Mr. John Keane:

I thank Senator Boyhan for his question. On the environmental and economic sustainability and what young farmers want to see, a common sense approach is probably what we would like to see. I gave the example earlier of the reduction in the extension of the closed period. We have the number of farmers who have invested in low-emission slurry spreading being told the scientific benefits of that in terms of uptake, usage of nutrients and the extra production in grass growing and farmers have responded to the this. With regard to the investment by these farmers in grass species which are growing longer into the grazing season and more into the winter and all that science to back up that; farmers have invested in that. At the same time, the proposals are there to reduce the time in which farmers can avail of that equipment and use it efficiently to improve the production of their grass swards on-farm. When you see an approach that does not make common sense and does not make farming sense, that is a real challenge for us moving forward. It is a challenge we have with these regulations, among others.

What we would like to see, from a young farmers' point of view, and what has come back and it has been touched on by both Tim Cullinan and Pat McCormack, is a nationwide extension of the asset programme. There is an external review ongoing on that and an expanding of the local authorities water programme, LAWPRO, and the number of people who are assigned to that.

I want to touch on some of the science that stands up behind the asset programme and some of the misnomers that may be communicated out there. If we look at some of the catchment areas that are managed under that asset programme and the organic load per hectare in some of those catchment areas - some of those areas which are in derogation by 80% or 90% which have high organic loads versus some of the areas which have a lower organic load and the water quality trends in those areas - it is not directly correlated to the organic load per hectare in those regions.

The soil science has an enormous role to play in that as well. There is a significant amount of research to be done in terms of the role the organic end load has to play and also in terms of the soil make-up in those areas and how that interacts with water quality. A simple blunt instrument of saying that "X" proportion of dairy farms in derogation in a certain region will result in poorer water quality is simply not the case and is not factually correct. That kind of rhetoric needs to be addressed.

From a young farmers point of view, we have looked at the success of targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS, in delivering support for young farmers. We have heard calls from farm organisations for increasing the support and we too echo that. We echo that in terms of the Commission's proposal in the CAP with regard to the upper limit of 80% and we have called on the Department to increase that to 80% for funding under TAMS. If you look at the point of view from the upper ceilings for supports for young farmers set at €70,000 over their lifetime, we believe that will become an issue for them in the years to come, given all of these regulations and expectations which will be placed on businesses and enterprises within the farming sector.

To touch on John Enright's and the Senator's points in terms of the ambition for the environment, the feedback from our members is that the ambition is there on the part of young farmers to meet the environmental challenge, both from a climate-change point of view and the nitrates and water quality point of view. Our young farmers are willing to agree to more ambitious targets and goalposts but the supports and the science must back up that and it must back up the farming practices that complement that because one without the other will simply not work.

Our biggest concern from a young farmers' point of view, and it has been such for a long number of years, is that the impact these proposed regulations will have on farm will result in fewer animals being able to be carried and increased competition within the land market right across the country; that is already a huge issue for our young farmers in terms of access to land. It has been highlighted for many years as one of the most of constraining factors for young farmers starting out and also for a young farmer to grow his or her business. If we are talking about making the land market more competitive out there, we are creating an ever-greater disadvantage for young farmers to be able to access that.

A consequence of that will be the access for young farmers to credit. Because they will not have the profile or portfolio of land behind them to support a sustainable business, their ability to access credit will be unduly hampered. Dealing with these nitrate proposals in a bubble in terms of how they will affect water quality is one approach to take. It is not the approach to take if we are looking after the sector and young farmers in the long term. Proposals here will have long-term implications for what we do on water quality and the environment, for the direct nature and practices on farms and for the environment we create in the farming sector. If we are serious about ensuring young farmers enter the sector in the future, the concerns expressed by our members need to be considered with the utmost seriousness. Otherwise, the trend will continue whereby the number of young people entering the sector will decline and the amount of young farmers entering particular sectors will remain a huge challenge.

Our EU counterparts in Austria, Norway and other regions have put huge supports into encouraging young farmers. Our Government seems to think and the thought within this country seems to be that more of the same will result in more young people entering the sector. Taking this in isolation is fine and we have expressed our concerns about these individual regulations, but the wider context and implications of what is proposed here will have far greater consequences in the next four to five years.