Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)

I very much welcome the debate on this contentious issue. I hoped we would be able to have a debate which had more light than heat in it but I am not sure it is going that way. This debate is reflective of what has been happening in regard to this issue, particularly in recent months, and it is not working. It has become an issue of pro or anti-directive meaning pro or anti-farmer, rural Ireland or agriculture. That is not assisting this debate. We should get back to a proper discussion on what the directive is about. I would say to Senator Dardis that the debate must be on the workability of the directive.

Before Christmas my brother, who is a farmer, asked me what the Minister was doing with this directive. He is a progressive farmer who is committed to high environmental standards but he cannot understand why a directive is being brought in which looks as if it will put farmers out of business. The confusion surrounding this issue is making the situation worse. We should review the current situation.

I come from an agricultural background, although I am not engaged in agriculture so I do not have a direct interest in the directive. However, as a public representative from a constituency in which agriculture is a very important issue, I have an interest in it. Agriculture is also a very important issue for the country and we are at a crossroads in this regard. Senator Coonan and I attended a meeting on Monday morning in Nenagh with Arrabawn co-operative setting out to us the difficulties it is encountering. One of the issues was this directive. Irish agriculture faces a serious challenge and considerable change. I have no doubt the industry will manage it in its own way.

As Senator Dardis and other Senators said, the debate on this important directive is relevant to consumers and to everyone in the country but the fact it has become a nasty row between farmers and others is not helpful. I appeal to the Minister, who is responsible for this area, to do what he can to try to get the debate back on track. I also appeal to the IFA to return to the table. It will not work if people walk away from the debate saying they will not engage.

The issue in respect of Teagasc is very damaging. I have not had time to research and get a briefing on the scientific advice so I will not go into it because I do not understand it as it is complex. However, it appears we are looking at conflicting advice. Senator Norris said Teagasc should not give in to farmers' lobbying. I do not see it that way. I hope the latest Teagasc report will tell us and the Minister what we need to hear. I expect a scientific organisation funded by the State to do just that. From where I am standing, Teagasc has been quite damaged by this whole episode. The public needs an explanation from Teagasc as to what is going on in terms of the advice given to the Government and, indeed, why the Minister has taken that advice in the way he has. That is fairly critical to the whole debate.

The regulations which have been signed are inconsistent with the set of regulations and rules which apply to REPS and given that a REPS farmer will be out of sync with the provisions directive, one must ask what is happening in terms of this directive. It is unworkable and if that is the case we will have get it to a stage where it is workable. It does not serve farmers or consumers that the debate on the directive has gone the way it has and that the issue is at this stage where we are up against the implementation of the directive in terms of fines, our relationship to the EU, a court judgment and so on.

The directive does not serve the wider issue of protecting the environment, which is the core issue. This is about water quality. In north Tipperary alone — Senator Coonan and other Senators will be aware of this — Lough Derg is polluted as a result of the run-off of nitrates and the over-use of phosphates from a number of sources, of which farmers are one. By-laws have been introduced and considerable work has been done on the ground, particularly in the catchment areas of the rivers flowing into the lake to reduce the amount of phosphates and other pollutants. That work needs to continue and it is a long-term process. We must create a partnership in terms of protecting our environment while ensuring the agricultural sector continues to operate not only for producers but consumers.

This directive should not be about putting farmers out of business and making it impossible for people to be engaged in agriculture. The future of agriculture is hugely important for far too many areas for us to take a blithe approach to it. I look forward to the Minister's response to this debate. I hope he will address the issue of workability of the directive and of making sure that it works for the environment, consumers and for producers on the land, namely, farmers.