Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is a highly interesting conversation. I am a little depressed by the IFA attitude today. It is amazing, to tell the truth. Let us expand on what the IFA representatives have said. The view is that we should do nothing because we are producing the most valuable food in the world. The view is that the Brazilians have to sort out the rain forests. If they do that, our farmers will be grand and we can produce even more and send it on. That is simply not feasible.

I have listened to the IFA representatives saying this for the past couple of years. They are fighting a rear-guard action on behalf of their members. They would be far better to embrace the decisions and go forward positively. That is my personal opinion. It is unbelievable.

The IFA representatives have endorsed the Teagasc figures. That is interesting because it is the first time I have heard them do so, and it is positive. Would the IFA endorse the Teagasc figures if they included a reduction in the beef herd stock by 500,000? If that were achieved, we would be coming near the benchmark and making real change in terms of society.

The IFA representatives made other claims in the presentation to the committee today. I have challenged the Department on this. The IFA website has set out five steps to support climate action. We heard this in the presentation today. Step 4 states that the role of methane should be re-examined and alternative measures created. Can the IFA confirm its views on climate science and the damaging role played by methane? Although the gas has a shorter lifespan than carbon dioxide, it is actually 34 times more potent than carbon dioxide. How can the IFA square that circle? That is set out on the IFA website. I have brought up this matter with the Department as well. I do not blame the IFA necessarily because the Department has said exactly the same thing about methane. That is interesting in itself. The Department has said that methane does not have this effect. That is absolute craziness - it is mental stuff. There is no other way of explaining it. I simply do not know how the IFA can square that. I am sorry for getting annoyed, Chairman, but it is madness.

The only way any of the farm organisations, apart from the Natura farmers, probably, will agree to any changes in terms of how farmers are paid will be through CAP renegotiation. We will have to wait until 2020 before we see any change. Does the IFA support changes that would make farming more environmentally friendly? Does the IFA support changes that would lead to the positions that Teagasc has recommended? Will the IFA take down that rubbish off its website?