I thank Members for facilitating this debate on the nitrates derogation and its importance not just to our farmers, but to our rural economy and our overall efforts towards sustainability in all its forms. We recognise that to deliver environmental sustainability and improve our water quality, our farmers need to be economically sustainable. That goes to the heart of what the nitrates derogation does. It facilitates farmers to be profitable and to be able to invest in their farms and in measures to improve water quality.

A key commitment in the programme for Government and a key priority for me, as Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, was to ensure an extension to Ireland's nitrates derogation. Following significant engagement in November of last year, the European Commission proposed an implementing decision granting an extension to our derogation for a further three years. This was passed unanimously in a vote of EU member states at the nitrates committee in Brussels in December. It took significant effort, justification and data to achieve this outcome. For over a year, there has been ongoing bilateral engagement with the European Commission, complemented by presentations to our fellow member states on the EU nitrates committee. The significant level of engagement on water quality by our farmers and key stakeholders across the farm organisations and the agrifood industry was also key to enabling us to reach this point. In this regard, the derogation extension reflects the culmination of the efforts we have made since Ireland's previous derogation was granted in 2022.

One of the key highlights within this period was my Department's establishment of the agricultural water quality group in May 2023. This group has been key to the development of the collaborative approach that now exists across the agrifood sector to reduce its impact on water quality.

We now have a nitrates derogation for the three years from 2026 to 2028, subject to a number of additional conditions. By the end of 2027, all derogation farmers must determine their nutrient balance using AgNav and undertake a grassland management training course. In addition, derogation farmers in the Slaney, Barrow, Nore and Munster Blackwater river catchments will see a reduction in their chemical fertiliser allowance on grassland and a requirement for wider buffers or setbacks adjacent to water when applying chemical and organic fertilisers from 1 January 2028.

Most significantly, in light of evolving case law at a European level and the Commission’s requests, Ireland has committed to assessing the impact the granting of individual derogations will have on the objectives set out under both the habitats directive and the water framework directive. As Ireland is the only country now availing of a nitrates derogation, there is an absolute requirement for us to demonstrate compliance with the habitats directive. This will be very challenging. Given the water framework directive's 2027 target of all surface water bodies, with some minor exceptions, being in at least good ecological status and the fact that this target will not be met by any member state, it is understandable that the Commission is seeking assurances that the granting of a nitrates derogation is not impacting negatively on the objectives set under the directive. My Department is committed to completing the necessary assessments between now and 2028. We are actively working to roll them out on a catchment and sub-catchment basis.

The level of support that currently exists across the agrifood sector to reduce agriculture’s impact on water quality is unprecedented. The nitrates action programme, NAP, which has been in place since 2006, sets the baseline requirement for all farmers to minimise and reduce agricultural nutrient losses to water. It is renewed at least once every four years and each iteration has provided strengthened measures for water quality. That sixth NAP, signed into law by my colleague, the Minster, Deputy Browne, in early December, has provided the most robust set of measures to date and the basis to underpin our current derogation. It seeks to achieve the optimum combination of measures across regulation, knowledge transfer and awareness raising as well as incentivising the delivery of improvements in water quality.

On this latter point, the Government is providing financial support for farmers going beyond regulatory requirements to improve water quality. For example, the Farming for Water European Innovation Partnership has a budget of €60 million, of which €50 million is ring-fenced for farmer payments to support targeted additional measures beyond regulatory requirements. Targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, grant aid is supporting investment in low-emission slurry spreading equipment and manure storage, with over €153 million paid to farm families since 2015 to support these investments. In addition, my Department and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, along with industry, are currently funding approximately 60 agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme, ASSAP, advisers to provide tailored advice to individual farmers on water quality improvements.

The derogation allows us to maintain our grass-based system of farming, which is unique in an EU context. Given their capacity to grow grass, almost 50% of our dairy farmers are stocked above 170 kg N/ha. If their stocking rates were curtailed below current limits, it would impact the viability of these farms. It would also impact non-derogation farmers as there would be increased demand for land. It is vital that we use the next three years wisely to drive the improvements we need in our water quality by maintaining and further building on the momentum that exists across the sector. Securing the derogation has given us the opportunity to do this. We must embrace this opportunity.

