COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Membership and Powers

Powers

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is a Statutory Departmental Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and under Assembly Standing Order No 46. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and has a role in the initiation of legislation. The Committee has 11 members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and a quorum of 5.

The Committee has power:

• to consider and advise on Departmental budgets and Annual Plans in the context of the overall budget allocation;
• to approve relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee Stage of relevant primary legislation;
• to call for persons and papers;
• to initiate enquiries and make reports; and
• to consider and advise on matters brought to the Committee by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Membership

The Committee has 11 members, including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, and a quorum of five members. The membership of the Committee is as follows:

Mr Stephen Moutray (Chairperson) ^4,9

Mr Roy Beggs (Deputy Chairperson) ^12,13

Mr PJ Bradley ^3,7
Mr William Irwin
Mr Trevor Clarke ^5,11
Mr Kieran McCarthy ⁸
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr Pat Doherty ¹
Mr George Savage
Mr Simpson Gibson ^2,6,10

¹ Mr Pat Doherty replaced Mr Gerry McHugh with effect from 21st of January 2008.
² with effect from 15 September 2008 Mr Edwin Poots replaced Mr Allan Bresland.
³ with effect from 29 June 2009 Mr Patsy McGlone replaced Mr PJ Bradley
⁴ with effect from 4 July 2009 Mr Ian Paisley Jr replaced Dr William McCrea
⁵ with effect from 14 September 2009 Dr William McCrea replaced Mr Trevor Clarke
⁶ with effect from 14 September 2009 Mr Jim Shannon replaced Mr Edwin Poots
⁷ with effect from 8 March 2010 Mr PJ Bradley replaced Mr Patsy McGlone
⁸ On 13th April 2010 Mr Kieran McCarthy was appointed as a Member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.
⁸ On 13th April 2010 Mr Thomas Burns ceased to be a Member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.
⁹ Mr Stephen Moutray replaced Mr Ian Paisley Jr as Chair of the Committee on the 23rd of June 2010, after Mr Paisley resigned from the Assembly on the 21st June 2010.
with effect from 1st July 2010 Dr William McCrea resigned as a member
with effect from 1st August 2010 Mr Jim Shannon has resigned from the Committee for Agriculture.
¹⁰ with effect from 13th September 2010 Mr Simpson Gibson was appointed as a member of the Committee
¹¹ with effect from 13th September 2010 Mr Trevor Clarke was appointed as a member of the Committee
¹² with effect from 4th October 2010 Mr Tom Elliott resigned as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee
¹³ with effect from 5th October 2010 Mr Roy Beggs was appointed as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee  .

Committee Achievements

The main Committee achievements during the mandate were its scrutiny of primary and subordinate legislation, its influence on policy development and the undertaking completion?? of two major inquiries. The Committee also achieved its engagement objectives through a number of visits, seminars and attendance at agricultural shows, in particular the Balmoral Show.

During the course of the mandate the Committee scrutinised 4 Bills, including the Forestry Bill which promotes afforestation and sustainable forestry. The Committee also scrutinised the policy associated with 192 items of subordinate legislation and approved 172 statutory rules. The Committee contributed to a further 110 consultations in respect of policy documents deriving from the Department

During the Committee Stage of the Diseases of Animals Bill, Members were successful in negotiating amendments in respect of powers of entry onto agricultural holdings, including the introduction of a new Code of Practice, agreed by the industry, offering protection and advice to landowners. Other important amendments were agreed in respect of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, fixed penalties and the deliberate infection of cattle. Further debate ensued around the linking of a reduction in Brucellosis compensation with Biosecurity Guidance, with the Committee, supportive of efforts to eradicate the disease, successfully arguing that the clause could not be used to carry out similar reductions in respect of other diseases. The Bill received Royal Assent on 22 January 2010.

The Forestry Bill was introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 29 June 2009 and was received in Committee after the Second Stage on 15 September 2009. The Committee was concerned from the outset at the absence of strategic direction within the report, mindful that the purpose of the previous two Acts had been the production of timber in post-war periods. The Committee held a strong belief that this Bill offered the opportunity for a strategic and enhanced use of the forest estate. The Committee believed that in creating this Bill, an opportunity existed to produce legislation which recognised all aspects of forestry and provided a dynamic framework to develop forests and woodlands in order to deliver benefits to the people of Northern Ireland now and into the future. The Committee proposed and agreed 27 amendments to the Bill, out of a total of 28 amendments, including expanding the Department’s general duty of producing timber to include sustainability and socio-economic principles.

