Not great. Many Senators have spoken about the effects of Storm Ophelia, and I, too, extend my sympathies to the three bereaved families. This is a very difficult time for them. Likewise, I commend all who were involved in yesterday's efforts.

I join Senators Mullen and Colm Burke in raising the issue of stamp duty. While there were many positive aspects to last week's budget for the agriculture sector, including the €25 million for areas of natural constraint, low-interest loans and increased investment in the targeted agricultural modernisation schemes, TAMS, I am extremely disappointed by the effect on farmers of the increase in stamp duty from 2% to 6%. Margins are extremely tight at the moment and I have received numerous calls over the past week from active, genuine farmers who want to be progressive and to build farm enterprises. They are now experiencing a huge hike from 2% to 6% where they want to purchase a bit of land or consolidate holdings.

I have two points to make. First, while the young farmer relief is very positive for farmers under the age of 35, I know very few farmers that age who can afford to purchase land. Second, the consanguinity relief is very restrictive.

I have spoken with the Minister for Finance and emphasised strongly that we know there are so many farmers over the age of 67 who have not transferred land to their family members. It is essential, therefore, that this matter be considered. However, we need to go further. We must properly understand that it was the agricultural sector which turned this country around and we need to properly support genuine, active farmers. I ask the Minister to look at the consanguinity relief and the wider issue of the major hike, from 2% to 6%, in stamp duty in the budget.

I join previous speakers in expressing my condolences to the families and friends who lost loved ones during Storm Ophelia yesterday. I wish to be associated with many of the comments that have been made. A friend of mine works as a manager in a store in this city. The company in question employs over 1,000 people across this State. He waited until 11.30 a.m. to hear from the company's headquarters and still there was nothing - no word or direction. He eventually made the decision to close the shop but many private businesses - my family members have commented on this as well - placed the responsibility in the hands of employees. We hear a great deal about those who put our emergency services in danger, and I accept that entirely, but surely these private businesses - many of which are multinational companies - with vulnerable staff who have few workers' rights might have put lives in danger as well. I wonder whether the Government should have been more proactive in advising those businesses to close. Obviously, a lead was taken by the public service, which was very welcome. Should what was done in the case of the public service not have been recommended or advised to the private sector as well? Could more have been done?