Mr. Cormac Healy:

I will start with the question on the live trade. I am not the biggest fan of the live trade but it is there as part of trade. If it is part of trade without particular support in one direction or the other we cannot have an issue with it. However, I will make the following points. There is a myth that they are needed to ensure competition in the market. All I would say is that during the past decade supports have been available in varying degrees, sometimes high, sometimes low. The more recent developments in third countries, which in the past would have seen very substantial numbers, have been non-existent in recent years. The price of Irish cattle to the farmer has increased by about 70% in the past decade. That increase has been driven primarily by the marketing of Irish beef, not of live animals.

I answered a question in regard to the live trade. We did not come here today to say we have to stop the live trade; that is not our agenda. If it part of fair trade, so be it. The processing industry is the one with the investment and the roots on the ground. In the past we have witnessed episodes where trade conditions changed, or there were particular disease issues and where global food bans have arisen the live trade can disappear overnight. We are here for the long haul with the investment and the jobs on the ground. Every 60,000 or 70,000 head of cattle that leave Ireland unprocessed, which would be typical of the throughput of one of our processing plants, means a loss of approximately 300 jobs.

The Deputy asked if there is a lingering impact following the horsemeat saga. I would like to think not. While Ireland was at the centre of the storm for the initial period, it soon became evident that this was a pan-European issue. In terms of the Minister's report and all the coverage of the fraud - which is what it was - the inclusion of horsemeat was not found to have initiated in Ireland. It was limited to a segment of the market. It is important to point out that of about €1.9 billion worth of beef exports, which is a significant value amount for exports, between 5% and 10% is in the frozen category, and s subset of that is the frozen economy category which appeared to be affected. The problem did not move to the fresh side of the business and, therefore, it is untouched by the issue. Things will have changed. DNA monitoring is part of the scene for the future but it had been in place in some areas for some time. It is the case that there will be a focus in the frozen manufacturing business on a tightening in the supply chain. It is clear from some of the examples documented that many links in the chain were not required and there will be a tightening in the supply chain.

On the issue of the CAP, in addition to the market value generated from Irish farms, the beef sector is the prime one in this discussion. A further €0.85 billion in direct payments from Brussels is paid to beef enterprises, beef farms, throughout Ireland. From that we are developing exports to the tune of €1.9 billion. It is important to retain as much of that as possible in the sector and we want it to go to active producers. It is clear from my information, and from speaking to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine which has done the analysis, that by and large those who have the higher levels of single farm payment were those who have continued to invest and drive output, therefore, I would like to see a continuation of that payment. The figures I mentioned for on-farm productivity gain are encouraging; the latent capacity to increase gross margin per hectare in beef enterprises will help us in the future. I would not like to see any significant redistribution purely for the sake of redistributing. It should go to active producers who support output which in turn supports jobs, value added and exports.

The final point I would make on the CAP which is significant is the coupling of payments in the suckler herd. It is the bedrock of the major export of beef. Since the last reform of CAP, five or six member states which have suckler herds have, by and large, retained some form of coupling. We see that as significant for the future. We should not be afraid to speak about coupling in the context of WTO or those who say we cannot link support to output. I make no apology for saying that we need to link support to output, drive output and drive job creation.

It is also unfair that there are proposals on the table that lock some member states in to an ability to couple 7% of their overall budget whereas other member states can go to 12%.