(I) Foot-and-Mouth Disease Position Report
(II) Silent Valley Sheep Ban
(III) Programme for Government Review and 2002-03 Budget Bids
(IV) Modulation Funding
(I) Foot-and-Mouth Disease Position Report
Members present: Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Paisley Jnr
Witnesses:
Ms B Rodgers)
Mr S Johnston) Department of Agriculture
Dr G McIlroy) and Rural Development
The Deputy Chairperson:
I welcome the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Bríd Rodgers, and her team of advisers, Mr Stewart Johnston and Dr George McIlroy.
Minister, do you wish to make a statement?
The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Rodgers):
Good morning. I notice that you have allocated 20minutes for a discussion on rural proofing. I had hoped to bring before you today, as the basis for the discussion, a paper setting out my proposals for implementing rural proofing. However, I am unable to provide such a paper because I am obliged to discuss possible proposals with my Executive Colleagues before sharing them with others. It has not yet been possible for that discussion to take place. However, my Colleagues are currently considering a paper that was sent to them earlier this week and I am therefore confident that I will be able to let you have the promised paper for the next planned discussion.
In these circumstances, I hope you agree that it would not be appropriate to discuss rural proofing this morning. I am prepared to discuss it, but I would not be able to disclose my proposals. It may be better to use the 20minutes for longer discussions on the other matters. It is up to the Committee to decide.
The Deputy Chairperson:
That is fine. We will use the time to discuss the other issues.
Ms Rodgers:
I am grateful for the opportunity to provide updates to the Committee on a range of issues. I will start with a position report on foot-and-mouth disease. Fiveminutes have been allocated to this topic, but I am happy to spend longer if members have questions.
I am glad to report that we continue to be free of foot-and-mouth disease. The situation in Great Britain is at last showing signs of being under control, with less than one new case per day. However, as we move into winter, we are approaching another dangerous period as sheep are moved down from the hills. While my Department has blood-tested over half a million sheep from the majority of Northern Ireland flocks without any sign that the virus is present, we need to continue to keep up our collective guard, just in case.
Once again, I remind all farmers, hauliers, mart staff and everyone in the agriculture sector that it is still imperative for them to play their part in taking the necessary precautionary fortress farming measures required to provide that vital second line of defence against the disease. I would also ask farmers and vets to continue to be on the look out for, and to report to my Department, any suspicious signs.
Since my last visit to the Committee on 7 September, I have met with Joe Walsh several times to review various aspects of the foot-and-mouth-disease situation, both North and South. I have also had several discussions with my ministerial Colleagues in Great Britain. Minister Walsh and I agreed to maintain our joint commitment to sustained and effective measures to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease from Great Britain for as long as the risk from that quarter exists. Therefore, our main focus remains the effective control of the seaports and airports in the North and South of Ireland, because that is the first line of defence against foot-and-mouth disease from Great Britain.
Last week I wrote to each of the airlines and ferry companies to remind them to make announcements on every flight and sailing to warn passengers of the need to take suitable precautions when returning from Great Britain. The Civil Aviation Authority has agreed to supply the same warnings on laminated cards in seat pockets. However, the disease threat in Northern Ireland is such that from 1 October I was able to lift the ban on game shooting and some other field sports. Veterinary advice was that the risks posed by game shooting, polo and dog coursing was minimal, because most of these activities take place in an environment where organisers can exercise suitable bio-security controls, and where farmers have given their express permission to use the land. However, I have asked that the organisers adhere to the strict protocols that were drawn up by the relevant gaming organisations, which have been approved by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's veterinary service.
On a related issue, I have also received some calls from hunting organisations asking for the current ban on hunting with hounds to be lifted. I have considered that carefully, but the Chief Veterinary Officer's clear advice is that because of the extensive nature of a hunt, hunting continues to represent a real foot-and-mouth-disease risk. Such a relaxation would fly in the face of our determination to maintain the fortress farming approach and simply cannot be adopted in Northern Ireland now.
Finally, on 15 June I advised the Committee that it was my intention to conduct an independent investigation into the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak in Northern Ireland. That review will highlight the lessons to be learnt from the epidemic, so that we may be better prepared for any such future events. I have finalised the terms of reference as follows: the investigation will review the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Ireland with particular reference to contingency plans, preparedness, cause, spread, handling, logistics, compensation, cross-border issues and trade implications.
In the light of the lessons learnt, the review should make recommendations to me by 31 March 2002 on how any future epizootic disease in Northern Ireland should be handled. Independent consultants, selected by tender, who will provide their own secretariat, will conduct the review. The 31 March deadline may be a little ambitious and it may need to be reviewed. The function of the review will not be to pass judgement on the actions of Governments, individuals or groups, but to identify areas where improvements can be made in the future. The consultants will be asked to consider the pre-foot-and-mouth-disease arrangements at ports in Northern Ireland for the import of foot-and-mouth-disease susceptible animals and their products together with certification and official checks. I expect the review to look at the legislative background, the structure of the industry, the spread of the disease, animal identification and movement controls, eradication methodology and carcass disposal, and whether alternative handling methods could have been adopted. I also expect the review to take account of the wider economic impact of the disease and to look at the extent to which North/South co-operation was effective in dealing with that.
The review team will also be asked to take account of other work being done in the same field, particularly the various inquiries that are being carried out in Great Britain as well as the work of the vision group. I know that several Members are keen for the review to be made public. I want to make it clear that the exercise will not be an inquiry in the sense that we in Government normally use that term. There will be no formal hearings with lawyers or submissions of evidence, so the question of whether it will be a public inquiry misunderstands the way it is to be carried out.
The consultants will interview, or take written input from, all principal stakeholders, and from anyone else who wishes to contribute. The findings of the review will be published in due course. The exercise will be conducted in an open way from start to finish.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Thank you very much, Minister. Are there any questions?