(Members planting a tree after an evidence session on the Forestry Bill)

The Committee consulted in respect of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill during the summer months of 2010 and ordered its report to be printed on 23 November 2010, with the Bill receiving Royal Assent on 8 March 2011. The Bill introduces compulsory microchipping in an attempt to reduce the number of stray dogs that are impounded and euthanized in Northern Ireland each year. The Bill also raises the fee for a dog licence and provides local government with the opportunity to levy fixed penalties and retain these monies to support the work of council dog wardens. Important amendments were made in respect of control conditions that can be placed on a dog licence, including requiring dog owners to attend specified training courses.

The Committee raised concerns about the additional financial burden that this Bill and the Welfare of Animals Bill would place on local government and has reached agreement with the Minister that the Department will not commence the enforcement clauses for a period of 12 months after Royal Assent in order that additional consultation can be undertaken with elected representatives from local councils. This process was initiated at a meeting hosted by the Committee and attended by the Minister and elected representatives from the Northern Ireland Local Government Association Rural group.

The Welfare of Animals Bill attracted a great deal of attention in the local press due in main to the introduction of a total ban, by way of a Committee amendment to the Bill, on the docking of a dogs tail (with exceptions in respect of specified working breeds) and the banning of showing a dog whose tail has been docked after the legislation comes into effect. The Bill has also attracted some very positive comments from stakeholders, in particular regarding the aligning of welfare rights for non-farmed animals with those of farmed animals, stricter controls to prevent the practice of animal fighting and providing the basis for greater regulation of breeding establishments. Critically, the legislation will allow an intervention to be made where it is likely that an animal might suffer. The Bill passed through the Final Stage on 22 February 2011 and now awaits Royal Assent.

The Committee undertook a second inquiry following the dioxins incident in December 2008, when pigs and pork products were withdrawn from the markets in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland following the discovery of contaminants in pig meat. The Committee inquiry concluded that there were severe weaknesses in respect of the processes used, communication between the two jurisdictions and the financial aid package offered to Northern Ireland farmers severely impacted by the incident. The Committee noted that many of its conclusions and recommendations repeated in the Executives report into the same incident.

One of the main Committee objectives has been engaging with rural people. The Committee has held eight formal meetings outside of Parliament Buildings. The Committee’s aim was to ensure that they receive a presentation from local rural dwellers during these meetings. For example, meetings have been held at each of the three departmental colleges, Greenmount, Loughry and Enniskillen, with students attending these presenting to the Committee on how departmental and other policies impact on them. The Committee has undertaken a total of 20 visits with Northern Ireland, including meetings with the Rural Development Council and Rural Community Network on the Rural White Paper, visiting farms in the Strangford peninsula and the Mournes aided through the Countryside Management Scheme and looking at sites developed by the Ballinderry River Fish Hatchery. The Committee has also undertaken visited Harper Adams University in England and a poultry litter incinerator in Holland

The Committee has been proactive in hearing the concerns of the industry and rural communities and seeking then to have these addressed either at a local, national or European level. The Committee has received presentations from some 1,589 witnesses, representing 197 organisations since May 2007, the highest of any statutory committee. The Committee has used a number of formats to receive evidence, including two very successful seminars into the Report on the Red Meat Sector. This saw, for the first time, representatives from the Committee, the Department, industry, processors, farmers and, significantly, major supermarkets, Tesco’s, Sainsbury’s and Marks and Spencers, discussing the red meat sector collectively.

The Committee is also keen to discuss areas of mutual interest with other legislators and has represented the views of the rural community in meetings with the Joint Committee for Agriculture in the Dáil, the EFRA Committee in Westminster, colleagues from the Sustainability Committee in Wales, the Minister for Agriculture in the Isle of Man and representatives from the Dutch Committee for Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation.

