Mr. Pat McCormack:

I thank Deputy Browne for his question. To start where he and our colleagues in the IFA finished, there seems to have been a bit of gamesmanship by fertiliser suppliers. It was well covered that in 2022 it was all about the replacement value whereas today it is all about the buy-in value. The €200 increase in the margin on fertiliser came on the backs of distressed farmers who are very concerned about their ability to feed their animals. Teagasc carried out a survey at that time. We were and still are involved in the food fodder security committee that was established. It was very obvious in that committee that farmers across all sectors were concerned and there was a potential for a deficit in fodder supplies. Thankfully, we had a very favourable February this year, which helped farmers get stock out to grass early, although things cooled substantially after that. The fertiliser scheme introduced by the Minister should have been more inclusive and of greater value. The Deputy asked if the Minister could have done more. Without doubt, he could have done more through the fertiliser scheme. There are challenges out there. As we stated in our submission, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission should carry out a full investigation into the position in the spring of 2023 and 2022 because what has happened this year is wrong. Farm families are being exploited and the risk or the cost associated with high fertiliser purchases is being passed on to them. Equally, when the market gazumped last year, the inflated prices were borne by farm families. We need to see that investigation and see results published before 1 July. We need the Minister to take action on this because there are people who are very much offside in this regard.