Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP:

I have not lost my journalistic past. I have taken copious notes, regardless of whether I get to answer all of the interesting points. I will try. I may group them where appropriate.

Senator Mooney raised a number of questions about the key point of the active farmer. I will discuss greening and the idea of active farming. We are concerned that some payments go to farmers who are not producing, that is, they are not active farmers, yet the system is so designed that avoiding such a situation is difficult. There are some cases of large landowners in Scotland who, despite not actively farming, receive significant payments for their large tracts of land. A key issue - we voted last week - is to try to agree a definition of an active farmer so that money goes to those who actually work the land.

I will make a strong point to farmers and those Senators who know the agricultural community. I am concerned about what is happening to the Irish land market, in that there is virtually none. Little land is selling, given the uncertainties about CAP reform.

A massive amount of land is leased, sometimes on short 11-month systems, and some farmers are not farming now but are thinking of doing so because of the changes in the system. I am receiving calls from farmers who are asking what they should do. I have told them and will say again in this public forum that they should not gamble with money they do not have and they should resist the temptation to take the income support payments from the Common Agricultural Policy and hand them to the land owner. That is a real problem with the system, which is to move to a flat rate payment per hectare. It will capitalise the value of those payments into land prices and rent, and in many cases it will almost solidify the land market, and the direction of the policy is a real worry.

We want active farmers to get the money but member states had the capacity to target money at active farmers. For example, one member state did not allow airports to claim money as they could have done. We are arguing that there should be a negative list of various types of companies that do not use land for farming and which should not get the payments. If a budget is under pressure, we must ensure that the funding goes to rural communities and farmers.

We have the same agenda as the Seanad with regard to active farmers. There was particular mention of livestock farming and there is a real concern - evident in Ireland with decoupled payments - that we are losing livestock numbers. France is concerned about holding on to its livestock sector as there are territorial balance issues and we want farming across the regions. It kept coupled payments and there are proposals in the current reforms to allow member states to recouple some payments where there are vulnerable sectors in vulnerable regions. As Senators have indicated, perhaps in some regions we may be able to recouple payments so that livestock farmers can get some support.

There is a bigger question of the change in direction and who will benefit from the Common Agricultural Policy. There has been much public debate in this regard. When we move from decoupled payments to a flat rate payment, there will be difficulties across the ditch between neighbours. We should be frank about the issue. If we lived in a time when we could distribute additional money to farming, there would not be a problem but we are talking about two issues. New member states want more support from CAP but the budget is limited. Money will move to the east. Within member states there is also a need and policy direction to redistribute. My message has always been that we must work a new system in a way that does not disrupt production.

With regard to the German reaction to the greening proposals, it seems Dr. Merkel, the German leader, does not like the idea of a 7% ecological focus area. What has gone wrong with the farm research and advisory systems over the years, as we have not engaged with both the environment and production frameworks in dealing with farmers? One cannot farm if the environment is not good and one issue goes with the other. We are almost trying to stitch in environmental awareness by linking it to direct payments but most farmers know that one needs good soil and water to produce food in a sustainable manner. The German reaction, which is replicated in the Parliament, is interesting and it is against the proposals.

There has been some very interesting research in the UK, where there have been programmes for biodiversity strips, and I am a fan. There is one on our farm. If nature is given a place it will flourish, and there will also be benefit to the crops and a return for looking after nature. The issues are not incompatible and we will come up with something to give a greening to the Common Agricultural Policy that is supportive of farming rather than going against it.

With regard to the general budget, including Structural Funds and rural development, there is a concern that cuts could come in rural development funding. There have been some slightly more positive soundings recently and we will know more when the next meeting of the Heads of State and Government convenes. Rural development funding is targeted and important for this region and others, particularly in the support of farming families and the economy. Small cuts will have an impact and we must be careful on a global level of how we manage the issue.

I thank all Senators for their kind remarks. Senator Comiskey spoke of the general history of the policy.

We are examining obesity issues as the Union has come full circle from producing for need to considering public health issues and the nutritional value of foods. There is a notion that everything should be labelled in order that people can instantly read about the nutritional value but my view is people should instinctively know food and that knowledge should not be taken away by saying the label will tell them everything. People need to reconnect with food. This is happening, with more people growing their own food and asking questions about food. This will come. With regard to the frozen beef burger saga, the worry is that, morally and ethically, people are buying cheaper products for children who need better sustenance. A beef burger should contain beef and people should make their own but perhaps they do not have that intrinsic knowledge. I am a great believer in giving people the capacity to know and understand. The Senator's contribution was important in that regard.

I applaud Senator Bacik on her maiden speech on agriculture issues, as she was well briefed. Her point is well made about the legislative process in Europe. It is extremely complex and it is a fundamental problem that people feel a disconnect about this. On the other hand, before I entered politics, I did not understand or care about how the Seanad or the Dáil worked. Sometimes we need to tell people how something works in order that they can understand it without getting into the nitty gritty. We amend, we sign off and we vote. We then walk away and the legislation is left with officials. There is little scrutiny of, or follow through on, implementation until there is a problem, which is a serious failure of the legislative process. Every document that is drafted requires several others to be drafted to interpret it and so on. Those who initially had a good idea and drafted the legislation find it gets skewed somewhere between signing off and implementation. The European Parliament and all other legislatures fail in that regard. We do not connect enough with the consequences of what we do. I have discussed this with colleagues and it is something we need to examine to see whether we can do this a little better.

