Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

There have been excellent contributions from the three organisations. The committee made a decision that it would put a report together on the nitrates derogation, compliance and the financial implications of any further reduction to the 220 kg N/ha. The representatives' contributions have been very well researched and briefed. They will greatly help us in putting our report together.

Last week, environmental groups were in the room. One of the groups was very clear, and this was referenced by Senator Murphy who quoted from its opening statement, that the actions farmers are taking, such as low-emissions slurry spreading, clover in swards, and protected urea, were virtually a waste of time as regards improving water quality. Those are the words of that group. It was stated that the only thing that would have an impact on water quality was reducing the stocking rate, about which that group was very clear. That was the environmental group's message here last week.

As Deputy Fitzmaurice said, when we were in Brussels in September we met three different Commissioners. They were completely consistent in that the only policy that mattered in Brussels at that stage was environmental policy and, in particular, climate change. Nothing else really mattered. The consistency between the different Commissioners was frightening. You would think they were all reading the exact same script. That is the background.

Mr. Carr talked about the Commission and the fact we are the only ones who have a system of farming that deserves a derogation and the only ones who can justify it with our long growing season, etc. Holland is exporting slurry to Poland at the moment. The emissions from that would have to be put up in lights. Holland has a very intensive farming and agrifood industry. We would have to convince those other 26 countries that we deserve this derogation. It will most definitely take everyone in this country who is agriculturally focused pulling together to demonstrate the huge damage any further change to the derogation would do to our economy.

One of the most frequent questions, and other members will say the same, that I have been asked in the past six to 12 months, by dairy farmers in particular, is whether a cessation scheme will come in for dairy farmers. I could not put a figure on how many calls I have got on that from farmers. That puts in context the morale in the industry at the moment and the lack of certainty for its future. I grew up in the farming era from the early eighties to 2013-14, when our industry was severely handicapped by quotas, which stopped young people from entering the industry. We are now threatened with an environmental quota that will do the exact same thing again. It will freeze our industry, probably even worse than quotas did. As was referenced, a number of small or medium-sized family farms will be forced to reduce cow numbers. Again, the viability of those farms will go down the tubes.

I was in the Tirlán innovation centre yesterday at its invitation. I am not picking it out as one co-op. I am sure other co-ops are doing this but I was invited there yesterday. Tirlán is putting very significant resources into this battle because it knows the viability of what is a multinational business depends on the supply of milk. The wheel turns so quickly. Two or three years ago, we were told there was going to be a cap on peak supply. Now, the only concern processors have is whether they will be able to keep their processing plants supplied with an adequate supply of milk. That wheel has turned very quickly.

Food security was mentioned a number of times. It is the only thing that will bring common sense back to legislators, but we will have to wait a while for the food security issue to kick in. The start of the war in Ukraine brought it back to the table but it was very quickly forgotten about again. Maybe lamb prices and the scarcity of lamb in the UK might bring a little of common sense to it again. Europe not only needs to be self-sufficient in energy but self-sufficient in food. We have the ability to do that.

There is a thing that really galls me about environmentalists, and Deputy Healy-Rae referred to it. We have a major issue with migration at present. Many of those people are migrating because their part of the world is not able to feed them any more. They are migrating because of climate change, etc., and their countries not being able to feed them. Western Europe has the ability to produce food but we seem to be putting every conceivable obstacle in the way of that. I fully accept that climate change is a fact of life. The amount of rain we are getting at the moment has been referred to a number of times. We have had a couple of wet years in a row and we have to adapt our practices. I talk to a lot of farmers. Farmers will always adapt and accept the challenges put in front of them but they need a level playing field and certainty. Any further change to our derogation will do such terminal damage to our industry and our whole rural economy that it will be just inconceivable.

This will not be an easy battle. We have not got an awful lot of friends out there in fighting this battle. I am referring to Europe. The point was made earlier that all the organisations are lobby groups. I strongly urge them that the mantra about the measurement of our water quality and the rules that were there when we went back in August-September 2023, have to be changed. The committee will focus on that. The measurement of water quality, and the fact that our water quality is the fourth-highest in Europe, has to come into the equation. I will not pre-empt what the committee decides on the report but the parameters for measuring our water quality definitely have to change and reflect what the reality is.

We put parameters in place in the spring of 2022 when there was an agreement in Brussels that we were not going to be able to drum through. That has to be taken out of the equation before the next review takes place. That review is only 15 to 16 months away, which is a short window. We have reviews coming at us every two years but if we are able to hold our ground in the review at the back end of 2025, we should have a four- or five-year window after that. We cannot be coming back every two years, with uncertainty coming down the tracks again.

As a committee, we obviously have to listen to every side. That is our job as an Oireachtas committee. We have to take the views of all stakeholders into account, including environmental, agricultural and other actors. We will be doing that but I hope we can put together a report that will stand up to scrutiny and help us when we go back to Brussels. A call was made earlier for a task force, which is valid. However, there is a water framework group in place at the moment and we must ask how well that is functioning and what it is bringing to the table. I am not trusting anyone else to do what we have to do. We intend to play our part here in making sure that the proper arguments get to where they should get in Brussels.

I thank our guests for their well-researched contributions. Senator Lombard wishes to make a comment before we finish.