressures on the farming community and farm incomes. The direct payment schemes allowed many to remain on the land at a time when emigration and urbanisation were becoming the norm. The CAP coupled a system of direct payment with rules governing rural development policy aimed at improving the environment and the countryside and improving the quality of life in rural areas while encouraging diversification of the rural economy. Rural development measures have been instrumental in creating employment, promoting tourism and maintaining national identity in rural areas.

Ireland has been the recipient of €10 billion in funding under the Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund since 1973. The original aim of the CAP was to make Europe self-sufficient in food but soon this aim was surpassed, creating the challenges of over-production and necessitating changes in the structure of the CAP. Reform was necessary and payments were unhooked from production. Emphasis was placed on protection of the environment, the quality and safety of our food and the welfare of our animals. Laws regulating the production of food and food safety date back to ancient times, but there is now a body of legislation regulating food labelling, additive use, organic food and genetically modified production.

The BSE crisis in the 1990s pushed food safety to the top of the European agenda. The European Union had to become more willing to safeguard human health and assist the industry in making a recovery. As a consequence, notification procedures were introduced and prescribed hygiene practices became standardised across Europe. Today there are continued advances in the methods of production within the agrisector with the emergence of new technologies. The evaluation and the testing of these new technologies to assess food safety can be onerous and expensive, in particular on farming people, which was mentioned by Ms McGuinness. From the time the animal is born on the farm, farmers are very careful about tagging and traceability, and rightly so, but it creates a lot of costs. However, by using the combined resources of the European Union, member states will be better able to respond to these new technologies. By acting as a whole, the European Union can protect public health, prevent unfair practices and ease consumer concerns.

Greater EU food safety standards have contributed to the improvement of the health and well-being of European citizens. Almost 75% of active pesticides have been removed from the EU market. An EU integrated approach to food safety is also the most effective means of making animal health a prerequisite for safe food. The European Union has introduced laws on the trading of live animals and animal products which, over 20 years, have eradicated many serious diseases.

Globalisation will contribute to assisting the spread of many diseases, but through co-operation and uniform action among member states, the European Union will be better able to respond. The Union is already the biggest global exporter of food and feed, amounting to €65 billion in 2010, but with global concerns regarding food security and food prices rising, there is an opportunity for agricultural producers and processors.

Growing levels of obesity may require a shift in focus from food safety to the nutritional value of food. However, what is clear is that these new challenges, as with previous challenges, are best dealt with through the development of a uniform and co-operative legislative programme.

In doing so, the European Union will be best placed to create a sustainable, export-driven agrifood sector in the next 40 years and beyond. I thank Ms McGuinness for being with us today.

I welcome Ms Mairead McGuinness to the Chamber for this, our second address from a Member of the European Parliament. We are really glad to have this opportunity to engage with her and we found last week's engagement with Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, very useful. Some of what Ms McGuinness said struck a chord in terms of the procedure of passing legislation at European Parliament level, which is not understood or debated enough in the domestic sphere. She mentioned, for example, 8,000 amendments before the agriculture committee, which puts into perspective some of the differences between the European Parliament and national parliaments.

I pay tribute to the great work Ms McGuinness has been doing on agriculture and must point out that this is my first or maiden agriculture speech. I did grow up in a farming community in rural Cork, but I am not my party's agriculture spokesperson. Senator Susan O'Keeffe is our agriculture spokesperson, but, unfortunately, she cannot be here today. She sends her apologies but has, it must be said, briefed me very thoroughly on some of the issues involved, many of which were raised by Ms McGuinness. The first and obvious one was referred to by Ms McGuinness, namely, the beefburger and horsemeat DNA issue. Ms McGuinness mentioned that she wrote to the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, which was a very important initiative on her part. Among the requests she made was that he would investigate whether the findings might indicate an EU-wide problem, not just one that is confined to Ireland. I agree that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, has handled the situation very well and that the potential damage to or fallout for our agrifood sector has been minimised by the Government's response. I would like to know how confident Ms McGuinness is that an investigation can be instigated at EU level and that measures can be taken by the European Union to address this difficulty.

On a related point, Ms McGuinness spoke very eloquently on the authenticity of food and the issue of food labelling. I was struck by something Professor Alan Reilly, the head of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, said last year in this context. While he welcomed the EU extension of mandatory country-of-origin labelling, he pointed out that it did not address the issue of processed foods, where ingredients were sourced from many countries. Neither does it address a real bugbear of mine - as a shopper and a mother who is trying to find decent, healthy food that my children will eat - which is that labels like "natural", "local", "artisan", "freshly-squeezed", "hand-made" do not have any legal definition or authority. This also frustrates me as a lawyer. Will Ms McGuinness indicate whether there is a timeframe for the introduction of better labelling? Is it possible to regulate to that extent or would that represent too much of a nanny EU state? Consumers need more information and the current labelling regime is very frustrating.