We have a golden opportunity. Compared to last year, the future is in our hands in relation to our ongoing efforts. My Department will not be found wanting in meeting our requirements. There are no guarantees with regard to that future outcome. There was only one guarantee open to me last summer. If I had not pursued the developments I have mentioned in respect of the habitats directive and appropriate assessment, it would have been guaranteed that no farmer in Ireland would have had a derogation on 1 January this year. Instead, we have negotiated a process that gives us time to address those concerns and that gives farmers time to continue with their efforts to improve water quality. We would not be where we are today without all the efforts farmers have made in respect of water quality to date. All of those combined efforts mean that Ireland is now the only member state that continues to be able to avail of a nitrates derogation in 2026. It is something that is very precious to us. We have it for a good reason, which is that our farming system is different. I look forward to working with everybody across the system over the next three years as we continue to improve our impact on water quality, address the issues of concern and put ourselves in the strongest position to maintain a derogation beyond 2028. I am happy to take on board Members' comments and observations and to come back to those points in my summing up.

I thank the Minister for being here with us today to discuss the nitrates derogation, a vital issue for Irish agriculture, rural communities and our shared responsibility to protect water quality. I congratulate him on the job of work done by him and his officials in securing a further three years' derogation. This was no small feat as we are the only remaining member state to have retained a derogation. It was also a show of confidence from the EU Commission in Irish agriculture. I was delighted, as part of a cross-party delegation, to meet Commissioner Roswall when she came to Ireland last November to gain a better understanding of our need for derogation. This position was supported by all parties and none who were present at that meeting, with the exception of the Social Democrats.

It must be clearly stated that the nitrates directive and associated derogation govern what maximum stocking rate a farmer is permitted. We are, as I said, the only country in the European Union to retain the derogation because we have a predominantly grass-based production system. Because of this, Irish farmers require a higher stocking rate than, for instance, Spanish farmers, where the climate and soils are very different from what we have here. Our method of livestock farming is not replicated anywhere in Europe. The nitrates derogation recognises this and it is not a free pass or an exemption from environmental responsibility. Rather, it is a recognition that when our farming model is properly supported, it can deliver food production and environmental protection.

For thousands of family farms, particularly in the dairy sector, derogation is not an option. It is something that underpins farm viability, land use decisions and long-term planning and its loss would have had massive consequences not just for individual farms but for rural economies, employment and Ireland's position as a sustainable food producer. There is a perception that the loss of derogation would mainly impact big farmers but that is not the case. It is smaller family farms that are most affected by derogation. We have to acknowledge the significant work already undertaken by farmers to improve water quality. It is often overlooked in public debate, amid a media narrative that farmers are anti-climate and anti-environment. Farmers have engaged with nutrient management planning and reduced fertiliser use. They have invested heavily in infrastructure and changed their practices, often at a massive cost.

A strong example of what can be achieved through collaboration is the Timoleague catchment project in west Cork. This project has shown how targeted, science-based measures, farmer engagement and local knowledge can deliver real improvements in water quality. There is a lot to learn from Timoleague. Progress takes time and properly resourced advisory services. It also requires a willingness to look beyond agriculture alone when we talk about water quality because agriculture is not the sole pressure on our waters. We have to acknowledge and continue to acknowledge the impact of local authorities and Uisce Éireann on water quality. Wastewater treatment capacity, ageing infrastructure, storm overflows and delays in upgrades all contribute significantly to nutrient loading in rivers, estuaries and coastal waters. In many catchments, agricultural measures are being implemented rigorously while urban wastewater issues persist, and this imbalance undermines confidence and fairness in the system.

If we continue to ask farmers to do more, and they are willing to do more, all sectors have to be held to the same standard. Water quality is a shared responsibility and solutions also have to be shared. Water quality is a national asset. Clean drinking water and healthy ecosystems benefit us all. Protecting water requires joined-up thinking, investment and accountability across all responsible bodies. We cannot continue to let farmers take the brunt of the pressure and the blame. I welcome the establishment of the Cabinet subcommittee on water, but we need to see action from it in this regard.

