Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the witnesses here today. At the outset, I acknowledge the significance of Mr. Keane, the president of Macra na Feirme. He said it was his last day here. I thank him for his engagement with the committee. He has been highly impressive and an amazing exemplar in terms of being a representative for young people in agriculture and rural communities. That was demonstrated again by his amazing capacity to organise the march today and his ability to lead the organisation and the significant contribution he made to this committee over recent years. It has been valued, fresh and his given a new and very professional approach. I acknowledge that and send good wishes to Mr. Keane and the incoming president and team. Macra na Feirme is an exceptional organisation which has led from the front in a responsible and knowledge-based way which has been of great assistance to our committee.

On the general issue, we know that fertiliser represents a significant cost for most of the farmers who use it. Mr. Punch hit the nail on the head - the key word is "transparency". It is about openness and transparency, but it is a bit more than that. It is also about the whole of the European Union and the challenges for Ireland and EU member states in securing reliable imports of nutrients and fertilisers that are affordable and support sustainable farmers. Going back to Mr. Punch's contribution, there seems to be some suggestion, which is part of this concept around the Green Deal and the new Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, that fertiliser is somehow a dirty word - excuse the pun. We must ask ourselves how proactive are segments in our Government administration, what is the real issue and whether that in some way explains why this was not a top priority for Government, as it should have been. I suggest that is partly the case.

I thought Mr. Punch’s comments were thought provoking and on the money. I do believe there is a role for the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. That is critical.

As for a fertiliser register, there are mixed views, although I do not have mixed views. There is an awful lot of regulation in agriculture. When you go on the land and walk and talk to farmers or meet them at marts, they complain about too much regulation. While we have to have regulation, controls, accountability and transparency, I am not convinced, although I would like to hear what our guests have to say. The ICMSA submission mentioned the idea of a fertiliser register in its five key points. It will involve another load of bureaucracy and monitoring. Is that what its members would be happy with? I would like to get greater clarity on that.

The IFA referred to the European Commission establishing an EU fertiliser market observatory, and Mr. Rushe confirmed that the association is going to be active in that. Invitations are open and there is a call for applications, and we know from communication with the Commission today that it expects to have this up and running by this summer. I am interested in hearing from the other representative groups. How familiar are they with this EU fertiliser market observatory? I think it is very positive but I do not know how much engagement there has been. There has been a call for submissions. Can the other groups confirm they are actively involved in that and have made submissions? There is a role in that. When we talk about viability and the production of fertiliser in the EU, the key factors have to be strategic autonomy and our food security. They are key aspects of all this. As I said, the IFA has explained it is going to be involved in all this and I welcome that, but I would be interested to hear general views on the EU fertiliser market observatory. There is a role for the European Union in securing reliable sources of fertiliser.

I thank our guests for their detailed submissions.