Ms McGuinness also referred to the Common Agricultural Policy, a huge issue about which she spoke very comprehensively. How confident is she that fairness will prevail in the renegotiation of the CAP, especially in the context of the negotiations being steered towards the more productive or bigger farmers? Ms McGuinness spoke about the low average income of farmers but clearly, within that, there are a number of bigger farmers who are able to invest more, rent more land and so forth. Will such farmers be favoured under the renegotiated CAP? How confident can we be in Ireland that our farming will not be sacrificed to the emphasis on productivity?

A point which is very close to my own heart and about which Ms McGuinness is also very passionate is the greening of the CAP. Is the European Union at risk of getting the greening aspect wrong? Is the balance right and are Irish farmers embracing the notion of greening sufficiently? Ms McGuinness also touched on the issue of animal welfare, about which I feel very strongly. I wonder if farmers are placing enough emphasis on animal welfare because it is something about which consumers are also becoming increasingly concerned. It is in the interests of the sector as a whole that it is much more cognisant of animal welfare issues and green issues generally.

Ms McGuinness spoke about rural development and made specific reference to the Oxford farming conference. At that conference she said that across the European Union, particularly in remote parts, there are genuine fears about land abandonment, village decline and a decline in the numbers of young people. That is something we hoped we had left behind in Ireland but we are seeing it reappear in debates about rural communities here. Is there a divide between urban and rural communities on this issue? Is that visible at EU level and are there steps we can take to address it?

The final point I wish to make is about public health which relates to the issues of beef, burgers and food labelling. Ms McGuinness may be aware that last year we held public consultation hearings in the Seanad.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe was prominent in organising the hearing on cancer and, in particular, the influence of lifestyle on cancer prevention, in respect of which there is now growing awareness among the medical profession and people generally. There are so many common cancers which evidence shows can be prevented by substantial lifestyle change. Is this a matter that can be dealt with at EU level? Consideration is being given by the Seanad to how best we can reform our domestic policy on this and what health promotion measures can be adopted to address the issue. Should this be left to individual Governments or is it better also seen as an issue for address at EU level? I am interested in hearing what is being done in this regard. A particular finding of the World Health Organization links diesel engine fumes with cancer, which again is an issue that might better be tackled at EU level.

As Ms McGuinness mentioned the gentlemen's agreement, I cannot resist asking about gender balance in the European Parliament. The sense is that gender balance at EU level is better than it is in the Oireachtas, where only 15% of Members of the Dáil and 30% of Members of the Seanad are women. The gender balance in the Seanad is better. Also, there is a good gender balance among our MEPs. I know that 100% of our Labour MEPs are women, which is particularly strong. I am aware of a recent initiative in the European Parliament to increase the number of women on boards of public companies. I apologise for the number of questions with which I have bombarded Ms McGuinness. However, I am particularly interested in hearing about the next step in this regard and what further steps are proposed.

I again thank Ms McGuinness for her fascinating address. I am delighted finally to have an opportunity to speak on agriculture. I might take over from Senator O'Keeffe after this.

I welcome Ms Mairead McGuinness to the House. I am delighted we are represented so brilliantly in Europe by a female Fine Gael member. My question may be an innocent one to which Ms McGuinness may have a general answer. Ms McGuinness stated that in 1973, 263,000 people were working on farms or in the farming industry and that this reduced to 85,000 in 2012 and in the same breath used the word "progress". In what way is it good that fewer people are working on the land? Should we not be encouraging more people to work on the land? Without nature, we are going nowhere. We certainly cannot be depending on the banks or insurance companies. I recommend that Senators read the recently published book, entitled What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?, by Mr. Tony Juniper, which is interesting. The chain of how we live is dependent on nature. I am interested in hearing Ms McGuinness's response on how she can use the word "progress" in relation to a massive decline from working on the land, which is highly contradictory.

I welcome Ms Mairead McGuinness to the House and, in particular, the words used by her in her address. I welcome also that she is responsible for the food and agriculture area. We greatly appreciate her work. Ms McGuinness will be aware that I was in charge of euro commerce for a number of years. She is highly regarded by all in business as someone who can wear both hats in terms of representing the consumer and the agricultural producer. I was delighted to hear her comment on the DNA testing issue. Ireland is way ahead of the rest of the world in DNA testing, which was first developed in Trinity College Dublin and has been further developed since.

I would like to speak on some wider topics. For instance, will Ms McGuinness comment on Chancellor Angela Merkel's recent statement to MEPs: "The EU commission will eventually become a government, the council of member states an upper chamber and the European Parliament more powerful, but fixing the eurozone problems is more urgent for now." It appears she is suggesting we are automatically heading towards a federal Europe. I would welcome her view on whether this is a good thing, if this is the way we should be going or if we should be debating more than this.

My second point is about leaving the European Union. Following Mr. David Cameron's speech last week, there is now real discussion in the United Kingdom about its leaving the European Union. If the United Kingdom was to withdraw from the European Union in four years time, would Ireland have to follow? The United Kingdom is our biggest trading partner.

