Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan:

I thank the president. He has covered matters very well. Two of the measures in the programme relating to soiled water storage and the covering of slurry tanks have the highest potential costs, yet the justification on a scientific basis for them is not there, so we have to be very careful. Perhaps these measures are being used for compliance and for the climate and to drive those agendas. I reiterate that we need to focus on water quality and its protection and looking at the cost benefit of the proposals in the programme. That is key to this.

The agricultural catchments programme has shown that programmes like the agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, which work in collaboration with farmers, have the best impact on water quality, so we need to focus and expand on that, rather than on regulations where the impact on water quality is yet to be proven. It is very evident from this morning that further discussion with the Department and with everybody is needed on these proposals and that greater clarity is provided so there is opportunity for everybody here to discuss and go through the points set out.

On compliance, the last nitrates action programme, NAP, contained four legislative amendments over the period. In 2020 there were three legislative changes, three new statutory instruments, so there have been many changes. We need to ensure that the next programme is in place for the four years because these changes are hard to keep up with and cause compliance issues. We need to know that the programme being negotiated at present will be in place for the next four years and that we work on better communication with farmers, and on better education of farmers, and continue to work with farmers to deliver because that will achieve the objectives, rather than introducing measures that are cost-prohibitive and have not been proven to protect or improve water quality.