As we now enter the 2026 derogation, including the need to demonstrate enhanced compliance with the habitats directive, I want to emphasise the importance of confidence and certainty. The Department of agriculture has given a commitment that the appropriate assessment process will be completed at least one year in advance of the derogation extension expiring, and that no results will be published until all assessments are completed. This is a vital commitment and it has to be honoured in full. Farmers cannot operate in a climate of uncertainty, piecemeal announcements or incomplete data. Publishing partial results would bring unnecessary fear and market disruption and undermine constructive engagement on environmental measures, which is ongoing.

Staffing levels within the Department and associated agencies are also a concern. Completing appropriate assessments to the required standard, within the required timeframe, demands sufficiently trained personnel. At the same time, the roll-out of AgriNav to all derogation farmers is a major undertaking. It has the potential to be a powerful tool, helping farmers understand risk, plan improvements and demonstrate compliance, but only if it is properly supported. Under-resourcing either AgriNav or the appropriate assessment could jeopardise both, and it is not acceptable if we are serious about environmental improvements and farm viability. Investment is, of course, also critical. Funding for slurry storage must not be subject to a rank-and-select system. Slurry storage, as the Minister is well aware, is not a luxury but an essential environmental protection measure. Farmers who need storage to comply with regulations and protect water quality must be able to access funding in a timely manner. Delays or exclusions in slurry storage investment undermine what we are trying to achieve here.

Above all, we must recognise that confidence in the system is essential. Farmers, as we have seen time and again, will engage, adapt and invest when they believe that the process is working and that it is fair and transparent.

Finally, I want to address the issue of generational renewal when it comes to derogation. We speak often in this House about the need to attract young people into farming. However, for those involved in dairy farming in particular, uncertainty about the nitrates derogation is a major deterrent for the next generation. Young farmers are under pressure in terms of access to finance, labour and land and cannot commit to borrowing or land leases if the framework is constantly in question. This derogation provides a pathway for efficient, sustainable farms to remain viable and to pass on from one generation to the next. We need to ensure that this happens because without it we risk accelerating land abandonment, consolidation of land without succession, and regression of rural Ireland. Generational renewal is not just a social issue or a buzzword; it is also an environmental issue. Young farmers, as we have seen, are often the most engaged with new technologies, sustainability tools and best practice. Supporting them means supporting better outcomes for water quality in the long term.

This derogation is about recognising Ireland's unique grass-based system, supporting evidence-based environmental protection and ensuring fairness, above all, across all sectors impacting water quality. By learning from projects like Timoleague, holding all actors accountable and honouring commitments on assessments, properly resourcing implementation and maintaining farmer confidence by moving with them, we can continue to improve water quality while sustaining family farms and rural communities. It is essential that we achieve this balance.

I welcome the Minister and his official to the Seanad and acknowledge the important work his fellow Ministers and Ministers of State and the departmental staff have done. I have no doubt an enormous amount of work went into it and it is an amazing achievement for the Minister. It is also an amazing political achievement. There were many critics and I sat and listened to many of them, and to other people who came to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food, of which a number of us here are members too. Now is not a time for complacency. It is a reprieve, to an extent. The year 2028 is not a long way away, and that is important. In his measured statement here today, the Minister has indicated that we have work to do. We have to embrace this opportunity and move forward. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their success on this matter to date. Ireland's success has been to secure the extension of the EU nitrates directive. Of course, this is subject to strict environmental conditions to combat water pollution, and rightly so. We never denied there were challenges. We realised there were issues and there were improvements but it was always going to be challenging and the Minister has acknowledged that. There is no point in painting over some of the issues in relation to our water and water pollution. However, water pollution comes in many forms and it does not only rest with agriculture. This is an important point that came out very clearly from our debate on these matters.

The key conditions attached to the Irish nitrates derogation are worth going over at some level. We are reducing stocking rates, which is important. We are also reducing the use of fertiliser and increasing buffer zones, as the Minister mentioned in his statement. There is also the manure and nutrient management scheme and enhanced requirements for nutrient management. That goes right across the scheme in terms of better education, knowledge transfer, better practices, derogation farms, increasing buffer zones, water courses and all that goes with that. There is a lot of knowledge in it. Farming is not some sort of a hobby for people. It is a science now. It is technical. I was down at the River Slaney coming through Enniscorthy the day before yesterday with the floods and what was interesting coming all the way down was the colour, the brown soil.

