I attended the National Ploughing Championships last week, which were a fantastic success. I congratulate the National Ploughing Association on the fantastic annual event it holds, in particular its well-known managing director Anna May McHugh. With the season that is in it as we approach a presidential election, one could nearly say Anna May is the best president we never had. The success last week was a testament to that great organisation. When you attend that event in the role I have as spokesperson for agriculture, you can gauge how things are on the ground by the mood of the farmers and others who attend. Things were very good, positive and upbeat last week, which indicates things are good out there, but with one exception. The rising tide does not lift all boats. There is a serious crisis in our tillage sector. It is ironic that ploughing is the foundation of the seedbed for the crop. It was very evident last week that our tillage sector is in crisis and needs immediate aid. I would like a debate with the Minister for agriculture but it would need to be before the budget so I doubt very much that will happen. Perhaps we could relate it to him. We need support for the tillage sector. It is under pressure with input costs and fertiliser prices. World grain prices are almost at an all-time low. It is the sector that is probably most dependent on the weather. Even if we get the prices right, there can be a bad spring when they put in their crops and they are goosed, or a bad harvest. It is a vulnerable sector and needs so much help. I would also like to see the inclusion of gene editing in that debate. The time has come. I am not talking about gene modification; I am talking about gene editing. We need to strengthen those crops to handle the new climate and the wet conditions climate change has brought.

It is a debate we need to have on gene editing. I want to make very clear that I am not talking about gene modification but gene editing.

I want to be associated with the kind remarks the Cathaoirleach and others have made about Julie Lyons on the occasion of her impending retirement, which we are marking. She is a wonderful woman and very kind to all of us. I definitely agree with what was said by Senator Boyle, that hospitality is slightly different to catering and that she managed to crown one with the other.

At the end of the last session of the House we were speaking about the refugee crisis, asylum-seeking and the like. There is an Oireachtas joint committee on justice, and yesterday it was graced by the presence of the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, who answered the questions put to him very forthrightly, honestly and truthfully. It emerged from this discussion that it appears at least 87%, and probably more, of asylum seekers in Ireland have transited through the United Kingdom to come here. He surmised, and I suppose it is a reasonable surmise, that they are coming across an open border. This is a huge number of people claiming protection whom we receive via a safe country into our own country. By the way, there is traffic the other way.

Several other points also emerged from the answers he gave, and I will put two propositions before the House. The first is that anybody given refugee status in Ireland is, thereafter, free to go backwards and forwards between Ireland and wherever they claimed they were in danger of persecution, as often as they like on travel documents supplied to them. In effect, people can go back to wherever they came from originally and participate in the ordinary life of that country, and keep transiting backwards and forwards to Ireland. This is the law. The final point the Minister made, and this is important from the point of view of resources, even though we have Apple money and corporate tax money, was that he pointed out that we spend €1 billion per annum housing Ukrainian displaced persons under a special scheme, and €1.2 billion housing other asylum applicants who have come to our shores. This is €2.2 billion.

The reason I mention these three questions, and the Minister answered many other interesting questions, is that we have to have a serious debate in the House about how we tackle the asylum-seeking activity in Ireland. It is not sustainable in its present shape or form. The costs are too vast. We have to have a serious debate about how the Irish Government at European level begins to deal with what I call, and I do not apologise for saying it, a racket which has emerged in describing migration as asylum-seeking.