On the "Where is the beef?" issue, Ireland has shown leadership and I have brought this message to the Parliament. Other food safety authorities will do forensic work and there will be an outcome to that. At least, we took action first and we were open and transparent with the information. I am confident there will be EU action. Commissioner Borg's swiftness in coming back to me gives me that encouragement. The authenticity of food is key. Mention was made of all the various labels. One of my children is fond of chocolates and sweets. One would imagine low fat was the Holy Grail of all foods. Cabbage could be labelled low fat but it is not in that category. The issue is consumer understanding of food. I would hate to think that Ireland could become the nanny state of labelling. A combination of consumer awareness and good labelling is needed. A great deal of work is going on in the area of health claims to remove spurious claims where manufacturers have to prove whatever it says on the tin. The new rules on the provision of food information to consumers will be in place on 31 December this year. That is detailed legislation, on which I can send Members information if they are interested.

I was taken by Senator Bacik's comments on fairness and production under the CAP. Many small farmers are productive and a large farmer is not necessarily more productive. Sometimes the language relating to agriculture is confusing because of that. There is a debate about the distribution of payments but we must acknowledge that the current payments system is reflective of past production levels and that many farms have retained that level of production. If there is a sudden shift in the amount they received overnight, there would be consequences not just for farmers but for the processing sector.

The member states that have moved to a flat rate regionalised payment, such as England and Germany, will have completed the process next year. They did it over a ten-year period, having started the discussion in 2003 and commenced implementing it a few years later. There was war within each of those countries but it has happened and it has been a lengthy process. Germany used national supports for bio-energy to somehow mitigate the consequences. What I think will emerge at the end of all the processes is that those on very high payments per hectare will take a reduction and those on low payments will see a payment increase. I remind Senators that this is a Common Agricultural Policy which has many objectives, including sustainable food production, territorial balance and environment. It is not simply about scattering the money as far as it will go and we need to be conscious of that when we debate it because there are many other issues, including the animal welfare question which is a huge issue for farmers.

Sometimes animal welfare problems emerge on farms where there are human welfare problems and mental health issues. I spoke to Department inspectors about this issue and to their credit they work in a sensitive way but often there are other problems. All farmers who are well want their animals to do well and they look after them. Given the recent weather patterns, there is a need to be conscious of that issue on vulnerable farmers.

The concern across the European Union in regard to land abandonment is very real. In regard to young farmers, there is a real problem. I mentioned that there is very little movement on land at present. We have a low number of young farmers but there are many farmers in agricultural colleges which is very encouraging. I commend a report published last week, commissioned by Macra na Feirme, which refers to the need to get land into the hands of young people who are interested in farming. That can be done by encouraging older farmers to think of semi-retirement. We need to ask about the payments system as it currently operates as it probably works against land mobility given that people need land to get the payment. That is a disincentive to young farmers and it may also be a slight draw on our intentions to expand production. Given that farm productivity across the European Union is declining, we need to re-engage on the issue of sustainable intensification and get back to good research being communicated to farmers to ensure greater efficiency. Part of the EU 2020 strategy is to encourage better resource use. There are opportunities and rather than think of more, we ought to think about doing it better because of the cost of production arising on farms.

Farmers are wise enough not to want 200 cows if there is less return but rather to get more out of 100 cows by working more efficiently. There are many interesting challenges in this area. If we can get new people into the system with new ideas there is an exciting period ahead. However, the trouble is that there are uncertain times ahead for the next year or so. In a sense that cripples decision making. I regret that is happening as farmers are keen to chart a way forward. We see the end of milk quotas as an opportunity to get new farmers into the dairy system.

General questions were raised on public health which is real issue. There is no doubt that nutrition and health are key issues. Every time I open a newspaper there is a different piece of health advice. As people do not know where to turn perhaps that is an issue for another day.

On the issue of women representation in the European Parliament we are fairly well represented. There was a radical idea in regard to gender balance on boards of public companies which was watered down a little but the conclusion is that where there is a better gender balance it helps the boards to function and companies profit from it. Many public companies are moving in that direction.

I remember my childhood on farms and perhaps some Members also gathered potatoes by hand. Many bodies were needed as there were not many machines. Agriculture has been mechanised a great deal and the drudgery has been taken out of some aspects of it.

Some people believe it was a very romantic way of living - it was not on a very frosty morning - but we have a nostalgic view of it. The Senator said we should have more people on the land and I mentioned that young people coming back into farming is crucial. However, we need to consider how farming families can realistically make a decent income from farming or from another enterprise on the farm. I believe that is where it will go. The Senator said that without nature we are going nowhere, which is part of what we are talking about with agriculture policy now. We need to work with nature to get the most from it. Mechanisation and also other opportunities would have taken many people from the workforce.

Senator Quinn had many issues and I am not sure if I have time, a Chathaoirligh.