Mr. James Healy:

I might answer the Deputy's first question and then get some clarification on the second. Regarding the Common Agricultural Policy, the eco schemes related to the greening element of the payment are not very applicable to this country. We would say there should be an advancement on the requirements within that element of the payment, but it needs to go down the road of being results-based rather than being a list of actions that a farmer needs to take. Taking this from the point of view of climate action, we are the only country in the world that records carbon footprint on a farm-by-farm basis, which gives us a great starting point to show the improvement that can be made on individual farms. If one tracks the initiatives being led in the IFA smart farming project that it does in conjunction with the EPA, it shows that major improvements can be made on farms. From a Macra na Feirme point of view, therefore, whatever the scheme might be, it needs to be results-based and more targeted on the results we want to achieve.

To respond to the Deputy's second question, he referred to carbon tax. That is just the carbon tax that is currently there. As I mentioned, we need to support people to make the changes that need to be made in whatever section, be it residential or industry. We need to ensure we do not prevent people from making the changes that need to be made to improve our greenhouse gas emissions. From a farming point of view, this means a big carrot and a small stick, rather than a big stick and a small carrot. When the Deputy mentions residential and rural communities, the same applies. If we are to increase carbon taxes, we need to provide incentives. This may go down the route of advice. I know there was a lot of discussion on the last panel about communication with society. More being put back into helping people to take the right steps and move in the right direction can only be seen as positive.