Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

With all due respect to Mr. Greally, I hope that the Department officials will go back and look at this again. I mentioned the 35 multiply by 400 and I asked how many animals would be killed in the day and was told between 400 and 500 animals. With the best will in the world on a good day 500 animals would represent €175 which would have to be given to the person doing the work for that day. I ask the Department to go back and look at those figures.

Second, the Department appears to be offering two weeks' statutory redundancy. These people are not being taken out of their jobs or leaving them because they want to but are doing a favour in respect of whatever was agreed in the programme for Government. I may not agree with that but that is the way it is. I have a number of questions as to this offer of two weeks' redundancy from the Department. We have seen the Debenhams and many other cases and I ask the Government to lead from the front on this to say that the least that these workers need is four weeks', or whatever, redundancy payments to look after them?

It must be borne in mind that these people are working with and not against the Government.

Many of these buildings have asbestos which must go to Germany. It costs €50 per square metre to get rid of that and to demolish those buildings. Whoever commissioned the report does not know much about farming. I am not even talking about fur farming. These so-called experts would want to go down on the ground and find out what building projects cost now. Turning to this type of farming, I have gone through this myself and talked to others about how it operates right across Europe. Like other types of farming, this sector seems to follow a seven-year cycle. A few good years are then followed by a few bad ones. There seems to be a pattern of seven years alternating between good, middling and average outcomes. These farmers, then, have sought to calculate their costs based on a ten-year cycle. Is the Department prepared to do that?

In 2012, the Department issued new regulations for animal welfare. That is fine. All the people involved in this area complied with those regulations and spent large amounts of money on infrastructure. We are not talking about the construction of something like a three-bay shed in the back garden. This was fairly significant and expensive infrastructure. There are not 5,000 or 50,000 of these farmers around the country, so why has a genuine effort not been made to ensure that we look after them? I refer to aspects of employment, infrastructure, asbestos removal and disposal, etc. Many of these people have been in with the banks, to be frank. It was not possible to build the infrastructure required without loans. It is as simple as that. Why has a genuine effort not been made to help these farmers? Why is a five-year cycle period being used? I have examined this area myself. Around Europe, this type of farming has a seven-year cycle. These farmers are seeking the use of a ten-year cycle for assessment. Is the Department willing to co-operate with them on that point?