Some politicians would argue otherwise, but our historic and current links with Britain are considerable. Would it be so bad to follow if we retained our trading links with Europe, as Norway has done, while reinforcing our links with the United Kingdom and retaining most of the powers from the European Union? To date, I have been an enthusiastic European, almost to the extent of, like a teenager, loving everything to do with Europe. However, I would start to question it if Britain left in four years time. We have time to consider the issue and I would welcome Ms McGuinness' opinions.

Europe's recognition of the independence of Kosovo is mixed. Ireland has recognised its independence while Spain, Slovakia, Cyprus, Romania and Greece have not. What does this issue hold in store for the European Union? After Kosovo, where will the calls for independence finish? What of Catalonia, the Basque country and Scotland? Surely the future of integration is receding due to the crisis. How can Ireland and the European Union avoid further calls for independence from around Europe?

Having been in business, I would welcome further research, through a detailed audit, on the cost of European legislation to Ireland. It is easy for MEPs in Brussels to pass regulations and legislation and for same to be transposed into Irish legislation, but such laws can have a significant effect on Irish business, particularly small to medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. Highlighting this negative side of the European Union might change it for the better. Could this be done?

Has the euro been an utter failure and could we adopt another policy? We were such enthusiasts for the euro while we were doing well. Two weeks ago, one of the main architects of the single European currency, Jacques Delors, stated that the eurozone had been flawed from the beginning and that political leaders had turned a blind eye to the fundamental weaknesses and imbalances of member states' economies. Commenting on those who, like the British, objected to euro membership on the grounds that the currency could not work without a state, he stated that they had a point. This was from Jacques Delors, the hero of the euro.

According to the Icelandic Prime Minister, Iceland would either adopt the euro after joining the European Union - I had not realised the implications of this - or drop the krona and unilaterally adopt another currency. She stated: "The choice is between surrendering the sovereignty of Iceland in monetary policy by unilaterally adopting the currency of another country or become a member of the EU." EU membership would allow Iceland to do exactly this. It looks like it will join the European Union. Is it possible that it will do so at a time when Britain is leaving the Union? If such events come to pass, all of Europe will be dramatically changed. I would welcome Ms McGuinness' opinion as someone who has been close to this debate for many years.

Ms Mairead McGuinness

I have not lost my journalistic past. I have taken copious notes, regardless of whether I get to answer all of the interesting points. I will try and may group them, where appropriate.

Senator Mooney raised a number of questions about the key point of the active farmer. I will discuss greening and the idea of active farming. We are concerned that some payments go to farmers who are not producing, that is, they are not active farmers, yet the system is so designed that avoiding such a situation is difficult. There are some cases of large landowners in Scotland who, despite not actively farming, receive significant payments for their large tracts of land. A key issue - we voted last week - is to try to agree a definition of an active farmer in order that the money goes to those who actually work the land.

I will make a strong point to farmers and those Senators who know the agricultural community. I am concerned about what is happening to the Irish land market, in that there is virtually none. Little land is selling, given the uncertainties about CAP reform.

A massive amount of land is leased, sometimes on short 11-month systems, and some farmers are not farming now but are thinking of doing so because of the changes in the system. I am receiving calls from farmers who are asking what they should do. I have told them and will say again in this public forum that they should not gamble with money they do not have and they should resist the temptation to take the income support payments from the Common Agricultural Policy and hand them to the land owner. That is a real problem with the system, which is to move to a flat rate payment per hectare. It will capitalise the value of those payments into land prices and rent, and in many cases it will almost solidify the land market, and the direction of the policy is a real worry.

We want active farmers to get the money but member states had the capacity to target money at active farmers. For example, one member state did not allow airports to claim money as they could have done. We are arguing that there should be a negative list of various types of companies that do not use land for farming and which should not get the payments. If a budget is under pressure, we must ensure that the funding goes to rural communities and farmers.

We have the same agenda as the Seanad with regard to active farmers. There was particular mention of livestock farming and there is a real concern - evident in Ireland with decoupled payments - that we are losing livestock numbers. France is concerned about holding on to its livestock sector as there are territorial balance issues and we want farming across the regions. It kept coupled payments and there are proposals in the current reforms to allow member states to recouple some payments where there are vulnerable sectors in vulnerable regions. As Senators have indicated, perhaps in some regions we may be able to recouple payments in order that livestock farmers can get some support.

There is a bigger question of the change in direction and who will benefit from the Common Agricultural Policy. There has been much public debate in this regard. When we move from decoupled payments to a flat rate payment, there will be difficulties across the ditch between neighbours. We should be frank about the issue. If we lived in a time when we could distribute additional money to farming, there would not be a problem but we are talking about two issues. New member states want more support from the CAP but the budget is limited. Money will move to the east. Within member states there is also a need and policy direction to redistribute. My message has always been that we must work a new system in a way that does not disrupt production.