(Members taking questions from a packed house at the Balmoral Show, May 2010)

Issues for Incoming Committee

Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

The Common Agricultural Policy is due to be reformed by 2013. After a wide-ranging public debate the European Commission presented on 18 November 2010 a Communication on "The CAP towards 2020", which outlined options for the future CAP and launched the debate with the other Member States and other stakeholders. The Department has undertaken an extensive consultation with the industry and other stakeholders and most recently, on 22 February 2011, presented Committee with an analysis of consultee responses. These indicate the following:

• Strategic positioning of the CAP highlighted 3 challenges for the future, food security, environment & climate change and territorial balance with objectives being viable food production, sustainable management of natural resources/climate action and a balanced territorial development. The majority of the respondents were in favour of these future challenges and objectives. Of the 3 policy options outlined in the EU communication in respect to these challenges/objectives the most popular was for a more balanced, targeted & sustainable support;
• CAP budget concentrated on the scale of, justification and distribution of the budget, with the majority of responses being in favour of at least maintaining the CAP budget and of more equity in the distribution of funds;
• Direct famer support proved to divide a number of consultees with their responses on future of direct support. The more environmentally linked responses were in favour of a basic income support with additional aid for ‘greening’ public goods, they are also in favour of setting a uniform level for all farmers in a region. The responses more linked with a farming perspective stated that they were concerned with additional funding for ‘greening’ feeling that this subject was already dealt with and that pillar one should be focused on the economic production role of agriculture. These two groupings also agreed disagreed over actions involved in additional aid for ‘greening’, the capping of support paid to individual farmers, separate support regimes for small farmers. They did however agree on additional support to farmers in areas with specific natural constraints, problems that could arise with production linked support payments and the complexity of future support be confined to active farmers;
• Market measures were based around the need for adjustment of the current measures and the steps needed to improve the food supply chain. Most of the responses on this point were in favour of keeping the current market measures in place but highlighted that the food chain supply was too much under the control of the supermarket retailers;
• The CAP proposals for Rural Development asked if it should be based around a framework of competitiveness for agriculture, sustainable management of natural resources and a balanced territorial development. Most responses agreed with these structures and also on the guiding themes surrounding them. Reponses also raised concerns on the inclusion of additional risk management tools to rural development; and
• On simplification most responses indicated that bureaucracy and red tape should be kept to a minimum and had concerns on what effect the EU communication would have on this.

Legal proposals arising out of the EU consultation will be presented by the Commission during 2011 .

Review of the Common Fisheries Policy

The European Commission is preparing a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy to adapt it to a changing situation and to the new challenges ahead for the sector. The reformed CFP is set to be in effect from 2013.

The Commissions priorities in respect of the reform are as follows:

• Putting an end to fleet overcapacity by developing mechanisms capable of adapting fleet quantity to available resources.

• Refocusing the CFP's main objective on maintaining healthy, sustainable and exploitable stocks.

• Adapting the orientation of fisheries governance from today's centralised control by the Council of Fisheries Ministers, which adopts all decisions, towards regionalised (but not nationalised) implementation of the principles laid down at Community level.

• Involving the sector further in resource management and implementation of the CFP, for example by moving towards results-based management.

• Developing a culture of compliance with rules by obliging the sector and the Member States to apply CFP measures more effectively.

• Developing a simpler, less costly policy with greater proximity in decision-making.

The UK is calling for radical reform leading to a simplified, regionalised CFP with incentives for fishermen to operate sustainably and profitably. Priorities include:

• Regionalisation – the elimination of over-detailed central regulation to allow Member States to work together regionally to implement appropriate management measures;
• Integration – it is not in the fishermen’s interests to have a collision of fisheries with environmental policies, so it is felt essential to integrate the CFP with environmental policy objectives;
• Right-based management – reform needs to give fishermen clearer, long-term fishing rights that build in incentives for fishermen to operate sustainably and profitably for the long term; and
• Discards/catch quota –reducing the wasteful practice of discards by focusing on catches, not just landings

DARD Budget

The Department’s budget identifies a number of priorities over the next CSR period which will require close Committee scrutiny to ensure that they are concluded within costs. These include:

• Relocation of the DARD Headquarters to a rural setting (-/-/-/£13.3m)
• Land Parcel Information System (LPIS) Improvement project(£9.8m/£9.0m/-/-).
• Animal health and welfare(£2.5m/£3.2m/£3.5m/£2.2m). .
• Animal traceability IT system (-/£2.0m/£2.5m/£2.8m) .
• DARD Direct (£0.2m/£0.7m/£0.7m/£0.7m) ..
• Floods Directive(£0.2m/£0.4m/£0.5m/£0.4m).
• Other (£0.3m/£0.2m/£0.2m/£0.4m) . .

The Department has also identified savings of £43m over the next four years. Whilst front line services appear to have escaped, the aspirational nature of some of the proposed savings will require strict scrutiny to ensure that front-line services to farmers and rural people are not negatively impacted.

