Deputy Matthews is substituting for Deputy Leddin. Deputy McNamara has indicated that he will also be in attendance. In order that I will not be accused of a conflict of interest later on, I would like to declare that on my family farm, we farm in derogation. We are derogation farmers. After the last meeting I was accused of a conflict of interest, so I want to put that clearly on the record.
Members are requested to ensure that for the duration of the meeting their mobile phones are turned off completely.
Before we begin, I want to bring attention to the note on privilege. Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee.
This means witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action relating to anything said at a committee meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse that privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that, insofar as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. They may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from those proceedings.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in the committee meeting if their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no reassurance in respect of participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts. Members should be mindful of this when contributing.
The purpose of today's meeting is to examine Ireland's water quality and the nitrates derogation. The committee will engage with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue; Mr. Bill Callanan, chief inspector at the Department; and Mr. Ted Massey, senior inspector responsible for the Department's nitrates and biodiversity division. They are all very welcome to the meeting. I thank the Minister for attending at fairly short notice. We appreciate it.
Before I ask the Minister to make his opening statement, I offer some background to the situation for farmers as a result of the announcement two weeks ago from Brussels. It is not an overstatement to say there was great disappointment with the decision by Brussels to reduce our derogation, from 1 January, from 250 kg to 220 kg of organic nitrogen per hectare. There are a number of reasons farmers are sorely disappointed. One is that farmers who are in derogation have taken on a lot of different recommendations and conditions attached to that derogation. They feel those conditions and regulations have not been given time to work and show their impact on water quality. Another issue is that there are different views on the science and the way it is being interpreted. We have referred on numerous occasions to the Timoleague pilot project. In an area that is intensively farmed, with the highest number of derogation farmers in the country, water quality is improving. In that context, farmers are finding the decision by Brussels extremely galling.
The third major issue for farmers concerns county councils and municipal waste. As we all know in our different counties, sewage treatment plants, etc. do not have enough capacity. There are even cases of significant population centres with no sewage treatment plant whatsoever. While scientists tell us they can determine what is causing deterioration in water quality, farmers find it hard to stomach that while they have significant storage capacity for slurry and so on, with dates when they can and cannot spread, they see county councils most definitely contributing to issues in regard to water quality.
There is also the whole investment aspect. It is only a decade since quotas were abolished and there has been huge investment at both farm level and co-operative level. That investment is still being paid for. It was national policy to drive on our dairy industry. Less than a decade on from that, we now have a quota being brought in through the back door. Farmers find that very difficult to cope with and understand.
There is an idea out there at times that this derogation only affects very large farmers.
In fact, that is not the case. The ones hardest hit by this are small to medium-sized farms that are intensely farmed but which have low acreage. Their viability is going to be seriously threatened by this. The Minister and I met some of these farmers in Tipperary on Monday and Tuesday. Some of them outlined their personal cases and what exactly is going to happen to the stock on their farms. If you own a herd of 70 or 80 cows, or anywhere in that region, and have to reduce numbers, your farm's whole viability is threatened. The attractiveness of that farm for the next generation will be severely curtailed. We have an issue with generational renewal. The average age of our dairy farmers is 59. Could some recognition be given to those small to medium-sized farmers whose viability this is going to seriously threaten? I would like the Minister to try to address that today.
There are two other issues arising from the decision the EU has made. We are here today to listen to what the Minister has to say about that decision and so on. On the welfare side of things, the cows on farms are in calf and due to calf next spring in the vast majority of cases. Farmers are being told that, by 1 January, the stocking limit will be 220 kg nitrogen per hectare. How are those farmers going to destock, cognisant of animal welfare? There is also the issue of the impact significant numbers of stock will have on the marketplace. Cows are heavily in calf and are being tested for sale and so on. Everyone would like to get a proper financial return for that stock if forced to sell. There is an issue with the amount of stock that will be coming onto the market. Farmers in my own county have raised the issue of taxation with me. If you are forced to sell a given amount of stock, it will have an impact on your taxable income for the current year. This is stock farmers did not intend to sell. This will obviously have an impact on their closing stock and so on, which will affect the farmers' taxation. That is also an issue that has to be looked at.
Can low-protein concentrate feeding do something for the banding figures introduced on 1 January? Banding has resulted in an additional complication in this matter. It has driven up the figures on farms with regard to derogation. It is definitely a twin whammy. If farmers commit to feeding cattle a low-protein ration, can that be recognised in the banding figures? Any reduction in the banding figures would obviously be of benefit with regard to the 220 kg figure.
The other point I will make on stocking rates on farms relates to young animals on farms. Calf welfare is a very significant issue. We are encouraging dairy farmers to keep their calves on farm longer than has heretofore been the case. If young animals are counted in the figures for the stocking rate, dairy farmers will want to get those calves off their farms as quickly as possible, which contradicts what we are trying to achieve on calf welfare.
They are just points on the implementation of the 200 kg limit, which will have an impact on farm levels. Putting on my derogation farmer hat, we urge the Minister to try to get the Commission to reconsider its decision on the basis of our unique production system. We were in Brussels two weeks ago as an Oireachtas committee and we heard from the Commissioner about the decision at first hand, about which he is inflexible. It is fair to put that on the record. There are three other members here who were with me. The Commissioner was definitely intransigent in his view. I will not try to pronounce his name because I will only get tied up in knots.
