Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy:

I will start with the last question first. Deputy Coffey spoke about setting targets and being careful. He answered the question in the conundrum he posed. I fully understand that when companies set targets they can be impeded in their achievement of a target by a critical policy in another area that is not aligned to the main initiative. That is the point I am trying to make about setting targets without an overarching vision that is set at the top, having consulted widely with the various vested interests and deciding where the country is going, and cascading it down into every area of policy in the country - industrial policy, transport policy, spatial policy, water policy, energy policy and planning policy - one will come up against more conflicts.

In the absence of a vision for the future, targets are fine but will not achieve very much because one will wind up with more problems. One must set one’s vision first, set out one’s stall and cascade it into each Department. We often hear Ministers say that the role of Government is to set the overall national policy and strategy framework within which companies such as ours can operate. If the policies are not properly enforced or not properly aligned, then one will wind up with more not less of those situations. That is what upsets companies such as ours.

We should absolutely have incentives. Reference was made to anaerobic digestion. One must devise a vision and strategy and cascade it out into each of the policies and then one will incentivise what one wants to make happen. Of course there are conundrums. I am sure incentives are currently in place that conflict with policies that are being pursued in other areas.

On many occasions I have been in the privileged position of trying to develop a new economy for the midlands, for instance. The first thing one does is try to have an informed debate, an appreciative inquiry - whatever one wants to call it - with all of the key stakeholders, in particular companies – small, medium and large, foreign and national – because that is what pays for everything through taxes, employment and so forth. We had an informed discussion about the strengths of the midlands, the unique leverageable strengths in a world where we are going to lower carbon and introduce more sustainable practices. That has given rise to a debate about how we leverage those key strengths in terms of renewable energy in water management and so forth. That puts a focus then on the approach.

That is the type of debate we must have nationally. We must examine what we are good at, disproportionately, that other nations are not. What assets do we have that other nations would love to have but do not have? There is a prime example in an era of extreme global water stress. Of course we do not have in situ a method to tap into that but at least we have the rain which comes down on top of us. Thanks be to God we are getting a bit of respite now. Water is one resource. Renewable energy is another and there are more. Our climate and rainfall give us a disproportionate advantage for instance in our food and agriculture business. That is the reason for our success. It is not that our tractors go any faster than French tractors. It is because we have a climate that provides a rich sustenance that we feed our cattle which gives us a thriving beef industry. That is, relatively speaking, a low carbon industry because we are competing with nations that have to import all their feed. One must set the vision and the strategy and then one can talk about targets.