Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that this is the situation, which would defeat the argument Ms Burke has made. From listening to Professor FitzGerald in particular, the communication strategy on this is essential. We are creating a rural-urban divide, which I can see increasing. The agricultural sector is our largest indigenous industry and it gives employment to approximately 300,000 people. Professor FitzGerald suggested that a carbon tax is the only way forward. There has to be a balance between the carrot and the stick and we have to get that balance right.

If there is more of one than the other, there will be serious difficulties.

Professor FitzGerald mentioned the forestry issue as well as suckler farmers in, for example, the west. Ireland is a small but diverse country, and some parts of it are able to do some things better than others. There has been much talk in recent weeks, particularly last week, of the demise of rural Ireland. We are closing post offices, there are no school buses for kids, etc. That line is rattled out day in and day out. If we were to have a carbon tax and eliminate an entire sector of agriculture, for example, the suckler sector, it would put the final nail in rural Ireland's coffin. As Senator Mulherin mentioned, there is a substantial number of suckler farmers in the west compared with the east. If we apply a significant carbon tax on them without analysing the potential consequences, then instead of looking out her window at trees, Senator Mulherin will only see a barren place in the years to come.

I was delighted to chair the committee that launched a report on the forestry issue. We put a great deal of effort into our report. This committee should analyse that report from the point of view of agriculture. It contains some good elements. Even though the agriculture sector has made many good changes, there is undoubtedly much more to do. The sector, particularly the farming organisations, realise and accept that.

Turning back to the suckler industry, one of the main initiatives of recent years has been the beef data genomics scheme. It was the first such scheme in Europe, and it may have beneficial consequences for the future that even many farmers do not realise.

We must be careful that the communication strategy is right going forward and that there is a balance between carrot and stick. It is important that we not encourage the urban-rural divide that seems to be developing and is not good for our country and society in general.

Forestry has a large part to play and its incentivisation has to be key. Since the abolition of milk quotas in recent years, we have seen the development of more large dairy farms in the east and south particularly. What about having an incentive for intensive farmers to grow a certain number of trees? One of the witnesses might be able to enlighten me about something I heard. If every farmer in the country grew 50 more trees, it would solve many of our problems. The witnesses might correct me if I am wrong, but I heard that figure cited somewhere. I might not be 100% right. It would not solve all of the problems for the agriculture sector, but it would be helpful. Incentivisation of the forestry sector in areas where there is intensive livestock farming could be beneficial.

Much could be done in the tillage sector. While working on our report, we received a presentation from the BASE Ireland farmers' group. It discussed how tillage farming could be done without using extra amounts of fertiliser or chemicals or having to plough the land using extra machinery. In its presentation, it showed that, financially speaking, an extra livestock unit or man hour could be saved in this way. We would be reeling in the years to what was done previously. This would not be reinventing the wheel, but doing the work more efficiently.

The agriculture sector has a large part to play, and it should not be forgotten that it has done much already.