Mr. Bill Callanan:

The Commission's comment on that – there is a new team there – is that it feels there has been a lost decade in terms of water improvement across Europe and that we therefore need to resolve this issue. The commitment is an European Union one and we should remember that we are part of the club and cannot pick and choose our rules. The EU agreed the water framework directive targets for 2027. One may accept Europe is failing but, as I described in one of my interventions, Europe has the opportunity to take infringement proceedings against a member state.

These are slow and laborious, but ultimately Europe is generally successful in the challenge. With the derogation, Europe had a negotiation; there was an eyeball-to-eyeball conversation with the member states to ask them if they are doing enough. It always generated progress, but Europe deferring granting is something Ireland has to consider and one has to enable the Commission to support what ultimately is a Government decision to ask for the request in 2025. Asking the Commission to support the provision of a derogation in the absence of progress will make it eminently challenging.

To indicate how the structure goes, any member state is legally entitled to apply and that is not changing. It would, therefore, remain available even if water quality massively declined. A member state is entitled to apply, but there is not a requirement on the Commission to propose a derogation. The way the Commission works it is there are three presentations on water quality and a subsequent vote. There are four meetings of the nitrates committee. It takes a full year from start to finish. Having been involved since 2010, I have noticed that with respect to support for other member states, one must first of all get the Commission making the proposal, which means it must be happy, and then in its introduction for a vote it will say something like "We are now here to vote on Ireland's application. We have had long and difficult discussions with Ireland and we are happy we have agreed". That is an obvious message to a member state the derogation is effectively supported by the Commission and it will generally result in getting the required qualified majority vote. Thus a state is entitled to apply, but there is not an absolute requirement for the Commission to propose a vote and even if it does a state is then subject to qualified majority voting of all other member states. As such, there are a number of thresholds to meet to get the necessary support. We are just advising that when a state is on its own with that request it can be a lonely place and the state needs to come with a full deck of cards to play the best hand in 2025. That is how I put it to the group I am chairing. I say we must ensure everything we can do is done. Now, there was no time at any review previously where we did not think we were actually making progress here. As I am sure the Cathaoirleach will attest, the asks have been regular in terms of every four years and additionality of farmers on this. I do not resile from that.