Out-workings of primary legislation

The four Bills scrutinised by the Committee will each require substantive subordinate legislation to be fully enacted. In addition, enforcement clauses relating to the Dogs Bill and Welfare of Animals Bill will not be enacted for a period of 12 months from Royal Assent to allow for further intensive consultation with elected representatives from local government councils. The Committee has requested that the Department provide it with regular updates on this consultative process.

Axis 3 of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme

Axis 3 of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme (NIRDP) seeks to improve the quality of life in rural areas and encourage diversification of economic activity. The programme, worth up to £100m (£20m of which is for administration of the programme) is delivered through partnerships between Joint Council Committees (JCC’s) and Local Action Groups (LAG’s).

The Committee has expressed concern over the lack of progress in the implementation of the programme. The programme was approximately two years late in starting and is deemed to be extremely bureaucratic. The JCC’s and LAG’s have presented to the Committee on a number of occasions to highlight their concerns at DARD’s operating rules which are alleged to stifle innovation and are contributory to a number of applicants withdrawing from the programme. There are also additional pressures with the lack of private financing (bank loans principally) available to match fund applications.

The Department measures investment, and therefore the success of the overall programme, by totalling the amounts contained in conditional letters of offer. The Committee believes that this is not a true indication of actual investment but rather of potential investment. Actual investment, in the view of the Committee, is recorded whenever money is actually being spent on projects and leverage of other funds, through private finance, is included. This differentiation in the definition is significant as the DARD method would indicate that substantial amounts have been invested whilst the Committee view is that low amounts have been invested; indeed, the Committee position would show that more has been spent on administration than on actual projects.

The programme runs until 2013 and, whilst the Department will have an additional 2 years to make payments, no new projects can be approved after 2013. The Committee is concerned that, given the programme commenced two years late, the potential for significant underspend of the budget is very real.

Rural White Paper Action Plan

The Department launched a12 week consultation on the Rural White Paper Action Plan on 21 March 2011, ending on 15 June 2011. The Action Plan sets out the Executive’s vision for rural areas, the key policy priorities to which the Executive is committed in respect of rural areas and the actions which individual Departments propose to take in order to help ensure the future sustainability of rural areas.

The Committee has two main concerns. Firstly, the actions will require a financial commitment from other Departments in order for the plan to be effected. The Action Plan itself recognises the difficulties that this raises due to the current economic climate: “The vast majority of actions in this Rural White Paper Action Plan will have to be delivered from within the existing budgets available to Departments and indeed the extent to which some of the actions can be fully realised depends on the availability of finance”. The Committee is fearful that these much-needed financial investments will not be available as other departments’ focus in on their own priorities.

Secondly, the Action Plan indicates that DARD will support the implementation of an enhanced rural proofing process across all Departments to ensure that all major policies and strategies are assessed to determine whether they have a differential impact on rural areas and, where appropriate, make adjustments to take account of particular rural circumstances. This is not a new concept but one that is already supposed to be applied, given that it was supported and authorised by the Executive in the previous mandate. The Committee has stated that it is supportive of rural proofing but that it requires legislation to enforce it. There is a real danger that, if legislation is not forthcoming, the concept of rural proofing will remain just that – a concept.

Ageing Rural Population

Research prepared by OFMDFM in 2008 entitled ‘Older people in Northern Ireland’ also highlights the fact that the actual number of people aged 65+ within Northern Ireland has grown by 104,000 between 1961 and 2008 (mid-year estimate), a growth of 72%.

This trend of upward growth in the older population is even more marked when looking at the older age groups. The numbers of people aged 80-84 rose by 20,000 between 1961 and 2008, a growth of 122%.By the year 2041 the projections show that 29% of the population of Ireland, North and South will be aged over 60.

The impacts of a growing and ageing population are likely to mean a growing need for particular services within rural communities. Areas such as transport and health provision will undoubtedly need to consider how they respond to meeting the needs of an ageing and dispersed rural population whilst trying to ensure that people remain within their communities and living independently for as long as possible.

In the period leading up to dissolution, the Committee received presentations from the Assembly’s Research and Library services on a number of issues impacting on rural communities – health, transport, education and economic considerations being some of the subject areas. This is an area that requires additional in-depth examination, particularly in light of the consultation on the Rural White Paper Action Plan, and may present itself as a potential area for the Committee to conduct an inquiry in the next mandate.

Committee Engagement

Annex A

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development Statistics

Meetings Held

Witnesses

Reports

Bills

Budget Scrutiny

Primary Legislation Scrutiny

Statutory Rules

Inquiries

Meetings outside Parliament Buildings

Visits