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

I thank the witnesses for appearing. I have met Mr. Gorman before and I wish Mr. Drennan the best of luck. The witnesses spoke about a few things and we need to be honest with them about those. The part about objections to planning is going on at the moment. The problem is that every council has a little document sent by the Department of housing. The witnesses should bear one thing in mind. Deputy Cahill, Senators Lombard and Daly and I went to Brussels and saw the Commissioner. To be frank, and in fairness to the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, our biggest problem is that the Department of the environment is looking after this. While we give out, it is actually the Minister for the environment, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, who have to fight a battle for us as well. I worry a bit about that battle because you need every soldier going the one way to win the war.

I turn to planning first. There is no point in codding the witnesses because I have gone through this all of my life. There is a guideline document in every council. It states that anyone within 15 km of a designated site can object. They might sometimes bring it down to 12 km, 10 km or 5 km. What is catching us around the country is the habitats directive and the interpretation of it that Ireland has. That will stay the same until it is changed at ministerial level in Europe with an amendment. The houses of people in Lough Funshinagh will get flooded but funnily enough, they say eagles dying are more important than a person being drowned. We have the gate left open for someone to be able to object, to put it honestly. Everyone has a right. We can give out about someone objecting, but the problem is we have the credentials set on what we are doing. We need to be honest on that.

As I said, Deputy Cahill, Senators Lombard and Daly and I went to meet the Commissioner. The Commissioner had almost as much say as me or Senator Lombard or any of us had for a simple reason. There was a legal person and an adviser, or whatever they were. We basically sent a bomb over to them for them to explode. That is what we did. When the report was sent over, it is on legislation and the die was cast. That is being honest. There is no point in us codding farmers. We need collaboration between the EPA, Teagasc - as I think Mr. Gorman said - and the Government. In west Cork, where Senator Lombard is, they did research with Teagasc and it worked out well. From my understanding there are four different jumps that have to be jumped and you cannot go down on one of them. If you were doing your leaving certificate and got three out of four questions right you got 75%. That was still a pass. In this, if you go down on one jump it is game over. These are some of the things that need to be changed.

The witnesses might as well hear straight out what was said to us.

CAP was starting to be negotiated and they said straight out to us that day that they believe it will go more environmental. There was a bit of a ding-dong on Twitter and all that craic about the derogation, but it was gone. The 250 kg N/ha down to 220 kg N/ha was gone because we had sent the stuff over to do it. If we send anything back that is in any way doubtful, they will love it because the mood over there was more environmental. We were also told - any of the members who were there will confirm this - that other countries were going down or losing it. As the witnesses know, other countries will not like Ireland having a competitive advantage. They did not realise we are an island, however, unlike the rest of them on mainland Europe, and it costs more to get things on. Research on this was done in Timoleague. If we are worried about the environment, it should be a no-brainer for storage for all farmers to be covered under TAMS. We agree on that.

I have done a fair bit of looking at AD. I am sick of hearing politicians say AD is going to solve everything. AD will solve nothing and will never happen until there is a 9 cent, 11 cent or 13 cent feed-in tariff. It costs €20 million to build an AD plant. Mr. Drennan referred to this earlier. There is a system that can be used to dry it but it costs a lot of money and energy. If we to decide to do this, the funding will have to be put into it. We keep talking about it. No more than offshore wind, it is like something we are dreaming about. Until the funding is put in, we will not see AD popping up everywhere. The €20 million it costs does not come around the bend at any stage.

There is another problem coming down the line. We need to realise that a lot of people do not milk cows but this is going to affect them. At the moment, the plan is for 500,000 ha. We only have 4 million ha left, approximately. We are not going to make any more. We will hardly take it out of the sea. There is 500,000 ha proposed for forestry between now and 2050. That is 1.25 million ha gone if the dreams they have come true.

On the nature restoration law, even if we look at it at best, we have 70,000 ha, 80,000 ha or 100,000 ha in solar farms and if the derogation kicks in, we will be in real trouble in food production. The tillage people have to survive as well. We are in real trouble in respect of food production. I will be honest. I hope the European elections bring about a huge change in Europe. That is what we will need, unless we get different Ministers. I am not blaming the Minister for agriculture for this. It is the Minister at the Department of the environment or the Department of housing who goes over and puts that forward. It is an awfully awkward way of doing things. It affects farmers, but the Department of the environment looks after it. The witnesses' organisations do not have the input into it that they would like to have.

The committee will do a report. To be honest, I cannot see there being many dissenting voices in terms of ways of resolving the issue. It will be supportive of it, I think. Once we prepare the report, though, it might put a bin. There is no legal basis for the report to be adhered to. If everyone is pushing the one way, however, we might get the car up the hill.

Do the witnesses recommend that a feed-in tariff of 9 cent, 11 cent or 13 cent be brought in for AD? Do they recommend that a body be set up with farmer organisations, the EPA and Teagasc to give a guideline on how things should be done, as they were done in Timoleague, to which Senator Lombard referred? What other recommendations do they have for the committee? The problem is that if a farmer is going to build a slatted tank and TAMS opens for it tomorrow morning, it will take three or four months. It will be next winter before the farmer has the tank ready for extra storage. We need time on this, to be frank. If different bodies have to work together, more time is needed. I have an awful fear that if the bureaucrats we spoke to in Europe get their way, the 220 kg N/ha is gone. Being honest, I think that is their plan. The witnesses are as well to hear the thinking we are hearing in Europe. They probably hear it when they meet the people in Europe. What four recommendations do they have for the committee?