Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

At least we changed. Meath could have had an opportunity to intervene at half time, in the way our manager did, and to make a few changes. My view is that everyone goes to the politicians to sort out issues, but people are sitting on boards. Was there a silence or did they have an opportunity to make their input, which they should have done? A board is not there to be dictated to. It is there to reach consensus based on erudite and informed contributions, which I am sure the farm organisations had. They certainly made plenty of noise outside. I wish to know whether they were making the noise inside. I am always very interested in that. That is my way of life. I am concerned about 60% genotyping.

We had a big list of issues, some of which would not involve the witnesses. I have some sympathy with what Deputy Ó Cuív said, although I do not live near an island, but some of the points he made in terms of trying to achieve the target are valid. Artificial insemination, AI, would not be a way to achieve it. It could be difficult for smaller farmers to purchase replacements or bring in bulls and that would not be profitable given the size of their enterprise. I am concerned about people who have 20 suckler cows or fewer. It cannot be all just for the big people. It is grand if one has 120 or 130 suckler cows but those who have 15 and 20 have been the backbone of the industry as well and we cannot disregard them or discard them. Has any thought been given to the practical application of the scheme for those people? First, the cost factor is fairly significant. It is one thing if the herd involves 100 cows but if it is a ten cow herd it is another thing in terms of the application.

Could the federation have a graded cost to ensure feasibility for a ten-cow or 12-cow herd? There would be very little left for the smaller producer, as opposed to a 100-cow herd. I was always of the view that when the star rating was selected initially and animals were classified as four-star or five-star and it was dropped two or three stars subsequently, the four-star or five-star prevailed. I never had any doubt about that. I do not know where that got into the discussion or who fed it out. It was mischievous in the extreme. I do not know much about those matters. I have a certain background in it, but I never had any view other than when one started off, as Magnus Magnusson used to say, “I’ve started, so I’ll finish”. What one starts with, one will finish with and therefore one will finish with the four star or five star. I do not know whether it was mischief or whether someone had a vested interest in perpetuating the myth but it did cause a lot of concern. I would love to know where that originated and why was it propagated because it was a huge negative according to the farmers with whom I mix.