The water was brown. It was dark. I was then in Bunclody, and again, I could literally see the leaching. It just struck me that at this time of the year it would not have the same challenges but what if there were nutrients and if that was later on in the year? On the loss of nutrients, and effluent for that matter, that comes from heavy drenching of soil, it is a science and I do not think everyone quite understands that. That is important to say.

Stricter protocols and earlier closing dates for the spreading of chemical fertiliser and slurry are critical in terms of management of this derogation. That is an important point. As for compliance and inspections, we cannot back off with them and no-one is suggesting we do. The Minister is not suggesting that either. My understanding is the Minister secured this nitrates directive derogation with conditions. It was hard fought for. It was not a walk or rollover. He had to make a science-based case for it. He had to talk about sustainability and a plan going forward over the next two or three years, running into 2028. He did that and he convinced people, and that is important. He secured the unanimous vote of the EU member states to extend Ireland's nitrates directive for a further three years but three years is not a long way away. It is important that we acknowledge that and the key success of it.

It struck me as the Minister was talking at the time - he worked with us on the committee as well - about key issues like farm certainty. That was really important. That three-year extension provides a vital period for dairy livestock farmers to prevent cliff-edge reduction and to allow stocking rates. That is a challenge, however, and we are going to have to work on it.

The Minister emphasised the scientific validation of the argument, which convinced people. He went to Europe and made a professional case. He got it over the line. I believe the scientific validation was really important, and particularly the emphasis on the sustainable grass-based outdoor production model that is unique to Ireland. He impressed the people on that. That was important. The deal, of course, addresses specific scientific and environmental conditions, including the catchment levels, but also acknowledges our responsibilities in relation to the habitats directive. Again, farmers are responsible. They are the custodians of the land. That cliche is thrown out every day, but they are. They have a vested interest. They have a huge interest. It is a livelihood and a family. They have an intergenerational asset that they want to secure and within which they want to have a future.

I have talked about the conditions that are there. Under this extension, there will, of course, be stricter mandated conditions for farmers in the coming years. That is an important point and is one that we need to prepare for. The Minister’s Department needs to prepare for it. It needs to resource and that is an important point. As for the increased compliance, the Minister is on the record as saying his Department will begin intensive in-house catchment-based assessments on environmental impacts. The Minister might touch on that as he concludes. This agreement is a significant body of work, and I genuinely mean that. I want to acknowledge the enormous work. It was not easy. It was not a fait accompli. It went to the wire; it went to the end.

In the Minister’s final speech, he talked about two points. He said the Government is providing financial support for farmers, going beyond the registered requirements to improve water quality. That is important. It is an incentive that will encourage people. I would like to hear a little bit more about that or how he wants the timeline to run in that. He stated it is vital that we now use the next three years wisely to drive the improvements we need to see in our water quality, by maintaining a further building of the momentum that now exists across the sector and that securing the derogation has given us an opportunity and we must embrace the opportunity. I concur 100%. We cannot take our eye off the ball. Time will run fast. There is an onus to further upskill people, engage in knowledge transfer and keep the focus. Despite what some people say, the EPA is not the bogeyman. It has a job to do. It has statutory functions. It has responsibilities in relation to water quality. It is important that we work with the EPA. Farmers want to work with the EPA but we need to grant assist and support, because if we can address this issue we are going to protect the future sustainability of rural communities, farmers and farming communities, and that is important. It is about sustainable agriculture, food production and income for rural families. That is important. I thank the Minister and wish him well on what is going to be a long journey to keep this momentum going.

I welcome the Minister. I have eight minutes. I do not need eight minutes but if it had been a year ago, eight hours would not have been enough. As the Minister quite rightly said, the talking is done. He has delivered, and now it is about action and what needs to be done over the next three years. I acknowledge the role the Minister played in it, and thank and congratulate him on achieving the derogation. It was a fluid situation.

I am a veteran of two agriculture committees and we got a bit of a slating the last time about the introduction of cow banding and a mid-term review. If there was no cow banding or no mid-term review, there would be no derogation. There is a bit of the same out there about having to do all these appropriate assessments, etc. If there were no appropriate assessments, if the Minister did not do what he had to do to abide by the habitats directive, there would be no derogation and we need that derogation. I thank him for the role he played. I thank the farmers who, through all their work up to the present point in time, have made sure that the EU could have the confidence to give us a derogation. Moreover, I know they will not be found wanting going forward in hopefully securing a further derogation in three years’ time, but at least in the meantime, ensuring our water quality improves.