Mr McHugh:
The Minister has told us when the inquiry will begin, and she has also mentioned the importance of the airports. The Department introduced restrictions on imports of food from England, Scotland and Wales. In the event that the Assembly goes down, will those restrictions remain in force? Will the curtain go up again if that happens? There are implications for us in respect of trade into the South. The South could close us off.
Ms Rodgers:
I note that some people are now calling for British Ministers to come in, but I can only expect that the official advice to the new Minister will be the same advice as was given to me, which was to keep the ports closed. I cannot say what the new Minister will do, because the political direction of the Department will be in his or her hands. If the new direct rule Minister decides to open the ports, the Department will have to do what the Minister wants.
Mr McHugh:
Did the Department take part in the inquiry run by the Centre for Cross Border Studies in Armagh?
Ms Rodgers:
I am aware of the study. The Department is carrying out its own review, and doing so in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in the South. There will be input from both sides of the border. It would have been a waste of resources for my officials to become involved in another cross-border study. My Department did not take part, although it wished the study well.
Mr McHugh:
Did the North/South Ministerial Council not initiate the study?
Ms Rodgers:
No, no, it absolutely did not. It was a cross-border study initiated by the Centre for Cross Border Studies in Armagh, which is run by AndyPollak. The centre asked departmental officials to contribute to the study. Officials in the Republic are not contributing to the study either on the basis that it will be a duplication of the work that we are already engaged in. The North/South Ministerial Council did not initiate the study. All the work done by the North/South Ministerial Council on foot-and-mouth disease has been effective and successful. At a meeting last week, JoeWalsh and I introduced further plans for all-island animal health and all-island animal movement strategies.
Mr Kane:
I welcome the review to be undertaken by you and the Department's officials. First, do you think that the threat of foot-and-mouth disease has decreased sufficiently for the 21-day holding restrictions to be reviewed? Secondly, do you also think that the Department's measures are adequate and proportionate to the level of risk of reinfection of foot-and-mouth disease from the mainland?
If the import of sheep from Great Britain were to resume, the Southern Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development would halt lamb exports to the Republic of Ireland. I hope that the Minister takes that threat seriously. Can she assure us that she has no immediate intention of resuming imports of GB lamb in order to ensure disease prevention and market protection?
Ms Rodgers:
I have no plans to remove the 21-day holding restriction. I will ask Dr McIlroy to speak to you about the matter shortly. I understand, from information from vets, that the containment of animal movement remains an essential element of the precautionary measures that are in place to prevent a further foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak. Therefore, I have no plans to change that approach.
I am satisfied that the precautionary measures being taken at points of entry to Northern Ireland are adequate and proportionate. I have heard complaints that we are perhaps being too strict, but I do not accept that criticism. There would be terrible implications if we relaxed our guard in any way and foot-and-mouth disease returned to Northern Ireland. I do not make any apology for the fact that my officials are being extremely strict at the ports. Some ferry companies and airlines have become somewhat lax about making foot-and-mouth-disease announcements. I have written to them about the matter and have asked airlines to place laminated cards on board their aircrafts for passenger information. We will continue to be extremely vigilant.
Finally, as long as I am Minister, there will be no question of reintroducing imports from Great Britain.
Mr Dallat:
I am sure that wildlife is absolutely delighted that there is a ban on hunting with hounds at the moment. Has the Department given any thought to keeping that ban in place once the risk from foot-and-mouth disease is over?
Ms Rodgers:
No, we have not considered that issue. However, I take your point.
Mr Bradley:
I would like the Minister to examine an incident that a lorry driver told me about. The driver brought a lorry into port in Northern Ireland on a Stena Line ferry at 2.00 am or 3.00 am. He asked a harbour policeman where he could get his vehicle sprayed. The policeman said that he did not know and pointed him in the direction of some men in a nearby hut who were able to help him. Those men should have been be looking for the lorry drivers who were coming into port rather than vice versa. Can you examine that issue?
Ms Rodgers:
There are mechanical sprayers in ports and there should have been an immediate inspection. If you can give me further details, I will look into the matter.
Mr Bradley:
The incident is part of a larger report that I presented to departmental officials this morning.
Ms Rodgers:
I will certainly look into the matter when I receive the details.
Mr Armstrong:
Does the inquiry examine how foot-and-mouth disease was introduced to the Ardboe and Cushendall area? Will you make public the findings of the inquiry?
Ms Rodgers:
I prefer to call it a review rather than an inquiry - the word "inquiry" implies that we did something wrong. The issues you mentioned are within the remit of the review, which will examine how and why the outbreak occurred, and how it could have been prevented. When we receive the results of the review they will be made public, and Committee members will receive a copy.
Mr Armstrong:
I am sure that you are all aware that there are no sheep in Ardboe. The exclusion area covers the area surrounding Ardboe. However, sheep can wander from the Sperrin Mountains to Ardboe, and over a distance of more than 20 miles, and they may come into contact with other sheep.
Dr McIlroy:
The Department has asked that farmers keep sheep and cattle apart. That is necessary considering that there have been outbreaks in Great Britain, although a reasonable time has passed since the last outbreak. However, it is important that farmers keep sheep and cattle separate this winter.
The Deputy Chairperson:
One confusing matter - and I have spoken to departmental officials about this - concerns the movement of pedigree stock from Northern Ireland to Scotland. Some farmers have bought farms in Scotland and they want to move their cattle over there but they are not allowed to do so. A possible solution would be to impose restrictions on the animals when they reach Scotland. What is the situation regarding that?
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must make a statement on that matter because it is causing confusion. A couple of farmers contact me every day because they feel that they are being discriminated against. I do not like to use the word "discriminate", but they feel that they cannot move their stock to Scotland even though there seems to be movement from Scotland to here.
