Mr. John Keane:

I thank the Deputy for his questions and remarks. He asked if the Minister or Government could have done more. In our opinion, and as Mr. Rushe said, there was a need for a fertiliser inventory across farms, merchants and importers. At that time, the information was that there was a significant backlog in the availability of ships to bring fertiliser to us no matter where it was coming from. There were some container issues in China as a result of the pandemic and delivery times were considerably delayed. To Mr. Lynam's point, that is going to lead to delays in bulk fertiliser being delivered from April onwards. More could have been done to establish the factors at home that inhibited our ability to avail of fertiliser at certain times of year, given the fractured nature of the supply chain at the time. The Minister could have engaged in the inventory and could have engaged more to understand what the international markets looked like. I acknowledge we are a smaller player but the Minister should have inquired into why we thought we found it as difficult as we did to gain access to fertiliser.

The national fodder support scheme that was announced in 2022 was supporting our drystock and livestock farmers. The rationale that was put forward at the time for the exclusion of dairy farmers was the result of a Teagasc survey in respect of the fodder that was available on farms. That was the criterion used for that decision. We were told there was surplus feed available on farms for a certain cohort of our dairy farmers. That situation has changed now. Data presented to the national fodder and food security committee show that in certain regions of the country, there were no surpluses remaining coming into this year and that there could be considerable pressure and pinch points for next winter's fodder reserves. The question has to be asked that if the rationale for exclusion no longer stands, is there a case to be made for inclusion? That is a question we would like answered, given that the rationale was based on the fact there was a surplus on farms and that may no longer stand up to scrutiny.

In terms of feedback from merchants, the replacement cost, as everyone has mentioned, is one of the big issues. The shipping schedule is another. Other feedback we have received points to a lack of movement from farmers from mid-February until the end of March. To put that in perspective, I would ask if there was an expectation among importers and merchants in respect of the expensive stock, if that is what you want to call it, that farmers were going to bear the brunt of the high costs at the time and that replacement costs would then come in and reduce the cost of fertiliser. Is that a realistic expectation that the actors in the market can have? I do not think so.

Another piece that was suggested in recent committee meetings, as I mentioned earlier, was the pattern by which we buy fertiliser in Ireland. It is very much spring-based. It is a grass-based system that is very different from the rest of the EU. We are told, given our location relative to the market, that the situation is very different from that in the UK. The UK forward bought a significant proportion of its fertiliser demand before the end of the year.

I do not have any other feedback to offer. I thank the Deputy for the question.