Michael Fitzmaurice urges joint action on slurry export notifications

And second of all, well done Bill on the news yesterday, I know you put a fair bit of work into it in fairness, in the line of planners say one thing that was brought up to us Bill, that in the department when the story is being exported from one farm to another, their planner, the guy that's exporting it, he gets a text, plus the planner gets a text. But the guy that's receiving might get word, but their planner doesn't. And then it could go later on in the year and they don't know what's happening. Can you rectify that? That's question one. In the line of slurry export, I note that in colleges you're saying that under the new egg science projects and you're going to be on water quality. In relation to the different providers or the different group that's together, say you have Chagas and you have the EPA and you have yourselves and a few, is there any word or is there anybody standing up and saying, because I know it in the west of Ireland, that you cannot in phosphorus know the difference between sewerage treatment plants and per Kettler. And phosphorus is showing up in places. Is there any question being asked from the department that likes the EPA would put an outflow monitor on all the sewage treatment plants and a data analyser of what's there? That's a second question for you. In the line of, I know that there's buffer zones, the platform for grazing, you might just go into a small bit of that for me, Bill Watson's, storage, all of the different things we know about. And a lot of them are achievable, in my opinion. The only question, the only danger is that someone might be afraid to spend money in 28 and not get the benefit later on if it needs to be extended. Access to information, you're saying, is going to be, you're going to do the training, the department, is that going to be for private planners and Chagas that it's going to do with the ACA? In relation to Frank, and you're welcome, we didn't meet in this stall, as you said already, the private planners were in, and didn't gripe, but the facts are that Chagas gets a big budget voted through here every year. That's it, straight up. Whatever information you compile, if you're charging a farmer 250 euro a year, the private planner is the same price. This is about an Irish jersey being put on in the line of water quality. That's my honest opinion. This is about farmers working together. One question, Bill, just before I leave you, is you said there's a pack going out. Is that to all farmers or derogation farmers? Just that you'll know that one. But back to Frank, in relation to the nutrient management plans or whatever, and I see you have it detailed out in Fiverr or whatever, but the argument is that that's paid for already, but the money that's put together, they don't have the backroom teams or whatever to keep trying to send people to whatever training Bill is doing or whatever training you're doing, that they need to get sort of one person that would specialise. This is about for Ireland in the line of water quality and new ways of doing things. And can there not be better collaboration worked between ye to try and basically have it not them and us, have it us together, we're in the Irish jersey together. Because this is, regardless whether you're suckler beef or dairy or whatever, this is about going forward, you know, in working together. And I think he had the same problem when the text came out for exporting the story, because I've talked to some of your advisors, and the planner for the recipient was left, basically didn't know what was going on. And now it's gone to the stage, I hear under the new course that's coming up in January, that, like, you signed something, you ring Johnny and say, were you at Schlory and you're a planner? Because in fairness to Chagas planners or an ordinary planner, they cannot be running out to Johnny every day of the week and asking him was he spreading Schlory or look on the field. And you have to sign off that that was delivered, right? And I think that we need to, the department, Chagas and the private planners need to work together. And this isn't, if the money is paid for, if the taxpayers and we have voted it through in the Dáil has paid something through, this is for everyone, be it a farmer, be it Chagas or be it a private planner, all the information to give to each other. Because this isn't about one better than the other. Chagas does serious amount of research, serious amount of research, which is great. The private planners will never do that. Yeah, I'm going to get to them now in a second. Yeah, will you just give me a second? And the private planners don't have that type of backup and expertise that ye have. Being blunt about it. But that needs to be shared, the way that we all work together. That's all I have to say. Thanks. Okay, I'll start off then. Two minutes. Deputy, there's a wide range of topics, so I'll try and deal with them in order. First thing in terms of this question of text and slurry. So, first of all, I want to be clear that all private planners have access to our online system in terms of slurry movement. So, for their clients. So, if you log into AgFood as a farmer, you have access to, whether it's your fertilizer database or your slurry movements or NNP statements. If you're an assigned advisor in that, you have access to the same information. So, they do have access to all clients' data in relation to slurry movements. Okay. There was a decision not to provide text in relation to that because, look, I don't have the figures for this year, but last year you're looking at somewhere around 16,000 movements. Just the text would be going like mad if you were kind of getting into that. But planners have access to the necessary details to understand slurry movements that are going into their farmer clients, and that's important. In terms of phosphorus and showing up in terms of outflow, I think that is more appropriate, really, for the EPA in relation to it. We have to... There is a lot of concern in that you're agriculture. You're fighting for farmer's corner. You're trying to make water quality better. There's no good a farmer getting the daylights kicked out of him because someone down the way is letting out sewage. I agree, but I can assure the deputy that if you look at our efforts this year in terms of water quality, and they've been ongoing for years, but I've taken to a new level in terms of engagement. A cabinet subcommittee was set up within that. The Ishak chairs that. Ishge Arden were before that committee in terms of highlighting what work they are doing in terms of improvement. But in terms of the licensing of plants, which effectively this question goes to, that is really for the EPA in terms of licensing on nutrient removal on those plants. In terms of the question, then, of the platform and what's happening in terms of the next, I suppose, Nitrates Action Programme, all I can give you is a context of why we're trying to deal with this issue. And that's quite simply, the way I describe it is, the Nitrates Action Programme is effectively a backstop for good practice on farms. And the vast majority of farms will be ahead of that in terms of their practices that they're already doing. So it works as a backstop. And there was a concern in relation to a situation where if the platform is growing in intensity, somebody, for example, is using a zero grazer in the autumn and bringing grass from outside blocks, and then using an umbilical in the springtime, you are generating a load that was unsustainable. This will effectively require them, if they're returning the slurry to the outblocks, there is no issue. So it provides, I suppose, to ensure that a practice doesn't develop in relation to that. So I think we're ahead of, I suppose, practice in relation to the regulation. That's fair enough. Deputy Nooses, do you have any...