Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Friday 3 May 2002
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Discussions with Minister
(I) Premia Payments
(II) Response to LMC Inquiry Report
(III) Animal Diseases Inquiry
(IV) Northern Ireland Scrapie Plan
(V) Rural Proofing
Ordered by The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development to be printed 3 May 2002
Minutes of Evidence: 09/01/E
Membership and 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.
The membership of the Committee since its establishment on 29 November 1999 has been as follows:
Dr Ian Paisley (Chairperson)
Mr George Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr PJ Bradley
Mr John Dallat*
Mr Pat Doherty**
Mr Boyd Douglas
Mr David Ford
Mr Gardiner Kane
Mr Gerry McHugh
Mr Ian Paisley Jnr.
* Mr Dallat replaced Mr Denis Haughey on the latter's appointment as a Junior Minister.
** Mr Doherty replaced Mr Mick Murphy with effect from 1 July 2002.
Mr Murphy replaced Mr Francie Molloy with effect from 4 February 2002.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Friday 3 May 2002
Members present:
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Douglas
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Paisley Jnr
Witnesses:
Ms B Rodgers ) Department of Agriculture
Mr R Jordan ) & Rural Development
1.
The Deputy Chairperson: Minister, you and your officials are welcome. We have only a short time with you, and we wish to address several matters which the Committee has already discussed. We will keep to a tight time schedule to enable us to make use of you while you are here. I mean that in a nice way.
2.
The Minister of Agriculture & Rural Development (Ms Rodgers): I am pleased to hear that.
3.
I am glad for the opportunity to meet the Committee to address several issues, some of which we will deal with briefly and others that we will discuss at greater length. I am grateful to the Committee for rearranging its order of business to accommodate some of my officials who have to go elsewhere once their business here is complete. With that in mind, and given the formidable agenda that faces us this morning, I will turn immediately to the issue of premia payments.
4.
I welcome the opportunity to review the payment of direct farm subsidies with the Committee. Again, I apologise for not being able to meet the Committee on 18 January when subsidy payments were last on the agenda. I am grateful to you, Chairperson, for bearing with me. In my absence in January, my officials provided the Committee with a detailed report, and there have been monthly updates since then, the latest of which showed the position on 11 April. The updates clearly track the good and steady progress that has been made, and continues to be made, in working through this year's very sizeable payment programme.
5.
The April report indicated that advance payments were significantly completed and that balance payments were scheduled to commence in line with the annual payments profile that I published last October. I am pleased to confirm that balance payments are now under way and will continue until the end of June. That is in line with the published targets and fully meets our obligations under EU rules.
6.
The Committee will be aware that the Department encountered problems at the start of this year's payment period when the EU introduced the requirement that subsidy claims be checked against individual animal details held on the Department's animal and public health information system (APHIS) database. In January Tony McCusker briefed the Committee in detail on those checks and explained that, if they were not carried out, the Department would be criticised by European Commission auditors, and the EU would refuse to meet part of the cost of the subsidy budget, which the UK Exchequer would then have to fund. I am pleased to report that we have been able to protect public funds by fulfilling our obligations under the EU audit rules and by making most payments in line with the targets. The new checking systems are now operating effectively. To ensure that there is no continuation, or repeat, of the earlier problems, the Department is reviewing the crosschecking arrangements and will take action as necessary to ensure that they continue to run smoothly.
7.
Although there was an initial delay in issuing some beef advances when payment started at the end of October, the situation improved progressively during November and December. The majority of claims were made within the published target time or, in a small number of cases, soon afterwards. Since October a total of £123 million has been paid out. Because of the particular difficulties and cash-flow problems faced by farmers this year, I decided to take advantage of the flexibility announced by the European Commission at the end of October to increase the beef advance payment rate from 60% to 80% of the full rate of premium. Therefore, about £12 million has been paid five to six months sooner than would normally be the case.
8.
As it stands, over 98% of beef special premium and suckler cow premium advances have now been paid. There is a similar position on less favoured areas allowances, slaughter premium, arable area payments and ewe premium payments. Claims not yet paid have queries which are being pursued with the farmers concerned. Timely payments remain a top priority, and officials will continue to strive to improve performance on this where possible within the EU rules.
9.
Over the last year the Department has been actively working to streamline the systems and procedures which support the payment process. In the past six months several refinements have been introduced to help speed up the processing once claims have passed the verification checks required by the EU. The benefit of these improvements is evidenced by the fact that advance payments of slaughter premium, balances of sheep annual premium and less favoured area compensatory allowances all issued earlier than the published targets and the timetables achieved in previous years.
10.
