Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Science is a funny science. It can be interpreted a lot of different ways. I believe it is more of a statement. The big issue I would take from today, and the most worrying thing I would take away, would be the whole question of the lag time. Dr. O'Connell has nailed it there. They are saying we can see a change in a year, but actually we cannot. It takes longer. We have had the REAP scheme, ACRES, and the massive reduction in nitrogen last year due to price alone, never mind any other reason. If there is a worst-case scenario, however, and we do go to from 250 kg to 220 kg, and the results of all the actions that have been taken start manifesting themselves in 2024 and 2025, the narrative then will be that it was the reduction that caused them. Then we are on a serious slippery slope and it is not factual. This is the one point I am taking from today. This is where we are at and this is the danger going forward. If it is not factually correct, we must make every effort to make sure it is. Science itself can be interpreted in a lot of different ways and an argument can be put by both sides of a case. It struck me when that point was made that we would start seeing the results of actions that have happened over the past three to five years next year immediately after a potential reduction to 220 kg. Then the narrative out there would be "Look at what reducing the herd has achieved", and then we are on a serious slippery slope.