Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will keep within my ten minutes. First I thank all the witnesses for coming in. They are our guests and I want to set that as the frame. We do our business in a constructive, respectful and engaging way. Clearly the witnesses are up for it. They have been robust in their responses so far.

I will put a few questions to them. I speak on behalf of farmers who put them to me. I am a conduit for the purpose of putting these questions to the ICBF. I will kick off. ICBF fundamentally changed the rules of the suckler cow efficiency programme, SCEP, after farmers signed the contract in good faith.

I am going to list the changes, after which I would like a sharp, concise response. It has been stated that the ICBF changed the star rating of calves mid-pregnancy, the star rating after breeding bulls were purchased for next year’s breeding season, the material indexes of the many suckler farms, rendering them incapable of breeding replacements, and the star ratings highlighting the inaccuracies of the past evaluations. It is said that the changes the ICBF has made are so dramatic that any future trust in the scheme will be tarnished, if not broken. That is a terrible thing to have to say. Can the ICBF provide the number of suckler farmers who, if current ratings remain unchanged, will have difficulty complying with the scheme?

I wish to make a few more points before listening to the responses. The Irish Simmental Cattle Society has called for the suspension of the ICBF and the changes, to protect the suckler sector. That is important. An article in The Connacht Tribunestates these kinds of midstream changes in the index ratings of cows and bulls have put many farmers in the SCEP in real trouble, and that it seems the ICBF is a totally anti-suckler and anti-pedigree cattle society. Councillor Geraldine Donohue, from Gort, states people are angry and outraged over what has happened. While we will listen to the witnesses’ responses today, we want them to commit. What are they going to do about this? How will the ICBF reverse its decision?

I will ask a final question and then hear the responses. Several colleagues have talked about the validity of the research, the technical solutions and the accuracy of the model used. While it is early days, the ICBF has not yet convinced us of the accuracy of the model it is using. The agenda is built around environmental initiatives, which we all respect. While farmers have a huge role to play in environmental initiatives, who was driving all this? Who is driving all that the ICBF is about? That is the concern. Who recommended the changes? More important, who approved them? Is everyone acting in unison or is there some division within the ICBF’s ranks? They might share that with us. Farmers across the spectrum are deeply angry, frustrated and hurt over what has happened. The lack of engagement and the way the ICBF has conducted itself are part of that. There is another way. It is through partnership, negotiation and discussion. The agri-sector is fragmented enough as it is, so we need some unity and a response, but a response that takes on board the genuine challenges we have put to the witnesses so far and that will continue to be put to them today. Are they up for change and watering the programme down? Are they up for rowing back on the vision and plan they want to pursue, for which there is no broad support within the agriculture community?