John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

The word is appropriate in the context because we are discussing slurry, among other issues.

I made the point that there are cowboys in this business just as there are in every other business. The president of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, came to the meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and made points about the generality of the issue, which is that we use very small amounts of nutrients relative to other European countries. That is true. However, we are not dealing with the generality but with the particular. We are dealing with those who will not abide by the general standards of good farming which have been enunciated by Teagasc. I recounted at the meeting that in driving from Kerry very early in 2005, on a night when rain was teeming from the heavens, I repeatedly encountered people spreading slurry. There was only one place the nutrients in that slurry could go; they did not go into the ground but into the waterways.

There is a problem with our waterways and it is no good saying that farming is not a contributor. I accept it is not the only contributor — there are others, including the local authorities, which have been exempt under legislation. There are phosphates in household detergents which are significant contributors. Hormones come out of waste water into our water courses. Farming, however, is a contributor.

It is not a question of either this or that. We do not have a choice. That is why the motion is cynical. If the Opposition found itself in Government in the morning, it would have to do exactly the same thing. This matter was adjudicated on by the European Court of Justice. This directive has been in place since 1991, so we have to accept we must do something. We can debate the nature of what we might do——