Ms Rodgers:
I am aware of the problem, but the ban on the import of susceptible species from Northern Ireland or any other EU member state is imposed by an EU decision. The EU decision prevents Northern Ireland from sending susceptible species to any other EU member state. The decision was made to avoid adding to the disease control difficulties of the region, and it also removes the risk of disease being carried out of Great Britain to other regions.
It might appear to be unreasonable since Northern Ireland has regionalisation status, but that is how it is. I will raise the matter with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to see if there is any way of easing the restrictions. However, it is an EU-imposed decision.
Mr Armstrong:
If animals are permitted to move reasonably freely through the rest of Great Britain from different counties, why can they not move from Northern Ireland, which is another county of Great Britain.
Ms Rodgers:
There is free movement in some parts of Great Britain. However, if Mr Armstrong's logic is applied, one could argue that the animals should be moving freely over here. That is not a precedent that I want to set.
Mr Armstrong:
But Northern Ireland is not a high-risk area and parts of England are high risk. As Northern Ireland's stock is not of a high risk, they should be allowed to move.
Ms Rodgers:
As I explained, the EU regulation has imposed the movement restriction.
Mr Armstrong:
Minister, you said that the movement of animals was not permitted from Northern Ireland to any other EU member state, not to part of the same country.
Ms Rodgers:
Northern Ireland has regionalisation status and is recognised as being different from other areas. I do not mean to be facetious, but I am sure that you do not want Northern Ireland to return to a non-regionalised status.
Dr McIlroy:
I may have picked you up wrong, Chairman, but do you have the impression that there is movement of animals from Scotland to Northern Ireland?
The Deputy Chairperson:
I think that there is movement of animals from Scotland to Northern Ireland for slaughter.
Ms Rodgers:
No, there is not.
Dr McIlroy:
There is absolutely no movement of susceptible animals or product, other than product that meets the conditions for foot-and-mouth disease by heat treatment or another means.
The Deputy Chairperson:
I am glad to have that clarified. There is a belief that some farmers are getting away with moving stock from one region to another while others are not. It is OK so long as there is a blanket ban on the movement of animals.
(II) Silent Valley Sheep Ban
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Friday 12 October 2001
Members present:Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson) Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Paisley Jnr
Witnesses:
Ms B Rodgers) Department of Agriculture and Rural
Mr R Jordan) Development
The Deputy Chairperson:
I welcome the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Bríd Rodgers, and Mr Ronnie Jordan from the Department.
The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Rodgers):
The Committee has asked to be updated on the position of Silent Valley. I want to make it clear at the outset that while I have provided periodic updates to the Committee, it should not be taken as implying that my Department is in the lead on this issue. I expect the Department for Regional Development to take primary responsibility for responding to the difficulties which it has created by imposing the grazing ban.
Nonetheless, I am committed to representing the interests of the affected farmers, and my Department will assist the Department for Regional Development to the maximum extent possible within the constraints imposed by EU regulations. My officials have met with officials from the Department for Regional Development on several occasions to explore the issues and the scope for action.
I met the Minister for Regional Development this week to review the position and to agree on the next steps. Minister Campbell held firmly to the view that it was impossible to ease the grazing ban because of the possible risk to public health and the impracticality of trying to control a limited grazing regime.
I retain reservations about the scientific justification for the absolute ban, but I do not have access to scientific evidence, therefore I cannot propose a viable alternative. I recognise that the Chief Medical Officer supports the ban, and I agree that public safety must remain paramount. I do not see any scope for an early easement of the ban.
I advised Minister Campbell that there was no possibility of further application of the force majeure concession, which I was able to use last year to protect the farmers' subsidy entitlement. I made it clear that it was unfortunate that I was not consulted before the ban was applied, because I would have advocated a staged approach, which could have helped to protect the payment of subsidies.
However, with an extended ban now in place, any flexibility has been removed. Despite those difficulties, I agreed with Minister Campbell that our officials should work together to assess the remaining scope for action and recommend a way forward, based on a collaborative approach by the two Departments and designed to achieve a suitable overall response. I hope that the proposals can be brought forward quickly to enable a resolution.
Mr Bradley:
Minister, you mentioned a meeting with the Minister for Regional Development. I wrote to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and I received a one-paragraph reply which said that it was not that Department's responsibility and that the matter had been referred to the Department for Regional Development. There is no reference to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The responsibility appears to lie with you. Surely matters relating to public health should be presented to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
I was contacted by some farmers who were fortunate enough to obtain alternative limited grazing on common ground. They are awaiting notification of the common acreage allocation, but that is a slow process. Can that process be accelerated in order to give those farmers a chance to proceed with their claims for subsidy. The farmers' names should be known to you.
Mr Jordan:
All those applications are being processed, and the Department hopes to make the advance payments towards the end of October. I was unaware that any of them had been held up.
Mr Bradley:
It is possible that they had expected to have them by now.
Mr Jordan:
We do not make any payments until -
Mr Bradley:
I was not referring to the payments, but to how many acres they are entitled to claim on.
Mr Jordan:
I will check why they have not received confirmation. Amendments relating to the foot-and-mouth situation may have delayed things slightly.
Mr Bradley:
Perhaps I am making a special case for them. I leave it with you.
Mr Dallat:
The Silent Valley is not in my constituency so I have no political axe to grind. I am, however, astonished that the Minister was not told about the ban in the first place and has no access to the scientific information. Am I to believe that elements in the Civil Service still find it difficult to accept a democratic Assembly where freedom of information is paramount? Should this issue go to the top of the agenda for the next meeting of the Liaison Committee? We could perhaps find some way of ensuring that the Minister, for example, is not embarrassed by another Minister's decisions due to lack of information. I accept that civil servants prepare the groundwork, and it is astonishing that Mr Bradley cannot get information from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development cannot get information from the Department for Regional Development. The poor farmers have been the victims.
