Motion on the Nitrates Directive - 1st March 2006

Motion on the Nitrates Directive - 1st March 2006
Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my friend and colleague, Senator Quinn, for allowing me time to take part in this important debate. I agree with him that the Minister has, to some extent, come out with his hands up with regard to the amount of chemicals being used. This is a serious problem. Some weeks ago, I heard representatives from Teagasc partaking in a radio discussion. They seemed to be in some confusion because they spoke on the one hand about airily scientific standards and, on the other hand, seemed prepared to modify those standards because of the economic damage perceived by farmers in this matter. Like Senator Quinn, I ask whether this is good science. I have much sympathy for Teagasc, particularly the way in which its board is constituted. Farmers and their interests are heavily overrepresented. We must remember, as Senator Quinn observed, that it is all of us as taxpayers who pay their wages. We are entitled to expect respect for correct science.
Last Tuesday, 21 February, the author of a leading article in The Irish Times observed that it seems the Government will give in to the farming lobby. I sincerely hope this is not the case. There is much misinformation on the part of farmers. They say, for example, they are not responsible for pollution. This is not true; they are massively responsible. They are the worst polluters of water and account for more damage than all the other main groupings, including sewerage works, industry and so on.
Mr. Coonan: Can Senator Norris prove that?
Mr. Norris: The facts and figures are there. One does not have to be a scientist to appreciate the reality of the situation. Farmers also say that we hardly need a water pollution policy because everything is fine. Others, however, have been saying there is a serious problem in this regard for many years. Senator Henry was one of the first to raise this issue.
Some 30% of our rivers are either moderately or slightly polluted and the water quality has deteriorated significantly in the past 30 years. Almost one third of rivers are eutrophic, which I understand means they are enriched as a result of the use of fertilisers. This enrichment leads to excessive plant growth which blocks out oxygen. This is not a positive development. The principal cause of this is not even slurry, which is very unpleasant and is responsible for fish kills, but the phosphorous content in the nitrates.
I rely on information in the newspapers for this debate, some of which is very well-informed. It seems farmers are using twice as much nitrate as they need.
Mr. Coonan: That is nonsense.
Mr. Norris: This information is from Teagasc. Approximately half the agricultural land in Ireland is saturated with phosphorous, with dangerous amounts running off and polluting rivers or remaining in the soil. Only 25% of the phosphorous that is applied is taken up by plants for nourishment, while three quarters of it is useless to the farmer and builds up in the soil where it does environmental damage as it runs off into the water table.
It is astonishing that this aspect of the directive is the one that will apparently be weakened. I appeal to the Minister not to do so. The arguments are clear - we are overusing nitrates and only 25% of them are absorbed by plants. It is almost witch-doctoring in agrarian terms. In response to the bullying that is taking place, it seems Teagasc has, in the last several weeks, revised its recommended limits for agricultural use upwards to a point where it now recommends a higher dosage than its own scientific research indicates. Here we have more of the bullying by strong lobbies, including vintners and farmers, that so bedevils good governance. Farmers are pushing our scientists into doing something which their own scientific understanding and the facts registered by them contradict.
I urge the Minister to be tough and to stand up to them. I cannot think of another person more able to do so.
Mr. Dardis: Should we also stand up to the university lobby?
Mr. Norris: On the other hand, the Minister might be tempted to let the oleaginous content of the ministerial position overwhelm him and to just slither over the edge into an easy solution. Let us have no more Irish solutions to Irish problems. We must look after the health and safety of the public by accepting and implementing the scientific evidence. Much of the nitrate applied to the soil seems to be wasteful.