With regard to the German reaction to the greening proposals, it seems Dr. Merkel, the German leader, does not like the idea of a 7% ecological focus area. What has gone wrong with the farm research and advisory systems during the years, as we have not engaged with both the environment and production frameworks in dealing with farmers? One cannot farm if the environment is not good and one issue goes with the other. We are almost trying to stitch in environmental awareness by linking it to direct payments but most farmers know that one needs good soil and water to produce food in a sustainable manner. The German reaction, which is replicated in the Parliament, is interesting and it is against the proposals.

There has been some very interesting research in the United Kingdom, where there have been programmes for biodiversity strips, and I am a fan. There is one on our farm. If nature is given a place it will flourish, and there will also be benefit to the crops and a return for looking after nature. The issues are not incompatible and we will come up with something to give a greening to the Common Agricultural Policy that is supportive of farming rather than going against it.

With regard to the general budget, including Structural Funds and rural development, there is a concern that cuts could come in rural development funding. There have been some slightly more positive soundings recently and we will know more when the next meeting of the Heads of State and Government convenes. Rural development funding is targeted and important for this region and others, particularly in the support of farming families and the economy. Small cuts will have an impact and we must be careful on a global level of how we manage the issue.

I thank all Senators for their kind remarks. Senator Comiskey spoke about the general history of the policy.

We are examining obesity issues as the Union has come full circle from producing for need to considering public health issues and the nutritional value of foods. There is a notion that everything should be labelled in order that people can instantly read about the nutritional value but my view is people should instinctively know food and that knowledge should not be taken away by saying the label will tell them everything. People need to reconnect with food. This is happening, with more people growing their own food and asking questions about food. This will come. With regard to the frozen beef burger saga, the worry is that, morally and ethically, people are buying cheaper products for children who need better sustenance. A beefburger should contain beef and people should make their own but perhaps they do not have that intrinsic knowledge. I am a great believer in giving people the capacity to know and understand. The Senator's contribution was important in that regard.

I applaud Senator Bacik on her maiden speech on agriculture issues, as she was well briefed. Her point is well made about the legislative process in Europe. It is extremely complex and it is a fundamental problem that people feel a disconnect about this. On the other hand, before I entered politics, I did not understand or care about how the Seanad or the Dáil worked. Sometimes we need to tell people how something works in order that they can understand it without getting into the nitty gritty. We amend, we sign off and we vote. We then walk away and the legislation is left with officials. There is little scrutiny of, or follow through on, implementation until there is a problem, which is a serious failure of the legislative process. Every document that is drafted requires several others to be drafted to interpret it and so on. Those who initially had a good idea and drafted the legislation find it gets skewed somewhere between signing off and implementation. The European Parliament and all other legislatures fail in that regard. We do not connect enough with the consequences of what we do. I have discussed this with colleagues and it is something we need to examine to see whether we can do this a little better.

On the "Where is the beef?" issue, Ireland has shown leadership and I have brought this message to the Parliament. Other food safety authorities will do forensic work, to which there will be an outcome. At least, we took action first and we were open and transparent with the information. I am confident there will be EU action. Commissioner Borg's swiftness in coming back to me gives me that encouragement. The authenticity of food is key. Mention was made of all the various labels. One of my children is fond of chocolates and sweets. One would imagine low fat was the Holy Grail of all foods. Cabbage could be labelled low fat but it is not in that category. The issue is consumer understanding of food. I would hate to think that Ireland could become the nanny state of labelling. A combination of consumer awareness and good labelling is needed. A great deal of work is going on in the area of health claims to remove spurious claims where manufacturers have to prove whatever it says on the tin. The new rules on the provision of food information to consumers will be in place on 31 December this year. That is detailed legislation, on which I can send Members information if they are interested.

I was taken by Senator Bacik's comments on fairness and production under the CAP. Many small farmers are productive and a large farmer is not necessarily more productive. Sometimes the language relating to agriculture is confusing because of this. There is a debate about the distribution of payments, but we must acknowledge that the current payments system is reflective of past production levels and that many farms have retained that level of production. If there is a sudden shift in the amount they received overnight, there would be consequences not just for farmers but for the processing sector.

The member states that have moved to a flat rate regionalised payment, such as England and Germany, will have completed the process next year. They did it over a ten year period, having started the discussion in 2003 and commenced implementing it a few years later. There was war within each of those countries, but it has happened and it has been a lengthy process. Germany used national supports for bio-energy to somehow mitigate the consequences. What will emerge at the end of all the processes is that those on very high payments per hectare will take a reduction and those on low payments will see a payment increase. I remind Senators that this is a Common Agricultural Policy which has many objectives, including sustainable food production, territorial balance and environment. It is not simply about scattering the money as far as it will go and we need to be conscious of that when we debate it because there are many other issues, including the animal welfare question which is a huge issue for farmers.

Sometimes animal welfare problems emerge on farms where there are human welfare problems and mental health issues. I spoke to Department inspectors about this issue and to their credit they work in a sensitive way but often there are other problems. All farmers who are well want their animals to do well and they look after them. Given the recent weather patterns, there is a need to be conscious of that issue with respect to vulnerable farmers.