Ms Rodgers:
The Minister for Regional Development and the Department's civil servants are privy to the scientific data on which the decision was based, but I am not. Had there been consultation before the announcement, it would have been in the interests of the farmers. A staged approach would then have allowed us to protect the subsidies. However, it is water under the bridge and we now have to deal with a difficult situation that is not of my making. My Department will liaise with Minister Campbell and his officials, following further discussion, to try to alleviate the situation for the farmers.
Mr Kane:
How many farmers have made applications?
Mr Jordan:
Last year there were 114 grazing licences for the Silent Valley catchment area. The Department could not identify all of them in its records. Land may have been taken and used by another family member with a different address. There are between 100 and 114 licences.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has been extremely strict in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease in order to protect the Northern Ireland herd. Everyone accepts that, and justifiably so. Do you believe that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's decision is justifiable in order to protect public health from the threat of cryptosporidium? Or should the ban be lifted?
You also mentioned reservations about the scientific evidence. Have you asked to see the scientific evidence? If so, have you been refused access? Most members would find that interesting. Do you accept that early consultation between the two Departments would have made no difference to the outcome? There would still have been a ban on grazing.
With regard to monetary compensation for the sheep farmers' losses, is there any chance of payment by your Department for consequential loss? I know that the Department has been unable to pay for consequential loss to farmers and others who have suffered as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, and other Departments have refused consequential loss payment to other affected businesses. Taking account of the ramifications with other Departments, is there the slightest chance of payment?
With regard to finding a solution, have you spoken to the Minister of Finance and Personnel about consequential loss payments from either the monetary round or the Executive programme funds?
Ms Rodgers:
First, in relation to public health, if the Chief Medical Officer takes the view that there is a risk to public health, that must be a concern. I accept that if there is a risk to public health, that must be a priority. I have already said that in my statement; there is no doubt about my view on that. I said that I retained reservations about the scientific justification for the absolute ban because I have not had access to the scientific data. I discussed it at my meeting, but that data has not been shared with me. It was not offered, and it was not shared.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Did you ask for it?
Ms Rodgers:
I discussed it. It was up to the Minister for Regional Development or the Department for Regional Development to offer to share it with me, which they did not.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
But did you ask to see it?
Ms Rodgers:
If I made the point that I did not have access to the data, and therefore could not come to a decision, it was clear what I was saying.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
It was not.
Ms Rodgers:
The Minister with whom I was talking has a high level of intelligence and would have understood what I was saying. I am simply accepting the Minister's word for it when he says that there was a need for the ban to be absolute; I cannot make a judgement on data that I have not seen. That is all I am saying. If the Chief Medical Officer and the Minister for Regional Development tell me that there was a health risk, I must take that risk seriously.
As I have said, prior consultation would have allowed me to advise. For instance, there was no need to announce the ban when it was announced, because the sheep were off the mountain and were going to remain off the mountain for some time. There was no urgency about making an announcement. It could have been done in a different way on a staged basis; the timing was important, but because of the timing, it closed off any possibility of protecting the subsidies.
Mr Paisley Jnr will be aware that the issue of a possible consequential loss is a difficult one. I would not be in a position to look at that until the Department has finished its discussions on how it will tackle the problem. I am not currently looking at the issue of consequential loss because it is not for my Department alone to look at ways of redressing the situation in which farmers find themselves. If by working jointly with the Department for Regional Development my Department can find a way to alleviate the situation, I am prepared to look at that and do that. After my discussions with Minister Campbell, we left it that officials would further look at the issues and areas and attempt to come to a joint agreement.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I would like to question the Minister because she has not been clear on this issue. Could she perhaps ask one of her officials - or put it in writing so that a paper trail is established - to ask the Minister for Regional Development to forward the scientific evidence to her? The Minister is entitled to see that evidence and if she is being refused it, everyone would like to know. People will want to know why.
The Minister said that she did not think that the public should be told at this time when the ban was proposed. Most people would be alarmed to think that there would be any suggestion in this supposed open and transparent Government that something should be hidden from the public at a particular time. If there is a threat to public health, the public should know about that as soon as possible. If there is a threat to the animal herd in Northern Ireland, the public should know about that threat as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister would agree with that. Once a Department knows about such issues, it is foolish to try to hide them from the public because ultimately they will emerge.
Ms Rodgers:
First, I will deal with the issue of scientific data. It was discussed; I made the point that because I did not have access to the data, I could not make a judgement. No offer was made to give me access to the data. I have no problem asking for the data, and I will do so if the Committee so wishes. However, the scientific data has not been offered
Perhaps Mr Paisley Jnr misunderstands the position. The public was already aware of the situation regarding the Silent Valley ban. The ban is in place, and will remain in place for some months. There was no question of keeping anything from the public. Last year the public was informed of the ban, the reason being the danger of water contamination. Nothing was being kept from the public.
It was not necessary to announce publicly that the ban would be kept in place for some months. I am not suggesting that anything should be kept from the public. That would be contrary to everything I have done to date. The timing of the announcement was problematic.
Mr McHugh:
From what you say, if things had been done differently there would have been a different outcome. In this way, Ministers and Departments have failed farmers. The scare meant that public health had top priority and overshadowed other issues. This Committee flagged up all the points at an early stage and brought them to the attention of the Departments. Other issues should have been examined.
I have always been sceptical about whether an absolute ban was required. Research might have indicated that a limited ban or an incremental approach could have been used so that farmers could have been protected. How many farmers will lose out permanently on income because of the IACS situation? This year we are into area aid, and farmers need more, not less, land than they ever did. Some farmers have had their future in that type of farming wiped out. What help or advice has been given to farmers with families who may have been in a position to receive help from citizens advice bureaux or others? I have been told that some of them had received no help in getting other benefits, so that the family could at least be protected from loss of income.
Ms Rodgers:
Mr McHugh, you said that "Ministers have failed". Which Ministers?
