Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am a sucker farmer and much of the terminology referring to cow banding and so on does not come naturally to me. On the testing scenario, I cannot get my head around how we can identify bad spots or what is causing pollution. That was the case going back to the first question from Deputy Fitzmaurice. Perhaps it is my own lack of comprehension. Perhaps we could get a breakdown in writing. If I were reading it, I might be able to get my head around it more easily. From what I have heard and observed, the words "profiling" and "modelling" have come up a lot. It frightens me that decisions being made that are going to affect farmers in such a severe way are based on some of the figures that were given to us earlier by the ICMSA.

We do not have the EPA figures this year, yet we are going gung-ho for the changes to the derogation. Has there been any indication from any of the testing, modelling or risk profiling that low-emission slurry spreading, or the use of protected urea, which have become almost sacrosanct over the last couple of years, have caused a change on any of the farms we are talking about today? Are we going for another stick to beat farmers with without knowing whether what they have been doing to date has made any change? Is the same modelling and risk-profiling being done on industry, roads, slurry or sewage treatment plants as is being done with the perceived run-off from the farm? That is more a matter for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Why did the nitrogen value in a cubic metre of slurry change from 5 kg to 2.4 kg? Did we have it wrong before? That will have a serious effect on the people who are trying to meet the targets that are being set for slurry exportation. They will have to export twice as much to stand still. It seems like a serious change. Why did it change?

As I said to the ICMSA, being a devil's advocate and looking at the worst-case scenario, taking its submission verbatim and its numbers for herd reduction as being correct, what compensation will be available for people who are servicing loans, trying to live a life and who have invested a lot in a business? If it comes to that, there has to be a just transition and some form of compensation. What compensation would be available if a farmer comes to a point where the only way he can meet these targets is through a reduction? As Deputy Fitzmaurice rightly said, there is not much more land available these days. The exporting of slurry will have to be doubled for these farmers to stay where they are because of the change of value. As was said about them coming to the meetings first, they are the first people to embrace science and technology. Any farmer who has benefited from a derogation has it almost down to a fine art. I do not see the wriggle room for further improvement to meet these targets that the witnesses seem to think they have. If the only way to do it is through herd reduction, what compensation will there be? They have to be compensated.