The concern across the European Union in regard to land abandonment is very real. In regard to young farmers, there is a real problem. I have mentioned that there is very little movement on land. We have a low number of young farmers but there are many farmers in agricultural colleges which is very encouraging. I commend a report published last week, commissioned by Macra na Feirme, which refers to the need to get land into the hands of young people who are interested in farming. That can be done by encouraging older farmers to think of semi-retirement. We need to ask about the payments system as it operates as it probably works against land mobility given that people need land to get the payment. That is a disincentive to young farmers and it may also be a slight draw on our intentions to expand production. Given that farm productivity across the European Union is declining, we need to re-engage on the issue of sustainable intensification and get back to good research being communicated to farmers to ensure greater efficiency. Part of the EU 2020 strategy is to encourage better resource use. There are opportunities and rather than think of more, we ought to think about doing it better because of the cost of production arising on farms.

Farmers are wise enough not to want 200 cows if there is less return but rather to get more out of 100 cows by working more efficiently. There are many interesting challenges in this area. If we can get new people into the system with new ideas there is an exciting period ahead. However, the trouble is that there are uncertain times ahead for the next year or so. In a sense that cripples decision making. I regret that is happening as farmers are keen to chart a way forward. We see the end of milk quotas as an opportunity to get new farmers into the dairy system.

General questions were raised on public health which is a real issue. There is no doubt that nutrition and health are key issues. Every time I open a newspaper there is a different piece of health advice. As people do not know where to turn perhaps that is an issue for another day.

On the issue of women representation in the European Parliament, we are fairly well represented. There was a radical idea in regard to gender balance on boards of public companies which was watered down a little, but the conclusion is that where there is a better gender balance, it helps the boards to function and companies profit from it. Many public companies are moving in that direction.

I remember my childhood on farms and perhaps some Members also gathered potatoes by hand. Many bodies were needed as there were not many machines. Agriculture has been mechanised a great deal and the drudgery has been taken out of some aspects of it.

Some people believe it was a very romantic way of living - it was not on a very frosty morning - but we have a nostalgic view of it. Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell said we should have more people on the land and I mentioned that young people coming back into farming is crucial. However, we need to consider how farming families can realistically make a decent income from farming or from another enterprise on the farm. That is where it will go. The Senator said that without nature we are going nowhere, which is part of what we are talking about with agriculture policy now. We need to work with nature to get the most from it. Mechanisation and also other opportunities would have taken many people from the workforce.

Senator Quinn raised many issues and I am not sure if I have time, a Chathaoirligh, to deal with them.

We have a number of questions.

Ms Mairead McGuinness

Let me try to address some of them. On the DNA issue, we are doing that. I did not get to write down the full quote from Chancellor Merkel. Even in our 40 years in the European Union, I regard it as a work in progress as opposed to an end game. It depends on how one looks at it and how one engages with it. On deeper integration or whatever term the Senator used - a federal Europe - it is a very simple fact of whether people can work together. Can countries work together effectively? In that same breath, this question of the United Kingdom's decision has had its desired effect. I gather the British Conservative Party has increased its poll rating somewhat. Very often in politics, things happen for other reasons. Because I have listened to so much of this debate in the United Kingdom, we have to allow the United Kingdom to make up its own mind. However, it would be a strange European Union that every so often had a member state that had committed to doing certain things in free association with other colleagues and then afterwards decided it did not really mean that and wanted out. It is a very hard way to do business.

The most difficult words in Europe are "compromise" and "solidarity". Nobody likes to compromise but the only way to make progress anywhere, especially in the European Union, is through compromise. I found that difficult in the beginning because everybody thinks his or her ideas are the best. However, if one goes in with that attitude, one comes out with absolutely no progress. Chancellor Merkel's comments are in that frame and I do not see them as a threat. I believe Mr. Gay Mitchell mentioned last week that Ireland was much freer and independent now as part of the European Union than we were before we joined. I am not convinced that the United Kingdom will leave. I believe wiser counsel will prevail if and when there is a referendum and it will be an interesting one to follow.

In terms of crisis, there is a tendency for people and countries to go inwards and have this idea of being independent without ever thinking what difference it would make. Would it make any difference and would life be any better? That is always the question to ask. Very often it would not be better. There is a sense of insecurity that politics needs to address because that is why these things are happening. The same applies to the question on Iceland the Senator raised.

I mentioned my concern about EU legislation because people complain about it, but it is in its implementation. I have never understood why it is not possible for us to say that certain legislation does not work effectively or that we are implementing it with gold labelling on it and that we need to look at that and change it. We should be able to do it because we have the skills and knowledge to do it. I support the Senator's idea of having an audit, but it must be remembered that when we pass directives, the national parliaments legislate after that. A directive gives the general pointers and member states then introduce the legislation. Many countries have a light touch approach, which I do not favour, and others gold plate. Let us consider how forensic we had to be on the hamburgers. Let us consider the issues surrounding BSE. The amount of traceability and rules that needed to be introduced caused horror across the industry but the result was excellent. We all need effective regulation - not more or less, but effective regulation. We should try to rule out the ineffective and burdensome. However, in the food industry there is no room for anything but perfection, which is the bottom line.