I thank the industry. The industry is often left out of this equation. There are 7,000 farmers in derogation and a lot of people out there think this whole thing is about those 7,000 farmers. They are basically the foundation of what is a massive industry. There are 54,000 jobs in Ireland directly related to our dairy industry and multiples of thousands of those jobs would have been lost if we did not secure the derogation. There have been different surveys and analyses done on this and it is estimated that the milk cheques that will be going out would be reduced by €555 million. That would be some loss to rural Ireland. That is a loss of €23,000 on average per farm and that is a family farm we must remember. The majority of Irish family farms would not survive farming below 170 kg N/ha because of the nature and size of our farms, the division of our lands and the geography of the country. This enhances that model that Irish agriculture was built on. While I thank the industry, the industry could give even more going forward. One good example has been mentioned, that is, one of the rivers that has been mentioned for the reduction of chemical fertiliser is the Slaney. We have a very good River Slaney project, which was led by Teagasc. Tírlán was a big driver in that. It is aware of the fact that it has skin in this game and it is contributing, but maybe it could contribute a little bit more going forward. I put out that call to the industry.

It would be disingenuous not to say I stood up here on numerous previous occasions and preached about lag time. We are doing the work but we are not being given time for the work to be seen to have the desired effect before there is an assessment or a mid-term review or whatever. This time, we have three years as such. I have a question on that. While we have the full three years and hopefully all the good actions that were taken will be showing results by then and we will not have a lag time issue, the Minister might clarify a point. I have an issue with the fact that the appropriate assessments are going to start and have to start immediately. They are then going to be shelved until the end and nobody will know what the results were in any one individual area. If some of them are negative, we will not know if extra actions need to take place in that area and then we will get all the results of all these appropriate assessments together, at the end, when we are approaching renewal in 2028 or whatever. Could there be an issue there? I am not being critical; I am asking a question because I have a genuine concern about it. When you do a test, you analyse the results and take action based on the results. On this occasion, we are doing a test or an assessment and we have given the commitment we are going to shelve the results until they are all done, which will take the best part of three years. Will we have time to take the necessary actions?

I will just ask the Minister that question. Again, I compliment the Government, the Minister and the Minister, Deputy Browne, on the introduction of a planning exemption for slurry. As my colleague, Senator Lynch, says, slurry storage is not a luxury. We need to continue funding TAMS but it is very welcome that if a farmer needs to build extra slurry storage to maintain the water quality in the area, he will not have to go through the rigours of making a planning application.

I will also put the hammer on the Minister when it comes to the CAP negotiations. Farmers have to spend a lot of money to keep up the pace in regard to the derogation. I have just mentioned slurry. There is no additional income or profit from an investment like additional slurry storage. Farmers still have the day-to-day expenses and the upkeep of all the other aspects of their farm, which is sometimes neglected in order to spend the money wisely and meet the targets, for example, of maintaining the quality of water or the conditions they are obliged to meet under the derogation. We cannot keep spending all of the money on one section of the farm or in one direction or emphasis. We do not want to see other areas of the day-to-day running of the farm being neglected. CAP money is usually ring-fenced on farms for non-derogation expenses, for the want of a better phrase, so it is important that the CAP is maintained to at least the current level, going forward. We have had this conversation before. I will really put the hammer on the Minister and say, allowing for inflation, it needs to be increased. At the end of the day, based on the 22% reduction that is currently being talked about, we would probably call the status quo a good result but, hopefully, we will aim higher and possibly even deliver a higher amount.

I wish the Minister a good afternoon. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on the nitrates derogation. First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge and welcome the granting of the derogation. For farmers operating within it, the decision provides a degree of certainty at a time when there is already enormous pressure on farms and farm families. That certainly matters. It allows farmers time to plan, to invest and to make decisions with some confidence about the future of their farms and their livelihoods.

