I have a certain amount of sympathy for the Minister of State. Clearly, the senior Minister could not be bothered to be here to participate in this debate, despite having had three weeks' notice. Not only did he send the Minister of State in but he sent him in to deliver a speech that completely misses the point, as does the Government's amendment. The amendment states that the objectives of the Bill have been comprehensively addressed and then refers to policy frameworks, Food Vision 2030, the CAP strategic plan and ongoing work arising from the commission on generational renewal in farming. I will come to the CAP strategic plan and generational renewal in a moment. Food Vision 2030, just like Food Wise 2025 before it, is not actually a plan for farmers; it is a plan for food production, and that is why I say that the Government continuously misses the point and why we have statistics such as those outlined by Deputy Fitzmaurice. The drive has been towards food production rather than supporting family farmers, and that is what is at the core of the Bill before us. There is a difference between the two. Food can be produced by conglomerates. It can be and is being produced by the largest corporations in the world. This is a societal choice. Do we want our food produced by conglomerates and the largest corporations in the world or by family farmers? Why would we want a future for the family farm model? When so many of our policies are being formulated at EU level, we have to recognise the implications for the family farm model. When most Irish people think about farming, they think of the family farm model. That is the model they understand because it is predominant in most of our communities. However, it is not the model that is predominant across Europe because Europe has largely moved towards a corporate form of farming and food production, just as North America did beforehand. What is the difference between food produced by corporations and food produced by family farmers? First, the latter is of better quality and, I would argue, much more sustainable. The food densities and intensities are much more sustainable environmentally and in terms of biodiversity and every other measure. Also, food produced by family farmers has an added benefit for society and communities. When we are talking about the network of family farms in Ireland, we are talking about the nearest thing many towns, villages and entire regions have to an industry. It is the network of family farms that sustains towns, villages, GAA clubs and community life in general. A point completely missed in both the Government amendment and the Minister of State's contribution is that the family farm is under threat. How do we know that? The numbers tell us. The number of farmers in this State has been reducing every single decade at a rate I consider alarming, as have the numbers of cows and sheep on family farms. The number of young people coming into farming on an ongoing basis is declining to such a point that I would now argue it is at crisis point. I hear people talking about the need to encourage young people into farming. You do not need to encourage them. Everywhere I go, I meet young people who are mad about farming and want nothing more than to go into it. They love the farm, they love the land, they love the work and they love their tractors. They love everything about it but cannot see a future in it for themselves. Therein lies the problem and the need for this Bill. The idea of the commission on the family farm came about on foot of work that a number of us in Sinn Féin had been involved in for a number of years. Included were Deputies Kenny and Kerrane, myself as an MEP at the time and others who had an interest. We were talking to farmers about what they actually needed to secure the future of family farming and how the Government could create a framework. What they said was simple but telling. They said they needed to be heard and that their voices needed to be at the centre of decisions made. As has been happening for decades, when decisions are made, farmers, who have to respond, are portrayed as backward for not accepting things foisted upon them. They end up trying to make the best of matters and to have some changes made. A Minister or backbench Government TD will say they secured the change but the manner in which decisions are made in the first place is where the problem lies. At the heart of a commission on the family farm, family farmers' voices must be central. They have the answers. Bearing in mind all of the regressions we have seen in terms of numbers, the fact that Ireland still has a family farm network is not thanks to Government policy and certainly not thanks to the CAP. It is because of the determination of family farmers to stay on the land. They have the answers and want to be heard. The commission is about ensuring farmers are at the centre of deciding how we map out a future for Irish family farming, not just so they can survive and live on their farms but so they can thrive and afford to us all the benefits we know of in terms of delivery. Why is that important? I have often used the phrase the 3 Fs. These are what farmers need. They need fair prices on an ongoing basis. Prices are fairly decent at the minute but we know there is considerable volatility and that as soon as there is any shock to the market, it is farmers who will take the hit. The retailers will hold on to their profit margins, as will the processors and factories. Farmers will get screwed time and again because the Government has not set a framework to protect them, and the food regulator has not got the teeth even to start the work that is necessary. Farmers need a fair CAP. Every single year, farmers are being asked to do much more. They are asked that by us as a society. European farmers, including Irish farmers, have the highest regulatory, animal welfare, environmental and biodiversity standards in the world. That is the service they are providing to society, and we are paying them less than ever before to provide that service. The current CAP is, in real terms, a significant reduction for Irish farmers on the previous CAP, yet we have a Government that insists that black is white. It keeps telling farmers they are getting paid more now than they were in the previous CAP. Now we have an existential threat to the next CAP in terms of potentially a 25% reduction. The premise is simple. If we and the Government want farmers to do more, we pay them more, in the same way as we would pay anybody else providing us with a service more if they are giving us more. The final thing farmers need is fair play. They need fair play as to how the Department deals with them. Farmers should never look at the Department of agriculture as the enemy or as hostile. Certainly, the Department should never look at farmers as the enemy. All too often, however, that is the culture that prevails. If we are talking about environmental standards and Irish farmers, we cannot then nod through, which is what Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael essentially did, a Mercosur trade deal that sees the potential for hundreds of thousands of additional beef and other meat products coming into the EU at the expense of rainforests and then point the finger at Irish farmers and talk about reducing herd numbers and all the rest of it. The biggest hypocrisy of all this was the week before the vote on the Mercosur trade agreement, when I saw Eamon Ryan, someone who had spent five years in this Chamber lecturing Irish family farmers, writing an op-ed endorsing the deal. That said it all, as far as I was concerned. That type of hypocrisy needs to end because farmers need fair play. This amendment is a joke, frankly. To suggest that the Government is doing what this says is completely disingenuous because the Government is not doing what lies at the heart of what an actual commission on family farming would do, namely, listen to farmers and find real solutions to ensure the model we should all be so proud of, the family farm model, is maintained into the future for young men and women all over this country. They want nothing more than to be able to farm their land, their father's land, their grandfather's land, or even new land that comes into the family. That is what they want, and they want a vehicle to be able to see a future in that. That is what this commission is about. The Government's amendment basically says, "This is as good as it gets". That is not acceptable, as far as I am concerned.

Sentiment score: 0.08