Mr. Pat McCormack:

I will start at the end with Senator Lombard's question. His last comment was about the public realising what the proposal is today. Does the public realise what the economic effect will be? Can any of us fully establish the economic effect without an assessment being done? That would be challenging. Deputy Flaherty talked the effect that the proposal could have on large towns. Whether it is dairy or beef, it is processed adjacent to our rural towns, it is the backbone. In many cases, such processing is the primary employer within that town, the driver of the rural economy in the area and the spin-off for other activity. Deputy Healy-Rae may have been speaking of my generation when he said that one time it was a privilege to become the farmer whereas now it is a millstone around the farmer's neck.

We have to take seriously the results of the UCD survey on mental health within agriculture. While all of this debate is going on, we are talking about people's lives, livelihoods and homes and what they, their fathers and their grandfathers have worked for. With one flash of a biro, this could all be undermined for this generation or indeed for the generations to come. It is no wonder or surprise that the results were as they were. It is a sad state of affairs that among the issues, one was the way farmers were being spoken of in the public domain and the other was the legislation and bureaucracy to remain compliant with the various different hurdles that are put in front of us from an EU perspective.

I acknowledge Deputy Nolan's work with us in the ICMSA on the re-wetting of the Bord na Móna bogland and the effect on the surrounding areas. She is dead right about forestry and the 8,000 ha. That is a considerable aspiration and it becomes greater with this set of circumstances. My colleague, Mr. Enright, will deal with what Deputy Harkin said about the Parliament and the issues there but we certainly need to mobilise as a sector, a nation and a rural economy.