Mr. Bill Callanan:

In terms of slurry spreading, I have articulated the challenge as best as I could but I will make an additional comment. The Commission has been very clear that if we continue to give derogations and flexibility in terms of the closed period it will think that we have a problem with storage capacity. People must recognise that. Deputy Stanley's constituency has 16 weeks storage but all adjoining countries have substantially higher storage capacity. A challenge for is the balance of being honest with farmers by saying, yes, it might suit a small number to be flexible on the practice but it will come at a cost to a vast majority of farmers if we continually move towards granting that. I appreciate what was said about the January window. Often people say that the weather was great and it is dry, the ground is frosty and they could have gone out. There are two conditions if one wants to treat slurry as a fertiliser. Yes, one must have ground conditions that suit the application of slurry. Equally, one must have growth conditions that suit its uptake. Certainly one does not get the growth in January to take up the nutrient if it is applied.

That is not in keeping with what is clearly set down in the overall policy, which is slurry as a fertiliser-nutrient, not a waste, and to apply it at best timing. Those are the messages we are giving farmers.

On the derogation for pig farmers, the nitrates directive introduced in 2006 provided that the land area requirements for the spreading of the slurries that were already there would have to be quadrupled because people were spreading at a higher level than crop uptake was allowing for. While it was not exactly a derogation, a concession was granted for pig slurry which diluted the phosphorus content. A doubling of the spread lands required was allowed for. We negotiated around 2008 or 2010 a ten-year glide path to full compliance with nutrient loading. That period has now elapsed. The pig sector is now complying fully with the requirement that the application of nutrients in slurries be absolutely appropriate to the crop need that it is being applied to. That issue has been largely dealt with in regard to compliance.

On the sugar beet industry, I agree that sugar beet was a very valuable break crop but particular challenges arose with it, especially with regard to the price of sugar. The same situation arises at the moment. The programme for Government includes a commitment by State agencies to look at viable submissions on the re-emergence of a sugar beet industry. As Mr. Spink has said, no such proposal has come forward. One can see the logic in that as sugar prices are poor and the application of sugar taxes has reduced demand for sugar. While yields here had improved, they would not be equivalent to the yields that can be achieved in continental sugar beet production or sugar cane production. From our perspective, we have not had a viable proposal put before us on it.

On horticulture, the Deputy is entirely correct, we are not best suited to certain agricultural production, for example, avocados, pineapples and bananas. However, there is a significant amount of field vegetables that could be displaced. We have a well funded €6 million annual investment in the horticultural industry. We also have the producer organisation, PO, which aggregates multiple producers to give them clout when dealing with supermarket purchasers. We have a very strong history in that regard on the mushroom side where we have had a strong PO for some years. We have constructively engaged with industry, through the horticultural industry forum, to try to encourage greater use of producer organisations which, as in the case of beef, bring growers together. We are comfortable that this engagement is having some success. People are willing to engage with the process because they can draw down additional support at EU level through producer organisations. This can be used for marketing, professionalising supply and achieving the scale that is necessary to deal with the supermarkets on an equal rather than a small supplier footing.