There are quite a number of questions. With the time constraints, I will take five questions together, four of one minute each from Senators Wilson, O'Neill, Barrett and Hayden, and one of two minutes from Senator Reilly.

I will not take that amount of time. My colleague, Senator Mooney, tells me I should refer to Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, as "Deputy McGuinness". I did not know that until today. She is very welcome. It is refreshing to hear somebody who knows her brief inside out, and not only represents the farming community in Brussels so well but also lives the life at home. She alluded to the perceived dangers to rural development funding. What effect would the proposed reduction in the CAP have on the Leader programme, a programme that has been beneficial to rural areas, and especially to the part of the country from whence I come?

Ms McGuinness mentioned that the legislation on food labelling would be tightened, but not until December 2014. Why is there a two-year delay in tightening that legislation?

I welcome Deputy Mairead McGuinness or Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP. We all see her in the European Parliament as a sheriff on food safety and public health and I suppose "sheriff" would be something of a promotion. She dealt well with the horsemeat issue. I welcome the legislation on food labelling to come in on 31 December this year. On alternative enterprises, she mentioned getting younger people into farming. When I stayed at home, a farm was able to support two families. Now one needs vast amounts of land if one wants to try to support two families and that does not happen.

Ms McGuinness spoke about alternative enterprises. Interestingly, while coming up today I heard on the radio a lady interviewed on "Today with Pat Kenny" about chicken production in this country. There used be 11 processors; there are now three. It costs €7.60 to produce a chicken in Ireland and it costs €4.50 in the rest of Europe, especially eastern Europe where energy costs, feed costs and labour costs are much cheaper than ours. How can we compete? I was startled to hear that in Hungary and Ukraine, from which we import 80% of our chicken, they export chicken fillets, which is what we use, through Holland. That comes in as fresh chicken but it could be eight days before it gets to our shelves. We get a chicken from Thailand or Hungary, bacon from Denmark, cheese from Holland and breadcrumbs from the United States, and could call it "Chicken Cordon Blue" when it is made up and labelled as the produce of Ireland. Ms McGuinness stated that the new legislation is applicable to protein produce. As all of those products to which I refer are proteins, under the new legislation in 2013 how can one have a label listing five countries of origin? How will we overcome this?

I noted today that the farming section of the Irish Independent had a headline, "Farmers wary of daughters taking reins". How can we get over this?

I am surprised to hear Senator O'Neill express concern about that issue.

I am very worried about it.

I welcome Deputy McGuinness - it is difficult to get used to calling MEPs Deputies, but it is the first time I have heard that used. She has a terrific record in the media and on television and it is wonderful to see her here.

Are the subsidies capitalised in higher land prices and does that form a major obstacle to the young farmers who are trying to get into agriculture?

I welcome Deputy McGuinness and congratulate my colleague, Senator Bacik, on her excellent maiden speech on agriculture.

I thank Senator O'Keeffe for the briefing.

On food and food quality, a recent United Kingdom survey stated that the number of consumers who felt they were getting enough fruit and vegetables in their diet had fallen in the course of the recession, from 60% to 48%, and there was evidence that the recession is driving the race to the bottom in terms of consumers buying cheap processed food because the evidence is that it is more expensive to buy good food than to buy cheap food.

In my lifetime the role in Ireland of the large supermarkets, in particular that of the large international multiples, has been significant in driving out many small supermarkets and grocers. Does Ms McGuinness think the European Union does enough to promote direct access on the part of the consumer to food such as through supporting ventures such as farmers' markets where cheaper good quality fruit and vegetables can be made available to consumers?

Like previous Senators, I welcome Ms McGuinness to the House. Given that her contribution focused heavily on agriculture, what work she would do with her Six County MEP colleagues to achieve the best deal for Irish agriculture and the Irish agrifood industry throughout the island? Ms McGuinness spoke about food labelling, and substantial transformation holds that a product originates in the country where it last underwent a substantial working or processing resulting in the creation of a new and different article of commerce having a name, character or use different to its constituent materials. This terminology originates in the WTO and in EU legislation governing the EU custom code. It can only be amended at EU level. Has Ms McGuinness had any consultation with the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the national codex commission in Ireland on substantial transformation, given its importance particularly with regard to country of origin food labelling?

Ms McGuinness expressed concern about rural development funding and Senator Wilson mentioned the Leader programme. The European Court of Auditors report in 2010 on the Leader approach to rural development stated the potential added value of a partnership was not achieved in local action groups, LAGs, where decision-making was dominated by local authorities. It felt rules were required to ensure partnerships are not dominated by local authorities at project selection meetings. What is Ms McGuinness's opinion on the alignment proposals of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, and what they will mean for Leader programmes and rural development in Ireland, given that local development companies have expressed grave concerns about them?

