Fiona O'Malley (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe. I am always glad to have an opportunity to discuss the Common Agricultural Policy, particularly as someone who does not have the same vested interest as someone who has a direct interest in agriculture. However, as an Irish person, I have an interest in one of our most important indigenous industries and, more importantly, in how it will be developed.

The last speaker referred to the Commissioner stating he was not interested in maintaining the status quo, an interesting remark which is to be welcomed. Senator Bradford spoke about how the CAP was probably the single most successful initiative to be undertaken by the European Union in terms of food security and related issues. I am sure the Senator has looked at this issue in depth and it is remarkable that a policy has been so phenomenally successful.

I was also interested in what Senator Ellis had to say, namely, that the CAP had been hugely successful for some. I know it has modernised Irish agriculture in the years since we joined the European Union.

However, in many instances rich farmers received more money, while poor farmers were not left exactly thriving. That is what interests me about the review of the CAP. Who will get the money? It is important to find out who will benefit from a revised CAP. I am not very familiar with the language used, but I assume that when people talk about active farmers, they are referring to individuals who are farming themselves, not running a large-scale business. However, even in that regard, there is a contradiction.

The Minister spoke about how he had brought the Commissioner to visit a farm and Senator Carty said he was pleased that the Commissioner had the opportunity to see an Irish farm because our system of farming was essentially based on the family farm. There is a small challenge involved in this instance. I prefer to use the word "challenge", rather than "contradiction", because I do not wish to say something is negative. The Minister has spoken about what is really important and said the future of agriculture in Ireland is competitiveness, on which everybody is agreed. Given that there is one common policy, I assume the Minister is referring to how European agricultural policy operates in the international context. It must be competitive, yet our system, as acknowledged by other speakers who are more familiar with these matters than me, is based on the family farm structure which is inherently uncompetitive. It is a smaller operation. There is a challenge in that regard which the Minister must face. Senator Ellis put the matter well when he asked if we were considering food security or the production of cheap food. Regardless, we cannot ignore the issue of competitiveness. It must be the byword in a small economy such as Ireland's which is so export focused. We must be competitive, but I accept that it will be more of a challenge in the context of our family farm structure.

The Common Agricultural Policy as it applies to Ireland is not just about food production but also about rural livelihoods, the issue of sustainability and the challenge agriculture poses in terms of climate change, an issue in which the Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, would have an interest. We are making a good deal of progress in that regard, but it is something we must bear in mind. The Common Agricultural Policy is about rural development and how we sustain economies, particularly in local, peripheral and marginalised communities. These are places in which there are no great alternative employment opportunities; working the land is the one way in which people can provide for themselves.

It is good to have a debate in the House. I get the impression that the Minister is on top of his brief. I get that impression as somebody who is not deeply involved in the agricultural sphere, although I take an interest in it. I listened to him during the summer when he attended his local show, the Virginia Show. I am sorry I did not know it was on because I would have liked to attend it. I will make a point of going next year. I think he is very impressive on what he is doing for the sector, his vision for developing the agri-food business and recognising the cachet Ireland has in the industry. Others have spoken about how we are excluded from putting our best foot forward in so far as we are precluded from identifying a product as Irish, which is a hindrance. We must examine how we should seek to change this. I believe the Minister is very keen on expanding and modernising the agriculture sector.

Senator Bradford has spoken about the image we have of the CAP and said the main problem with the policy is that it needs a good public relations team to sell it well. I agree. Far too many who are not directly involved with the sector see the policy in a negative light. I will not repeat the negatives Senator Bradford outlined because repetition gives them perpetual life. It is necessary to convey a clearer message about what is good in the CAP and outline the facts about agricultural expenditure in the European Union. It would be very beneficial for engaging people who are not directly involved in the sector on the importance of using our country to best effect in developing what we are good at in the sector, for example, beef production, and letting us do it.

Although the Minister engaged directly with one of the previous speakers when she sought clarification on one of the issues in the leak today, it is a little disappointing that there is not more toing and froing in the debate. This is only a criticism of the system we use in the House. It is important to have some dialogue, particularly for Members who are not representatives of the agriculture sector, and to give them an opportunity to have an input into what is happening as regards such an important element of industrial policy in this country.