Mr McHugh:
Obviously those involved.
Ms Rodgers:
In what way have I failed, for instance?
Mr McHugh:
If there had been a cross-departmental -
Ms Rodgers:
You said, "Ministers have failed", and I want to be clear about that before I answer. You have said that I have failed to protect the farmers.
Mr McHugh:
The Committee asked for Ministers to work together from the start, and for them to come up with such things as -
Ms Rodgers:
In what way have I failed to do that?
Mr McHugh:
You have failed to get the scientific information, for example.
Ms Rodgers:
That was later - after the event.
Mr McHugh:
That may be so. However, I am saying that we are part of one Government. If Ministers let those farmers down on any grounds, by not working together or whatever, I call that failure.
Ms Rodgers:
First, public health is an issue for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which is answerable to the Health Minister. Public health is a serious issue. If there is a threat to public health, I have to take it seriously, and I would expect everyone else to do the same. All I am saying is that I did not have access to the scientific data to know whether an absolute ban was justified. If the FSA says that there is a public health risk, I have to take that extremely seriously. That has to be a priority.
Agricultural advisers have been giving guidance in all areas. I am certain that if people went to my advisers, they would have been pointed in the direction of the Social Security Agency or wherever for their entitlements. My advisers did that in the areas affected by the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak. They worked hard last year to ensure that pig farmers had access to social security benefits. The Department is aware that farmers are not in the habit of seeking social security. They are reticent, and perhaps a little proud. I would be surprised if advice from our offices was not forthcoming.
The Deputy Chairperson:
You have hit the nail on the head, Minister. Farmers are very considerate people. Thank you very much.
(III) Programme for Government Review and 2002-03 Budget Bids
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Friday 12 October 2001
Members present:Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Paisley Jnr
Witnesses:
Ms B Rodgers)
Mr R Jordan ) Department of Agriculture
Mr G Lavery) and Rural Development
The Deputy Chairperson:
I welcome the Minister, Ms Rodgers, and her officials, Mr Gerry Lavery and Mr Ronnie Jordan, to this meeting of the Committee to discuss the draft Programme for Government and the 2002-03 Budget bids.
The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Rodgers):
You were recently issued with a copy of the draft Programme for Government for 2002-03. It was also issued for public consultation at the same time and responses have been requested before 20 November 2001. The intention is that the Programme for Government for 2002-03 will be presented to the Assembly in late November/early December for final approval. The new version of the Programme for Government builds on the work undertaken last year in publishing the first Programme for Government, and a serious effort has been made to improve the presentation and the focus of the Programme for Government itself and the associated departmental public service agreements.
The Executive are keen to focus on outcomes - that is, what we are trying to achieve - rather than on inputs and activities. Service delivery agreements will be introduced for next year. The Committee will be consulted on the draft. These will contain many of the activity and output targets that are contained in the current year's Programme for Government and associated public service agreements. The key departmental issues contained in the draft programme include: prevention of foot-and-mouth disease; attainment of low-incidence BSE status; provision of lifelong learning opportunities for farmers; and development of natural resource tourism.
There is an important programme of cross-border co-operation to improve animal health, control animal movements and exchange information to highlight offenders who jeopardize public and animal health. I look forward to receiving your detailed comments in due course on the content of the draft Programme for Government and associated public service agreements for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
The Deputy Chairperson:
I note that the action relating to establishing the feasibility of an early retirement or new entrants scheme has been removed in the new Programme for Government. The review of this will be completed next year. Can we have an assurance that this does not in any way suggest that a lower importance is being attached to this work?
Ms Rodgers:
With regard to early retirement I had a desk study done on the practicality and the cost effectiveness of such a scheme in relation to restructuring. That study was inconclusive because there was not sufficient relevant research done. I have therefore commissioned research which is being carried out by UCD and Queen's on the implications and impact in other countries of early retirement schemes. I await the result of that study, which I hope to have next summer, before I make a decision on early retirement. I am having that study carried out because it would be a constructive way of managing the restructuring and a cost-effective way of managing it. I would be keen to have the data and to make my decision on that basis.
The Deputy Chairperson:
The current Programme for Government mentions specifically the objective of modernising farming and diversification of its structure. These references seem to have been omitted this time around despite the Ministers agreement at a previous meeting with the Committee that specific actions should be highlighted in a review of the Programme for Government. Should these objectives not be explicit in this Programme for Government?
Ms Rodgers:
There is a commitment to have an action plan on foot of the vision group's report and after the consultation has been finished. I am sure that most of you have read the report, and clearly the commitment to take action will deal with all the issues you have raised.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Minister, turning to the draft Budget and bids, the Committee notes that a total of £10·1 million additional funds have been allocated to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, the difference in budgets between last year and this year is about £8·4 million. Are there any areas where the funding has been reduced? Can you indicate to us where you are going to get the resources to pay for some of the necessary proposals contained in the vision group's report? They do not seem to be established anywhere. Has there been a cost analysis worked into your budget for the incoming year during this cycle to see where demands required under the vision report are going to be met?
Do you agree that the actions planned for fisheries should have been reflected in the Programme for Government? There seems to be a gap with regard to fisheries.
Ms Rodgers:
The gross increases that have been outlined in the Budget total £2·7 million. However, there are some offsetting reductions between the two years. The 2000 spending review resulted in a reduction in the disease compensation baseline by £1 million in 2002-03. This baseline was insufficient to meet our requirements for animal disease compensation, and the deficit will have to be bid for in-year, as has been the case in previous years. Also, the 2002-03 allocation for less-favoured areas is down by £0·8 million. There was an allocation of £0·5 million in 2001-02 for the red meat strategy, but this was the final year of the strategy with no further allocation provided in 2002-03.
In relation to the allocation for the vision group, I intend to bid for Executive programme funds for the necessary resources. With regard to fisheries, there is a commitment to the cod recovery plan.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Do you know how much you will need to bid for?
