Michael Fitzmaurice Probes Late Nitrates Data and NMP Costs
Michael Fitzmaurice questioned delays and accuracy in this year's nitrates figures and raised concerns about costs and access to state-funded nutrient management planning tools. He called for committee review, better IT investment, and clearer protections for advisers on slurry verification.
The speaker noted that nitrate figures normally arrive at the end of July but were late this year, arriving around 6 September. He reported the initial figures were broadly OK but identified a calculation inaccuracy in the last four months amounting to a roughly 4-5% difference.
He said getting nitrate figures earlier would improve prediction and planning and recommended greater investment in IT systems to allow reporting earlier in the year. Earlier reporting was presented as a way to provide farmers and advisers more reliable guidance.
The speaker raised concerns that verification texts are sent to farmers but not to planners, forcing planners to rely on the farmer's word and potentially placing advisers' licences at risk if declared movements did not occur. He said a recent meeting with Ted Massey is expected to lead to an MOU aimed at protecting consultants and that text-based solutions are being explored as a prevention measure.
He emphasised that the NMP system is state-funded and operated by CHAGIS, yet advisers pay hundreds of thousands each year to use the mandatory service. He asked the committee to review whether advisers should be charged for access to a system already paid for by taxpayers.
Referring to a report by Jim Power on recalibrating advisory services, he described a break in knowledge transfer from state research through specialists to independent advisers. He said state research funnels to a central hub (referred to as OPARC) and then to CHAGIS advisers, but independent advisers lack a comparable knowledge hub and need funding to close the gap.
Nitrate data delay and accuracy
The speaker noted that nitrate figures normally arrive at the end of July but were late this year, arriving around 6 September. He reported the initial figures were broadly OK but identified a calculation inaccuracy in the last four months amounting to a roughly 4-5% difference.
IT systems and earlier reporting
He said getting nitrate figures earlier would improve prediction and planning and recommended greater investment in IT systems to allow reporting earlier in the year. Earlier reporting was presented as a way to provide farmers and advisers more reliable guidance.
Slurry verification, texts and consultant liability
The speaker raised concerns that verification texts are sent to farmers but not to planners, forcing planners to rely on the farmer's word and potentially placing advisers' licences at risk if declared movements did not occur. He said a recent meeting with Ted Massey is expected to lead to an MOU aimed at protecting consultants and that text-based solutions are being explored as a prevention measure.
Nutrient management plans and CHAGIS costs
He emphasised that the NMP system is state-funded and operated by CHAGIS, yet advisers pay hundreds of thousands each year to use the mandatory service. He asked the committee to review whether advisers should be charged for access to a system already paid for by taxpayers.
Knowledge transfer and advisory services
Referring to a report by Jim Power on recalibrating advisory services, he described a break in knowledge transfer from state research through specialists to independent advisers. He said state research funnels to a central hub (referred to as OPARC) and then to CHAGIS advisers, but independent advisers lack a comparable knowledge hub and need funding to close the gap.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Victor Boyhan
Victor Boyhan lauds Parliamentary Budget Office, welcomes local funding
Richard O'Donoghue
Richard O'Donoghue: Urges Voters to Abandon Government Over Taxes
Carol Nolan
Carol Nolan urges pause on wind farm developments until guidelines
Brian Stanley
Brian Stanley: Budget 'Squeezes' Middle-Income Households
Danny Healy-Rae
Danny Healy-Rae denies carbon tax vote, urges housing action
Carol Nolan
Carol Nolan presses for fuel quality checks and haulage support
Transcript
Well, you're welcome. I'm going to be pretty quick and there'll be sharp questions. Going by your presentation, there is a problem with nitrates in the line of farmers getting the information that was promised by the department. Can you take me or let me know when was that information to be given in case you'd go over your nitrates each year? From your presentation, my understanding is that wasn't given to you on time. Can you elaborate on that? I'm going to ask the questions, just write them down the way you'll have them. There was a contract given out to you by the department and seemingly this contract wasn't paid. Can you elaborate on that? My understanding is that the taxpayers are paying for basically all the research with another organisation or another group. That group, nutrient management plans or the guide or the way you do it is available there, but you have to pay for it. It costs you a year. Why is that? In relation to you are doing most of the – basically all the – when you look at derogation times, all of those BIS, Chris, you are doing at least 50 per cent, in some cases 68 per cent. Is the department engaging with you on a constant basis and have you sort of a central fund for training and all of the likes of that? In relation to water quality, where do you see it going or what way do we need to go forward on it? In light of your saying that we know the amount of funding that goes into other planners, we know what this taxpayer is giving. Year fees and – we won't call them competitors because everyone is looking after farmers – year fees and other groups' fees, are they in line, even though they are getting substantial funding? Thank you. Thank you Deputy. I will start with the nitrates question. I suppose the nitrates figures come out at the end of July normally. They were late this year in coming out, probably around the 6th of September. Were they accurate? The initial one was OK. There was an inaccuracy in the calculations in the last four months, so there was probably a 4-5 per cent difference. Wrong. Wrong. OK. Great. The second question there. What needs to be done there? Sorry, so I suppose going forward, I suppose if we can get those nitrate figures earlier in the year, so if the IT systems could be more investment in them, that we can get reporting earlier in the year, we can have a greater prediction going forward. One thing I forgot. Yes. Am I correct in saying that at the moment if a farmer is exporting slurry and the year to do it, or whatever planner is to do it, that there is now a threat hanging over a planner, that if they verify that slurry was moved, because a text comes to the farmer, it doesn't come to you as planners, and you have to take the farmer's word, that if it ended up the farmer didn't do what they said they'd done, then your licence is at risk. Is the department threatening that, or is that just hearsay talk that we are hearing? I suppose we actually met Ted Massey last Thursday, and we are going to get an MOU and an understanding to protect our consultants across the board on certain items like that. But is this text the solution? The text could be a solution, and we are looking at open-down avenues of preventing this from happening. Okay. Keep going. Contract. Nutrient management plans. The nutrient management plans, so you are correct, Deputy, in relation to the NMP system. It is an NMP system which is funded by the state, and CHAGIS are running the system and we are paying hundreds of thousands each year to use that service. Again, it is a mandatory requirement, and it is a tool we need to use. So I suppose we would be here looking to ask the committee if they would review this, and see should we be paid for this, A? It was paid for by the taxpayer already. Paid by the taxpayer already, correct. Keep going, right? Correct. So then you asked me, I suppose, in relation, we got a report done by Jim Power, I suppose, in recalibrating the advisory services, which everybody got a copy of, and you can see a kind of a structure there, and it says one of the tables. So it is the knowledge transfer, so I suppose, as an advisory and the government. So the government has its policies and they want to implement them. So that money goes into funding to state research, so whether it is CHAGIS or whether it is the colleges and stuff. So that state research goes into the head office, we will say, what we call it OPARC for, I suppose, filtration down and utilisation. That goes down to the advisory services through experts and specialists. So CHAGIS would have specialists within to decant down this information and give it to CHAGIS advisers, which goes down to the farmers. Us, on the other side, as advisers, we don't have a knowledge hub to filtrate this information down through specialists to our advisers. So there's a break in the knowledge transfer of going from the research to the farmer. So what we have in the middle is basically a hope, which we need to get funding for, would be a direction.