It would be remiss of me not to ask about the promissory note deal and the rejection by the ECB of the Government's preferred option for the restructuring of the Anglo Irish Bank promissory notes. What is Ms McGuinness's opinion on this? How can we foster solidarity in a Europe of equals when the Irish people feel very hard done by with regard to the European banking institutions?

Ms Mairead McGuinness

How long do I have to reply?

We are due to finish at 4.15 p.m. and another five Members wish to contribute.

Ms Mairead McGuinness

I will try to be brief.

I ask Ms McGuinness to be as concise as she can, addressing the specifics.

Ms Mairead McGuinness

I apologise. Normally in the European Parliament we get one minute; I am, therefore, having a party here with the time extensions.

I suggest one minute per answer.

Ms Mairead McGuinness

Two Senators asked about rural development funding. I am concerned because there is a feeling we could cut rural development and hold direct payments. We are fighting on the grounds that in a two pillar CAP one must have an adequate budget for both pillars. I have heard recent soundings, as we approach the meeting of the Heads of State and Government in February, that are little better than earlier; perhaps, therefore, we might not be as concerned. Until I see the figures I remain determined to push for an adequate budget for both headings of the CAP. If any cuts were made to the Leader programme naturally everything in rural development would be affected. This would be a real shame because the Leader programme is very much a bottom up ground level initiative and has helped to establish businesses.

The point on food labelling ties in with something I said. Our way of making legislation takes time because it involves committees, plenary sessions, negotiations with Council, Commission proposals and then implementation in all member states. It can only be implemented on that date because of the legislative process. With regard to CAP reform we hope the Minister, Deputy Coveney, as president in Council will get an agreement by the end of June. We will not see implementation until 1 January 2015 because we will need time to make the changes.

Senator O'Neill raised a very interesting point about the number of people who used to be on farms.

We need to look back at how that was done and how it was that we could have a number of people living off a farm. In today's world, however, it is extremely difficult. I dare say that the trend in food prices over time has been the problem. Farmers will point out what they used to get for a sheep 20 or 30 years ago compared with now.

I heard the programme that Senator O'Neill mentioned and I am aware of the fact that so many chicken products are imported. This concerns the issue of authenticity and what is happening in the food supply chain. Food processors need to understand that for us to trust their products they must have a trusting relationship with all their suppliers. The idea of having blocks of frozen chicken or other meat and pressing a button to get the cheapest option is not appropriate in the food supply chain because we know of the practices that happen. We will have to ask the food industry to examine the matter to see if it is appropriate that this should occur. It must be remembered, however, that we are also a major food exporter. Therefore, we do not want to say that it is all about our food because we want others to enjoy the quality of food we produce. We want it to be exported to the United States, Europe or elsewhere; therefore, we need a food supply chain that does not have any weaknesses in it. With a commodity like chicken - Senators heard the report this morning - it certainly looks like that, as it now operates.

As regards young people in farming, in the Celtic tiger era everybody looked down on farming. There was no interest in it and people left the land. We had a great number of part-time farmers because the building trade helped and supported it. Money was invested in farms because there was a little more cash in hand. We now have a situation where younger people who like farming - people have to like it, rather than being forced into it - want to farm. There is an opportunity with the abolition of milk quotas, but it has to be about efficiency in farming as well, not just about having more cows. There are opportunities for young trained farmers to re-engage with the idea of productivity gain, which is referred to in the Treaty of Rome. We had perhaps forgotten about that idea in the switchover towards environmental concerns.

Senator Barrett asked whether subsidies were capitalised.

There are two minutes remaining.

Ms Mairead McGuinness

We are in a transition and need to watch this because I do not think that is sustainable or appropriate in terms of public money or policy. As we do not have any great experience other than Germany and the United Kingdom, we need to watch that. It could be something that will cause problems down the road.

As regards the recession and cheap processed foods, including fruit and vegetables, we have to understand value and quality, as opposed to price. People are tempted by a label that gives them a cheap price, but it is also about being aware of the intrinsic qualities of food.

The role of large multiples is hugely significant. They decide what we buy because if it is not on their shelves we do not see it. They have a huge impact on SMEs and access to shelf space. That area, to which I referred, needs a great deal more attention. Competition policy needs a little more forensic analysis on how it applies to the food supply chain.

As regards what the European Union is doing on direct access to food, there are loads of initiatives but we need to be realistic as well. Many people will not have time to go to farmers' markets. We use them but we will not get everything we want there. It is wonderful when they work and people can engage with them because they help food production. We should be able to visit the grocery and supermarket, however, and know what is in the products on their shelves. That is a key point.

Senator Reilly had a number of questions on co-operation with our colleagues from Northern Ireland. We meet regularly with them and with Ministers from both sides of the Border. There is very good co-operation between us.

We have to finish the debate.

Ms Mairead McGuinness

I apologise. On the promissory note, I have great faith in the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance. It is a work in progress and it will be delivered.

With the permission of the House, I seek to extend the time for five minutes to allow other questions to be answered.

As I know that Ms McGuinness is under time pressure herself, we should confine it to five minutes.