Ms Rodgers:
Do you mean for the vision group?
Mr Paisley Jnr:
Yes.
Ms Rodgers:
It will probably be in the region of £10 million.
Mr Dallat:
The draft Programme for Government links rural regeneration to the investing in the education and skills priority. However, can you explain why the actions to have 12,000 farmer training places for environmental schemes and 12,000 places for business development have been moved back from March 2004 to March 2005 in the current Programme for Government?
Ms Rodgers:
The aim is to have reached that target by March 2005. Foot-and-mouth disease has caused problems within the Department and has slowed down many issues that we were anxious to bring forward. The date was moved back because of the setback we received over the foot-and-mouth outbreak and the amount of resources that that required within the Department.
The 24,000 places in all, both for business training and environmental training, will be particularly useful for the farming community at a time when e-commerce and modern technology is so important and is already being used successfully by many farmers.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Members should keep their questions brief as we are short of time.
Mr Kane:
No doubt finance will be set aside for the eradication of diseases. How much more time does the Department need to eradicate TB? Can the disease not be brought to a halt, or will it be around for another 50 to 100 years?
Ms Rodgers:
If the Chairman were here with a direct line to the man above, he might be able to answer your question better than I can. I do not know the answer, because disease ebbs and flows. During the foot-and-mouth outbreak the Department had to slow down its work on TB. However, it has resumed and increased its efforts to deal with TB and brucellosis. The Department is currently conducting a policy evaluation of the way in which it deals with disease control, and it will report in March 2002.
Mr McHugh:
I agree with the point about money being spent on compensation and the extra money that has to be bid for each year. The Department should limit the amount of money being allocated to compensation. It could be put to better use in a number of ways.
The South has similar difficulties to ours, but brucellosis is on the increase here, and that has a detrimental effect on farms. Animals need to be removed from farms more quickly. However, our budget is not adequate to deal with that problem. People who are asking for compensation are making more profit from the disease than they would under normal farming conditions. What can be done about this situation? If foot-and-mouth has to be eradicated, why does the same not apply to brucellosis and TB? Something more radical than a connection to the man above is required.
You mentioned that there has been a study of the early retirement scheme. The response of the vision group is that farmers will be helped with their retirement. There is no intention to introduce a scheme. Will there be an early retirement scheme in the future so that farmers will not have to plan their own retirements?
Can we move away from the position of putting large amounts of money from the budget into brucellosis and TB, which keeps people going from year to year and keeps people in jobs but does precious little else?
Ms Rodgers:
When I referred to getting advice from the man above I was being facetious. In response to being asked when brucellosis would end, I was making the point that nobody can forecast that unless they have certain knowledge.
This is a serious problem. The Department's aim is to eradicate brucellosis and TB. A policy evaluation is being conducted to ensure that any possible improvements will be made. That is very costly. It may be that that money would be better in the farmers' pockets. However, it is a necessary cost if eradication is to be achieved. Since October 2000 Joe Walsh and I have initiated studies that will bring forward a joint strategy on animal health for the island of Ireland.
Brucellosis and tuberculosis do not recognise borders and can create problems for the whole island. We hope to have that strategy in place by December next year. I am aware of the problem, and we are dealing with it as well as we can. It is a difficult problem, and there has been an especially large increase in the incidence of brucellosis. Brucellosis can be costly: our aim is to eradicate it, and we are doing everything possible - strategies, policy evaluation and speeding up processes for dealing with it - to do so. We have increased the number of staff in the veterinary division, and I can assure the Committee that everything possible is being done.
Mr Armstrong:
Health is of paramount importance for everyone in Northern Ireland. There is considerable expense involved in testing cattle, and many people are employed to ensure that the products that reach the consumer are healthy. Should not more money be spent to speed up testing on the farm and to make identification of animals easier for the farmer? Given that so many people are employed to monitor the health of animals and that farmers spend so much time bringing cattle in and sorting them out, are other people making more money out of the animals than the farmers themselves? We should make it easier to control animal health and devise better ways of identifying animals, whether it be by tagging or by other electronic means. I know that such things take time, but we should speed things up.
Ms Rodgers:
We have assisted the development of cattle handling facilities in the past, and I would be happy to consider doing so again, perhaps by adjusting the grant scheme criteria.
Mr Armstrong:
In light of Minister Beckett's remarks that farming may not be so necessary in future, is there a case for redundancy payments for farmers?
Ms Rodgers:
The Member should address that question to the person who made the statement - if that is what she said.
The Deputy Chairperson:
There are many things to be clarified.
Mr Bradley:
This is the third financial year in which funds have been allocated to the beef quality initiative, and it is still not off the ground. Will that initiative go ahead, and will it have the desired effect?
Ms Rodgers:
It will certainly go ahead, but - as Mr Bradley will accept - for a period from the end of February 2001 all the Department's resources were geared towards dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. People in all sections of my Department - and other Departments - were put on duty to deal with foot-and-mouth disease; everything else came to a standstill. People were unable to arrange meetings with farmers, and advisers were unable to go onto farms. All the things that would be required for a beef quality initiative scheme were at a standstill for at least four and a half months this year, but we are now proceeding with it.
Mr Bradley:
It cannot come soon enough.
Ms Rodgers:
I agree. We are often pilloried for not putting money directly into farmers' pockets. There is a short-termism about that criticism; the best way to help farmers is to help them to improve quality so that they can benefit consistently and continuously in the long term from having a better quality product and getting more money for it.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Do you have an additional statement on the 2002-03 draft Budget, Minister?
Ms Rodgers:
Yes, I have a brief statement.
