Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the presentation. They will have heard what the members of the Irish Charolais Cattle Society had to say. I have never heard anybody say suckler farmers are delighted with the beef data genomics programme. In fact, the opposite is the case. It is not just the Irish Charolais Cattle Society that is saying this. There is a general feeling of dissatisfaction. Irish suckler cow farmers are under other pressures but there are enough complaints about the programme to warrant investigation.

The delegates have given their presentation and ancillary information. The Irish Charolais Cattle Society has given its information. It is hard to see any commonality other than that both organisations agree that, through breeding, we can produce better animals, have better productivity and be more environmentally friendly. There seems to be no commonality because what the delegates have presented does not seem to acknowledge any of the serious issues raised to varying degrees.

Rather than having us operate in parallel universes here, does the delegation accept that those concerned have raised serious issues? The serious issues were flagged at an earlier stage. Mr. Coughlan reminded me about the information roadshow on the scheme in Claremorris. The then Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, and Mr. Coughlan were present. When people were expressing concerns, we were told there would be a review in about two years. Many people were saying they did not know whether the scheme would work. I am not talking about the ongoing review of whatever data we have been given but an actual review in which other parties, such as the Irish Charolais Cattle Society, other stakeholders and perhaps Teagasc, would have an input. I refer to some more discussion and how the programme is operating, its desirability and the outcomes. It is a question of establishing whether it is delivering what was promised and whether it is a success, not just because the witnesses are saying it but because a more independent review has determined it. The men and women coming in here are serious about their business. There are other farmers affected also. This is their bread and butter. It is more like a vocation. Farming involves blood, sweat and tears so farmers do not want to feel like they are wasting their time.

It has been suggested, on the basis of the data and genetic information available, that there should be just a guide. I am very taken by the evidence given by the Irish Charolais Cattle Society to the effect that the marts are saying the quality of the animal is down. The delegates are including data in their scientific computations and telling us about great star ratings, yet the people at the mart and at the coalface breeding animals are telling us the quality of the animal is declining. This can be seen in suckler calves going into the mart. I am trying to understand this. Considering that all the witnesses have the same objective, is it the case that they just do not have enough data to feed into the programme or system or to employ in their methodology at this juncture? With regard to comparing us with other countries, I understand France is a leader. Data and information compiled in that country mean the outcome of certain breeding and interbreeding practices can be more readily predicted. The delegates here just do not have that information. That is what it sounds like to me. It sounds like they are not established enough to be making what they propose as mandatory or to say it is gospel. They do not have enough science to begin with to back it up.

I am wondering about the cross-bred bulls. What people are saying here in this regard makes sense. If we are trying to improve beef, it must be realised that the purpose of a beef animal and the purpose of a dairy animal are different. To what extent are cross-bred bulls used in places such as France to enhance the quality of the beef herd? In what other countries is there a working example of what the delegates propose?

The frustration of the Irish Charolais Cattle Society over communication is very clear. We must take cognisance of the concerns it has raised in addition to the lack of information. The society's questions have to be answered by the delegates. I do not believe they can answer them all here today but I believe communication is not just a one-off process but an ongoing one. I would like to understand the delegates' view on their responsibility to answer questions, hear what the society has to say and allow some of its suggestions to feed into the process. I acknowledge the scheme is in place but it sounds like there needs to be some sort of root-and-branch examination of it. It does not sound like those with concerns are being listened to.

The point has been well made by other members that there seems to be an imbalance with regard to the board of directors. That imbalance, in a very obvious way, would mean some voices are heard more than others. Organisations with many representatives will be heard more. I would like to believe that breeding should be at the heart of the beef data genomics programme, and the people who have a long, established history of successful breeding should be at the heart of it. They do not seem to be, based on the delegates' numbers alone.