However, while the derogation has been granted for a three-year period, the reality is that the clock is already ticking and those three years will pass quickly. It is vital that Government action, or inaction, does not become a stumbling block for farmers who are trying to comply with the new and more stringent conditions that come with this derogation. If we are serious about supporting farmers to meet these requirements, the necessary supports must be put in place immediately. A key example of this is investment in infrastructure. There needs to be increased and targeted funding under TAMS for slurry storage and soiled water storage. Farmers cannot be expected to comply with higher standards without the practical and financial supports to do so. Delays in approvals, insufficient grant aid or caps that do not reflect real construction costs will undermine the very objectives we are trying to achieve.

Another issue that is causing significant concern on the ground is the lack of clarity on how the habitats directive will interact with the nitrates derogation. This uncertainty is deeply unsettling for farmers. We have seen commentary, including from ICOS, expressing serious concern about whether compliance with the habitats directive could prevent some farmers from accessing the derogation altogether. This is not a minor issue. Farmers need clear answers. They need to know whether land designated under the habitats directive will affect eligibility for the derogation and, if so, how. At present, we simply do not know if every farmer who was in derogation last year will be able to avail of it again this year. This uncertainty is unfair. It is unacceptable. Clarity must be provided urgently. Farmers should not be left in limbo, trying to make long-term decisions without knowing whether the rules are going to shift beneath their feet. The Department must engage clearly, transparently and directly with farmers and farm organisations on this issue.

We must also be honest about what the next three years represent. This period is critical. If we want to retain a nitrates derogation beyond 2028, now is the time, with strong Government support, for farmers to put in the work required to ensure that water quality improves. Farmers are willing to play their part but they cannot do it alone. This means real partnership. It means practical measures that work on the ground, not just additional red tape. It means recognising the diversity of farming systems across the country and avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach. At the same time, the Government must be upfront about the future. If it becomes clear that a derogation post 2028 is not achievable, work on an alternative plan must begin well in advance. Farmers deserve honesty and foresight, not last-minute crises.

I welcome the derogation and the certainty it brings in the short term, but certainty alone is not enough. We need adequate funding, clear guidance, in particular on the habitats directive, and a genuine commitment from the Government to support farmers over the next three years. If we get this right we can protect water quality while also protecting family farms, but if we get it wrong we risk losing both.

I welcome the Minister and his official. I also welcome his statement and the discussion on the nitrates derogation. Coming from Kerry, which is the home of the Kerry Group, and having been raised on a dairy farm, I was very pleased to welcome the news that the European Commission agreed to propose a three-year extension of Ireland's nitrates derogation. This is a significant hard-won development. It reflects a deep understanding in Brussels of the unique nature of Ireland's pasture-based livestock system, one that is among the most sustainable and efficient in Europe. As stated by Senator Daly, for months securing this derogation has been a top priority for the Minister, our colleagues in Fine Gael, and the Government as a whole. What is particularly important to highlight today is that Ireland is the only EU member state to receive such a derogation. That fact alone speaks volumes.

Clarity and certainty are essential. Farmers need clarity to plan, invest and to continue producing high-quality food while meeting the highest environmental standards. This agreement is a major step forward towards providing that certainty for the more than 7,000 farmers who are availing of the derogation. I acknowledge the enormous amount of work that has gone into reaching this point. I have seen the efforts of the Minister at first hand. He has been relentless in his engagement with the Commission, with farm organisations and with stakeholders right across the sector. His Department has worked tirelessly behind the scenes, analysing data, preparing submissions and ensuring that Ireland's case was presented clearly, strongly and credibly. His commitment deserves real recognition.

The proposed extension is not just a technical or regulatory matter; it is a lifeline for thousands of family farms. It protects the viability of dairy and livestock enterprises that depend on the derogation to operate sustainably. It supports rural communities whose local economies rely on a vibrant agricultural sector. It reinforces Ireland's reputation as a country that can balance environmental ambition with practical science-based policy. It also reflects the credibility Ireland has built through ongoing improvements in water quality, investment in slurry storage and the adoption of new technologies and farming practices. As has been mentioned, Uisce Éireann and local authorities have a vital role to play in the next three years in improving water quality. It is evident from the discussions and the lobbying that were going on prior to the derogation being announced that the Minister's voice has been heard. His commitment to improving environmental outcomes while keeping farms productive has been recognised, as has his role in ensuring that Ireland's food system, which feeds millions and supports rural life, remains valued and respected.