The proposed Budget settlement for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, as its share of the Northern Ireland block, is £203·8 million, which represents a net increase of some £8·4 million when compared to the current financial year. This is a satisfactory outcome for the Department when one also takes into account the additional £164 million for subsidy payments to farmers under the common agricultural policy and a further £15 million for agri-environment schemes, which are funded from outside the Northern Ireland block. There will be further opportunities to bid for additional resources through the medium of the Executive programme funds, and I have already referred to the vision group in that respect. That is what I have in mind with relation to the Executive programme funds. We will require around £10million to take the necessary actions there.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Committees are being asked to concentrate on what will be achieved through the Department's programmes rather than on bids. In order to do this the Committee will need a more detailed breakdown of the Budget according to spending areas than that available in the Budget documentation. This would also allow the Committee to assess the in-year monitoring of the results. Can you arrange for this to be provided for this Committee?
Ms Rodgers:
Yes, that will be provided to the Committee.
Mr Kane:
I would again stress to the Minister here that TB and brucellosis must be stamped out at all costs. The onus is on the Department to bring that about immediately, and no slippage will be excused.
Ms Rodgers:
I take the point. Of course, as a farmer you will also understand that good husbandry will play an important part in our attempts to eradicate the disease.
Mr McHugh:
I suppose I should declare an interest. This has to do with women in agriculture and the fact that small businesses could be started as part of diversification on farms. I do not know if there is any part of the modulation funding, or anything in the Programme for Government, that would allocate some money to enable that to happen, streamlining it right across all the counties, not just Fermanagh. There are people who are part of agriculture but who have not been helped up to now.
Ms Rodgers:
Part of the rural development plan targets four focus groups, one of which is women. We want to enable women in the rural communities and the farming areas to benefit from the plan. The new rural development plan aims to be flexible, looking at ideas coming from the communities for rural regeneration. I was in Fermanagh myself a few days ago and was very impressed with what has been done in Derrygonnelly. It has been done also in many other areas - for example, the Sperrins. It is up to communities in partnership with other local organisations and with their councils to come forward with ideas and plans which are innovative, sustainable and can help regenerate the rural economy. My Department and the rural development advisers on the ground will be very anxious to help people, and women are one of the target groups.
Mr Dallat:
Minister, I know you were in the Sperrins last week and visited several of these projects. I want to pass on congratulations to your Rural Development Branch, which paid a key role in getting those initiatives off the ground. They are now in place, they are sustainable, and they have given lifeblood to the rural communities.
Ms Rodgers:
Thank you. I will pass that on to Miss McLernon, the rural development adviser in that area.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Mr Dallat took the words out of my mouth. Last week you visited people in the south Derry area. Those people are very appreciative of the Department's work in getting projects off the ground. Without the Department's help those projects would not have happened.
Ms Rodgers:
Thank you for those remarks. The most striking thing about rural development is the real partnerships between the communities, the local councils, the many funding bodies and the Department. The rural development advisers, in particular, work very well with the local communities - I know because I have seen their work. The advisers work with the communities in a way that is - I must be careful what I say when I am surrounded by civil servants - not the normal bureaucratic approach. This was a difficult area because it was new and innovative. There has been some criticism of rural development, but the people who pioneered the system have done a good job of working with those communities and helping people to help themselves. This is an important part of diversification, and it enables the farming and rural communities to remain viable.
The Deputy Chairperson:
The message is that the Department has been brought closer to the community, which is important.
Mr Lavery, I thank you for your contribution. You got off very lightly.
(IV) Modulation Funding
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Friday 12 October 2001Members present: Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Paisley Jnr
Witnesses:
Ms B Rodgers)
Mr R Jordan) Department of Agriculture
Mr T Stainer) and Rural Development
The Deputy Chairperson:
I welcome the Minister, Ms Rodgers, and her officials, Mr Ronnie Jordan and Mr Tom Stainer, to this meeting of the Committee to discuss modulation funding.
The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Rodgers):
The memorandum that I sent to the Committee on 3 October outlines the background to modulation, which, as the Committee knows, was introduced across the UK just before devolution. The memorandum describes progress in the implementation to date, the amounts allocated in the rural development plan and the options for using the, as yet, unallocated portion. I will not speak at length on the background details. However, modulation brought the Department additional moneys through match funding, which we would not have had otherwise. It permitted us to enhance the countryside management scheme, the organic farming scheme and the farm woodland premium scheme. The intention in permitting modulation was, and is, that money should be shifted from the so-called first pillar to the second pillar of the common agricultural policy support for production, broadly embracing the environment and rural development.
The rules clearly state that modulation receipts must go back to the farmers in the form of accompanying measures. That means that modulation money may not be used for wider rural development schemes or aid to, for example, food-processing enterprises. Further modulation receipts must be applied to new schemes or agreements under existing schemes. The European Commission has interpreted this as excluding the new less-favoured area (LFA) scheme, so there are a limited number of areas in which modulation receipts may be used.
The rural development plan was agreed by the European Commission in December 2000. It contains allocations of modulation to agri-environment, the countryside management scheme, and the new organic farming and agri-afforestation schemes. Some £8 million has not yet been allocated, nor has £24 million of Treasury match funding. The options for use of the unallocated modulation funds are an early retirement scheme - if I decide that one should be introduced - an environmental capital grants scheme, e-plans, or a scheme to promote biodiversity. However, I have not ruled out the option of devoting some of the money to afforestation on farms. Some of the match funding will be needed to match the uses to which modulation is put. However, under the rural development regulation, the remainder may be used for other measures such as a new entrants scheme. As you know, I have commissioned a research project on early retirement and new entrants schemes. I am waiting for the results before I make a decision on those.
The Deputy Chairperson:
You mentioned the new entrants scheme. To enable us to get new entrants, there must be a scheme where older people can get out of farming to make way for new farmers. Money is available in other countries for the retirement scheme. Mr Byrne reiterated that money is in the schemes for it.
