Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for their very detailed and informative opening statements, which leave few questions to be asked. The greatest frustration in all of this has been the lack of clarity and it remains today. We had the environment Commissioner come over to Ireland and he talked about stable water quality. Since then we have heard reports of the need for the water framework directive to be met and we know there are targets in that up to 2027, which is not very far away. What is needed here now is a clear roadmap on how we improve water quality but there has to be a much wider response from all, not just farmers. It is not right, correct or even going to get us anywhere if it is left to farmers to do all of the work.

Anything farmers do is minimal. That has been proven by the Teagasc research on water quality, so we will not actually improve water quality. However, the main people affected by that are farmers because they are the ones being directly hit by the derogation. It is important to note that the work the committee is undertaking and the report we will produce is on the economic and social impact but also the need to send a message to Europe that reducing the derogation time and again, while it impacts on farmers, will not actually improve water quality. We need a much wider response. I refer to the issue of investing in slurry storage when there is no certainty about what will happen next and the impact on the next generation. It comes back to this over-and-back with the derogation every few years. That needs to be looked at much longer term because there is no certainty for farmers. The basis of the current system is not legitimate. The over-and-back every few years will not work for the continuation and sustainability of the dairy sector.

I ask for more information on the issue of planning permission and the difficulties it raises for slurry storage. TAMS, which we are familiar with, was mentioned. I ask for a response on the time issue with planning permission and backlogs.

The message that needs to be put across to farmers is that this is the scheme, these are the actions they need to take and they will be financially rewarded for doing so. There will be a cost of compliance and they need to be paid to improve water quality and do their bit. Again, a much wider response is needed from others, not just farmers.

It was mentioned that there is nothing in ACRES on improving water quality. Does that need to be built into ACRES or is another scheme needed? The Department is being rigid in saying the numbers will be limited to 50,000 and that is it. There have been 8,000 or 9,000 applications but that figure will be cut to 4,000 to hit the 50,000 limit. Will this be rolled out and implemented by means of the actions required through ACRES, with farmers being required separately to take actions anyway?