I thank all the Senators for their very valuable input, their talking points and their thanks and recognition. This was very much a team effort. I recognise the collaboration that has taken place.

Senator Paul Daly talked about the role of farmers and also the role of industry. There has been a very collaborative approach here. Farmers have worked hand in glove with my Department and our officials, and the industry has stepped up to the plate and played its part. I will touch on how it is doing that on an ongoing basis. I am satisfied with what I have seen. There was a recognition in all the contributions that while we have had huge uncertainty in the past, we have a golden opportunity during the next three years. There will be no excuses and all farmers will be completely focused on building on the good work of the past. Industry is now more plugged in and supportive.

Senator Kennelly talked about Kerry and different co-ops across the way. Across every sector, industry is stepping up. We recognise that this is a critical part of their business model to support our farms in this endeavour. They are working with the Government. The ASSAP programme is an example where the Government is funding some of the ASSAP advisers. Industry is funding some as well. That type of collaboration means that, working together, we can achieve so much more.

I also want to recognise the amazing team of officials in my Department. They are extremely committed public servants who have represented our cause at home and in Brussels in a great way. I talked a lot last year about the committee in Brussels. That committee has representatives of each of the 27 member states, including our own. Importantly, it is made up of technical experts representing each of the member states. There has been a lot of loose talk about the derogation as though it is a tradeable commodity. That is why I wanted to stress the point of the golden opportunity our farmers have. When people talk about the derogation as something that was given and can be taken away, without any reference to the science or technical nature, it completely undermines the committee that granted the decision to give this to us. Ultimately, the Commission has to work with us. It has to put forward the proposal and sign off on the implementing decision. The committee that made this decision comprised 27 technical experts from 27 member states. This was based on water quality and our commitments around the habitats directive. Therefore, what we do in the next three years based on science really matters. All of us are working together in that regard.

I want to go through the points that have been raised. Senator Lynch made very good points. She talked about Timoleague and the catchment programme. I visited it myself last summer. She talked about generational renewal. I probably could not give a better example. When we talk about generation renewal and it comes up at budget time or in different discussions, it comes up in the context of something having been done and the question as to what is going to be done about generational renewal. The Senator's point is correct. We are making efforts on generational renewal include our efforts on the nitrates derogation, my reform of our approach to TB and addressing the payment issues around ACRES. Every single one of those measures has the potential to instil confidence for the next generation and to help them recognise there is a more stable future in farming. Young farmers on derogation farms are more confident now that they can see a roadmap ahead and beyond 2028 whereby, if they meet these requirements, they have a good chance of having that bit of stability. In Timoleague last summer, I met a number of young farmers with a sense of hopelessness. Once the letter about the habitats directive came out, they had a strong sense of upset that this had been a challenge for them. This is a key part of our approach on generational renewal.

Senator Lynch made a point about agriculture not being the sole pressure on water quality. The Government recognises that. When we drew up the programme for Government, for which I was part of the negotiating team, we incorporated that commitment that had been made by the previous Taoiseach, Deputy Simon Harris, at the time to establish a subcommittee of the Cabinet on water quality. We know how powerful Cabinet subcommittees are for issues that cross over more than one Department. It is chaired by the Taoiseach of the day, Deputy Micheál Martin. We have had a number of meeting of the Cabinet subcommittee on water, which I attend, as well as some of my senior officials, addressing the work and the progress on the area of agriculture. Also in attendance is the Minister, Deputy Browne, representing what his Department is doing in the area of water quality. Other attendees have included the EPA and Uisce Éireann because water quality is a green jersey issue. Farmers are doing their bit, but for us to be in the best position possible, we have to take this with a whole-of-government approach and a national approach whereby every arm of the State that has a role to play is held to account. I am happy that the Cabinet subcommittee on water is a big addition to this Government and to our efforts to improve water quality. I note the Senator's points also in relation to TAMS and slurry storage and the efforts we have made in that regard.

I thank Senator Boyhan for the points he made. Our heart goes out to the people of Wexford, in particular, right now. He referenced the floods at the Slaney and the awful stressful time they are going through. I am aware of further weather warnings for tomorrow. It is a very worrying time for everyone as our ground is saturated and our rivers are at bursting point. The Senator made that very point I have just made around the technical committee and the extension based on science and conditions, stating that the next outcomes are really important. He also talked about the incentives. I want to touch on what some of our farmers are doing already. A total of 2,500 farmers have already completed their AgNav assessments in one-to-one settings with their advisers. Our aim is to publish all habitats assessments together in quarter 1 of 2028.