It is pointless educating and encouraging young farmers in agricultural colleges to move forward if we do not make way for them to take over farms. The only way to do that is to let older farmers step to one side and encourage new farmers. That is where the retirement scheme comes in. It will not be the be-all and end-all of agriculture in Northern Ireland, but it is a future for the next generation. It must be looked at seriously because other countries that Northern Ireland is competing with have schemes in place. We must do something about that. It is like hitting your head against a brick wall. It is impossible to compete unless young farmers are given opportunities. I pay tribute to the staff at the agricultural colleges at Loughry and Greenmount for their contribution in instilling the future of farming in the minds of young people. Unless young people are given the opportunity to work on farms, education is pointless.
Paragraph 3 of the memorandum states that around 25% of Treasury match funding is needed to provide national co-financing for measures financed by modulation. However, paragraph 14 states that £14 million of Treasury money has been allocated for that purpose. Out of £38 million available, that figure is almost 37%. Can you confirm that that is correct?
Ms Rodgers:
I will deal with EU money being separately available first. There is no more EU money available to Northern Ireland. The UK obtained a certain allocation under the rural development regulation, reflecting its historic and unfortunately low spend in those areas. Northern Ireland obtained its share, which is all now committed. Any co-financing must come from modulation. I have already said that there is £8 million and £24 million of Treasury match funding still to be allocated, but there is no new EU money available for an early retirement scheme.
I have initiated research into both new entrants and early retirement schemes so that a decision can be made from the information as to whether it is the most useful and effective way of using money to restructure farming. I need to have all that information at my disposal before I make a decision. Everyone accepts that restructuring must happen, but it is about how it can best be achieved within the resources.
It must be remembered that almost all modulation money will go towards an early retirement scheme, if that is chosen. The Committee will be consulted when I get the results of the research that is being carried out. I will decide, in consultation with the Committee and the Assembly, the best way to go forward and the best way to use the modulation money. I will also be informed by what the vision group has to say. That must all be taken into consideration.
Mr Stainer will answer the question on co-financing.
Mr Stainer:
The percentages are not constant. There are different rates for different schemes, and certain rates of co-financing are required. For agri-environment schemes, for example, it is 75% EU co-financing until the last year of the scheme. It will not work out at exactly 25%, although most of the remaining money will be used to co-finance at 25%.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Minister, you said that it depends on the type of early retirement scheme that is chosen. Holland and France have schemes, which are self-financing. They are financed by the farmers, so it costs the Governments very little. We should investigate that, although I am not the one making the decision.
Ms Rodgers:
That is why I have asked for a study to be carried out to examine the early retirement schemes and measures that other EU countries have in place in order to assess their impact and the practical outcome. I will then make a decision based on that knowledge.
The Deputy Chairperson:
I am very glad to hear that, Minister.
Mr Kane:
Minister, what recommendations by the vision group require funding under the accompanying measures scheme? Is it not now obvious why there was an absence of consultation when modulation was introduced?
Paragraph 10 offers reassurances on accountability of modulation funds and appears proper and reasonable. What assurances are there on accountability of Treasury match funding, or will it be unavailable or given as reluctantly as agri-money compensation match funding?
Ms Rodgers:
We are assured that the match funding from modulation will be allocated within the block. Unlike the agri-money, which is not compulsory, we do not have to fight for it. The deal on modulation was done before we had devolved government. It was agreed that the modulation money from Europe would be match funded from Treasury. It will be allocated within our block, though it will be ring-fenced for modulation.
Mr Bradley:
The Chairperson said last week that Commissioner Byrne told him about EU money that is available for early retirement purposes. There appears to be a contradiction. I am interested in hearing the Minister's comment. Also, has the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development any contingency plans in place for alternative schemes if the result of the current research is overwhelmingly against early retirement and new entrants schemes?
Ms Rodgers:
I was not privy to the conversation that Commissioner Byrne had with the Chairperson so I do not know what was said. However, I can assure the Committee that as a result of the historic low spending there is no more money available within the rural development regulation for the UK. It could well be that Mr Byrne was referring to other countries - I do not know. As I was not privy to the conversation I cannot comment on what precisely was said.
You asked whether I have any contingency plans if we cannot have an early retirement scheme. My response to that is that I have finite resources available to me, and I want to spend those resources in the best interest of the industry and in the most effective way to facilitate restructuring and to enable the agriculture industry to remain viable.
With those finite resources I have no option but to look at the best way forward. Should I conclude that for whatever reason early retirement is not the way forward, in consultation with the Committee I will find a better way. There will, however, be no easy choices.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I was present at the meeting referred to by the Deputy Chairperson and Mr Bradley, as was the leader of the SDLP in his capacity as MEP. I would be surprised had he not briefed the Minister on the outcome. Commissioner Byrne indicated that the Government here were not exploiting the opportunities presented by modulation. He was quite critical of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for not picking up on that. Perhaps the Minister would contact him to explore the opportunities offered by modulation and seriously to consider finding an alternative means of using modulation, whether in e-plans or - as indicated in paragraph 16 - a scheme for early retirement or for new entrants, whichever was the Minister's choice.
Ms Rodgers:
It was open to us to modulate at a higher rate. The reason for modulating at the lowest rate was that there was an outcry from the industry, from this Committee and from the farming community that money should not be taken out of subsidies and put into modulation. We had that option, but decided in consultation with the industry that the way forward was to put a smaller sum into modulation and to continue the subsidies.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
With respect, Minister, that is different. My question, and that of Commissioner Byrne, is in respect of how the existing modulation is used.
Ms Rodgers:
I would find it extraordinary were Commissioner Byrne to criticise my Department's handling of modulation money. That may well be true, but I find it difficult to give credence to it. We are using the existing modulation money. There is money still to be used. No decisions have been made about it. At the beginning of the year I stated that I would consult with the Committee before I made decisions on the allocation of further modulation money. That is the correct way to go about it.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Minister, thank you for your visit this morning.