Mr. Bill Callanan:

That is a wide-ranging question, but I will try to break it down. Regarding TAMS, the simple reality is that under the regulations on the availability of support under CAP someone has to be at the regulatory standard as set. Therefore, we are precluded from bringing him or her up to that standard. That has been the case for some time and it is something that I have raised with Commission officials. The Deputy is right about the opportunity to bring someone up to standard. Looking at it from the point of view of fairness, though, those who are compliant should not have their eligibility for TAMS diminished by others who are not compliant accessing it. The Deputy's understanding of the situation is the case, and it is based on clear guidance regarding the implementation of CAP. There is a requirement. Take trailing shoe technology as an example. We were aware of the absence of a grant for one year after that technology's introduction as a minimum requirement for derogation farmers. In terms of the use of derogations, there are additional requirements placed on farmers. When that is done through legislation, it precludes them after a period of grant aid. This is a matter that we consider in terms of proportionality and speed.

I have worked in this area for some time and my vision is that the derogation has to be on a sustainable footing. People are criticising the actions that we are introducing in respect of the derogation, but they are being introduced to avoid the reality or suggestion that the derogation is associated with poor water quality or negative trends. This is about taking the right steps to secure the derogation over the long term. The question of whether to apply is a political issue and I cannot answer for future Governments, given that it is a decision for the Government, but it is important that we have in place the bedrock of guidance to farmers about what actions need to be taken to ensure that water quality is on the right trend and the derogation is not negatively impacting water quality. This means asking farmers to do more.

I have been in this area since 2010 and we have undertaken four reviews, including an interim review. We are asking more of derogation farmers now. I accept that some of our requests are challenging, but experience has taught me that most farmers will ask us what they need to do to get this right, given how important the derogation is to them.

Regarding the derogation on nitrates, I will point to a couple of matters. The directive identifies a limit of manure applied, not present, on a farm. As such, the derogation is available to a farmer who has a higher stocking rate in terms of moving manures or who has additional land. Under the directive, a derogation is available based on four specific criteria. I will not cite them, but they are based on a long growing season – in other words, whether a farm needs that nitrogen in the system in light of its capacity – the nitrification of soils, rainfall, etc. There are specific conditions that make one eligible to apply. From an Irish perspective and having presented on the tables, we have a growing season of 270 or 280 days, which is different than continental Europe's. Our availing of the derogation is happening in a different circumstance than that of many European countries where animals are permanently housed, there is cropping, which dilutes stocking rates, and so on. We must recognise these differences.

It is important that there be leadership in ensuring that the actions we are asking of farmers are proportionate and appropriate and contribute to the longevity of the derogation as opposed to just saying that we need more time or whatever.