I ask that the questions be concise and the answers equally concise. I am not reflecting on either but this is to accommodate as many Members as possible.

I thank Ms McGuinness. I refer to the land issue, the manner in which it is held and land consolidation. One hundred years ago there was major reform in Ireland with regard to the work of the Land Commission. However, we have done nothing in respect of land consolidation as there are no incentives in this regard in real terms. Could this be incorporated and an incentive put in place under a European policy, which then could be brought in under Irish policy? I consider this to be a very important issue.

I welcome Ms McGuinness and I am very interested in the issue under discussion. While I hope to discuss it with Ms McGuinness at some other time, I wish to follow on, in particular, from the points made by Senator O'Neill and to elaborate further on them. I was horrified to think that in a pack of four chicken fillets from Tesco or any similar shop, each fillet could be from a different country. I find it horrific that if they are touched in Ireland in any way, they can be designated as Irish produce. As Ms McGuinness noted - this is the kernel of the issue - people must become more educated. One cannot, as a government or as a leader, tell people what they are going to eat. Moreover, while labelling might be present, people may not read it. However, one should be confident that if something claims to be Irish, it is Irish. I would be interested in learning how Members could legislate or put in place some sort of code of conduct for producers to emphasise that when people see something labelled as Irish, that is what they want and not something that is Turkish, Afghan or from all sorts of other origins.

Ms McGuinness is very welcome and I have two or three brief questions. On the issue of policy and legislation, it is the implementation and the interpretation or misinterpretation of that implementation that causes the problem when one actually gets to the bottom. That is the "Yes Minister" analogy. I have three brief questions in respect the removal of milk quotas in 2015. What role will Kerry Group's research and development facility play? What of the added value food production opportunities that probably are wrapped around that? How should the Irish agrifood community access that market from then onwards and are there opportunities?

I join in the welcome extended to Ms McGuinness and thank her for an inspiring address. As the milk quota issue has been addressed, I will confine my question to a topical issue. From what Ms McGuinness is hearing in Europe, has long-term damage being done to the Irish food industry? As a country, what must we do to rebuild the fine reputation we had built up during the years? Does Ms McGuinness discern much long-term damage? As for the issue of the availability of land, is anything happening in Europe to incentivise older farmers to pass matters onto the next generation or to lease on a long-term basis? I met representatives of Macra na Feirme recently and they are most concerned about that issue.

Ms Mairead McGuinness

I will open on that point pertaining to inheritance, land and women. There will be more female farmers because of smaller family sizes and choice. Women are farming now. However, they are not quite as visible as they need to be. It is akin to politics in that if one sees women in politics, it encourages young women to look at politics but if they are not there, it is just part of the parcel. However, on issues regarding land, I always say that where there is a will, there always is a relative, especially around land. Nothing has diminished in terms of the Irish attachment to and sentiment for land.

We still love it.

Ms Mairead McGuinness

It is very deep and it is deepening because so many other things are uncertain. This is a real difficulty in respect of getting the best and most from the land. As it is in private ownership, one must consider initiatives. They must be from member states rather than European because there are different land structures. There are some very useful initiatives in place for long-term leasing and tax concessions are available. Perhaps there is not enough information on or awareness of this. The uncertainty concerning the single farm payment is preventing any progress in this area. I am glad the Senator has been speaking to Macra na Feirme and Iwe will see some movements to try to free up the land market. However, it is a very sensitive point, albeit an important one for the future of agriculture.

Senator Noone made the point very well about what could happen and what could be contained within a product.

Even with the best of knowledge, a customer can be misled. Labelling is only as good as the checks we carry out. There must be a sustainable and trusting relationship between farmers, processors and retailers in the food industry. That is how we will secure safe, quality food. We do not have that and until we develop these systems fully we will find problems and we will need the forensic scientists of the FSAI under Alan Reilly to carry out spot checks. We have led the way in this field.

Senator Mulcahy asked about milk quotas. When they go, we must find new markets. There will be a demand for dairy produce and any research and development that finds new product lines will help Irish farmers. Dairy expansion is possible and farmers themselves, as a result of the banking crisis, will be more cautious. It is hard to find money for expansion. They will be more cautious about how they expand, looking at efficiency factors and attracting new people into the dairy sector. Other member states, however, want to hold on to quota. It is a heated debate in the European Parliament still, even though the quotas are set to go in 2015 and Ireland supports that position.

Senator Mullins asked about long-term damage. Truthfully, there was very little reaction to the issue in the European Parliament because horsemeat is consumed in Europe. The reaction was one of surprise that we had such good forensic science when it comes to checking and the need to expand that to the rest of the European Union. We have shown leadership on this issue, but in a year or so we must debate the issue to see what the response was. We do not have all the information from the source of the horse meat and we do not know why and how it got into a beefburger.

On behalf of all sides of the House, I convey our appreciation to Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, for coming to the House, her comprehensive presentation and the concise and detailed responses she gave. All sides of the House will agree that this has been an enlightening experience.

Barr
Roinn