This was a point raised by Senator Daly, who expressed a concern about that. We have to get this approach right. We are still drawing up the finer details of our exact approach on the habitats. We will publish that and engage on it very soon. I do not want people being picked apart on this as well. I take on board the point of view, but there is a balance here in how we do this. Everyone needs to be treated equally and fairly. That is really important. I take on board the points the Senator raised.

It is a catch-22.

It is a catch-22. We want to make sure that we are fair to everybody. Senator Lynch raised points about TAMS earlier. A total of €153 million has been paid out for low-emission slurry spreading and nutrient storage since 2015. A 60% grant is available for nutrient storage. As was mentioned earlier, I commend the work of our colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy John Cummins, in the Department of housing with responsibility for planning, who has brought forward that commitment around the planning exemption on slurry storage, which, again, is important.

The resourcing of habitats assessments was discussed. We have experience carrying this out in forestry, as well as in regard to aquaculture licences. We will recruit the relevant personnel and get the assessments under way as soon as possible. Senator Daly mentioned lag times. I agree. Previously there were not only lag times but also a strong sense of frustration at the goalposts being moved all the time. We have stability now. While we have new conditionality around the habitats directive, farmers' continued work in the area of water quality is just as important. There has been a stepping up of ambition, as there was in every one of the previous NAPs. NAP 6 is another step-up in ambition and conditionality. That is the strength of the habitats directive. When people from an environmental perspective knock this, what they fail to recognise is that in return for being able to operate at a higher stocking density, our farmers are voluntarily putting their hand up for extra conditionality. They are the farmers who are really up for doing things and taking on those extra measures, as well as the baseline measures that are in the nitrates action programme for all. That is an important part of that.

Senator Daly mentioned that it was a fluid situation. I was not sure whether he intended the pun, but he is absolutely right, in particular regarding cow banding. The efforts made in the past, and the other steps that frustrated farmers around moving the goalposts, have been really important. The mid-term review made a change there, but when the points were put to me in the negotiations around reducing 220 to 210, that was not acceptable to me. The cap on new entrants, for the very point Senator Lynch made on generational renewal, was not acceptable to me.

Senator Daly also talked about the CAP money being important. I agree. It is a whole-of-government approach. It is really important to the entire country. The reason is that, as a net contributor, per capita, Ireland is one of the biggest contributors to the EU budget. We pay in more than we get back, but 75% of receipts from the EU to the Irish Exchequer are through the Common Agricultural Policy. This is not just about farmers in our rural communities. If we do not get a fully funded CAP and the maximum amount of money in there, our whole Exchequer will lose because this is our best vehicle for getting as much as possible back from what we put into Europe. I am proud that, because of our strong economy and the investment in structural funds in the eighties and beyond, we have put ourselves in a strong position to be a net contributor, but we want to get as much back as we can, and the Common Agricultural Policy is the best vehicle for doing that.

I completely agree with Senator Tully's points. Farmers need clarity. They need adequate funding. We have listed a series of measures, such as €60 million for the farming for water EIP and a range of different supports. The Government has supported farmers in the past through the TAMS programme. I have talked about the €153 million for increased slurry storage and low-emission slurry spreading equipment. We are working with industry now. We are all leveraging that money together to support our farmers to make those efforts. We as a Department are investing heavily in the areas around appropriate assessment. That will be an intensive body of work for us and our Department to take on.

I thank Senator Kennelly for his points regarding Kerry. That is so important.

When people raise the derogation with me, there has been a sense in some people's minds that this is about big farmers. What has struck me in travelling around the country, both as a Minister of State and in the last year, has been the palpable sense of panic in places like Timoleague in south-west Cork, Monaghan, Clare and Kerry. Those derogation farmers are not big farmers. A loss of derogation, if you have 80 or 85 cows and are dropping to 69 or 70 cows, is the difference between viability and non-viability. We are not talking about profit margin here. We are talking about viability. Those farmers are operating to a very high environmental standard, and the Government is supporting them in doing that. I commend everyone and thank them for their contributions to this debate.