This year farmers could opt to have payments made directly to their bank accounts. That method of payment is more secure and convenient for farmers, and the cash is available in their bank accounts three days sooner than it would be by payable order. Over 40% of farmers chose that method of payment, and the Department will encourage others to follow suit.
11.
Text and advice notes have been made easier to understand. This summer farmers will receive for the first time an annual statement of all their subsidy payments to help them reconcile their records. Those are only some examples of the work being undertaken across a wide range of areas to improve the payments system. The Department is trying to reduce the bureaucratic burden on farmers by simplifying claim forms, and this year's integrated administration and control system (IACS) form has been greatly streamlined. It is envisaged that application forms for the slaughter premium scheme will be dispensed with next year. The new appeals procedure and the forthcoming code of practice for farm subsidies are also important steps in improving the transparency of the subsidy system.
12.
I believe that, overall, the existing and planned arrangements for the administration and payment of subsidies are effective and are getting better all the time. The close and positive working relationship that the Department maintains with the farming industry has helped to inform its thinking on shaping the future delivery of subsidies.
13.
The current position on premia payments may be summarised as follows: over 98% of advances of suckler cow premium and beef special premium have been completed; 99% of first and second period, and 86% of third period, applications for slaughter premium have been paid; more than 98% of eligible applicants for the 2002 less favoured areas scheme have been paid; ewe premium payments have almost been completed, with around 98% of advances and 95% of balances paid; and 99% of arable area payments have been completed. The priority now is to complete this year's payment programme. By the time balance payments are completed at the end of June, over 400,000 payments will have been processed and more than £180 million paid out. I am pleased to report that the completion of this sizeable exercise is on schedule.
14.
The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you, Minister. I congratulate your Department on the fact that anyone can see when the payments are being made through the farming papers. That is good; it brings us into line and keeps farmers up to date with regard to their claims.
15.
Mr Kane: Minister, I thank you for your response to my question the other day. Do you accept that the balance of payments now due to producers is a balance on claims submitted in 2001? Do you also accept that there is room for the timescale to be reduced, and payments thereby speeded up? Many producers are concerned about the interdependence of the balance of premia payments and the release of EU funds. Will you comment on that?
16.
Ms Rodgers: The answer to the first part of your question is "Yes, 2001." The timing of the balance payments is designed to enable advance payments to be cleared before balances become due. The EU rules allow until the end of June for 96% of payments to be fully completed, and that timing is taken into account in the Department's payments profile. As I have already said, we have been able to increase the amount we pay in advance from 60% to 80%, and we have taken advantage of that.
17.
Mr Bradley: I welcome the statement that will be issued to farmers in the summer. That will be beneficial because it is terribly difficult to identify some of the cheques that come in. I cannot point the finger at you on this, but there are cheques for 35p and 40p that drift in at the end. Is there anything we can possibly do to eliminate that? It is hardly worth taking the Land Rover out to go to the bank with some of those.
18.
Ms Rodgers: Not to mention the postage.
19.
Mr Bradley: You touched briefly on the IACS form; its simplicity has improved greatly. I have tabled a written question to you; I do not expect an answer today, but I would like you to take note of it. I have had reports of farmers who have not received their application forms. That could certainly raise issues, because they have been warned that the deadline for their return is 15 May. Some are asking about the Department's deadline for issuing the forms.
20.
Ms Rodgers: I accept that it can look ridiculous to get a small cheque, and we are considering how we can deal with that. We are looking to see if we can do something about that. I hope and presume that those farmers who have not received their application forms have contacted the Department. If there are any cases, you can let us know, and we will have them followed up urgently.
21.
Mr Douglas: I want to acknowledge that there has been an improvement in the payments system. You mentioned advance payments. People submitted applications for arable area payments on 15 May last year; is there any way that part of those payments could be made in advance, if there are questions to be answered? As you know, those in the arable section who have not received the payment have had little other income.
22.
Ms Rodgers: Thank you for your initial remarks. I will ask Mr Jordan to deal with your question.
23.
Mr Jordan: We are bound by the EU provisions concerning the advance payments for the livestock schemes.
24.
Mr Douglas: So you are not allowed to pay anything out until it is completely cleared?
25.
Mr Jordan: Yes, they must be cleared first.
26.
Mr Douglas: So, if there is a problem over one particular area, there is no funding until that is completely cleared; is that right?
27.
Mr Jordan: Yes.
28.
Mr Douglas: That is fine.
29.
Mr Armstrong: I was pleased to hear that you are now able to pay up to 80% of the beef special premium; that is welcome. When would it be possible to have one payment instead of two? Is it possible that in time there could be some ruling that you could -
30.
Ms Rodgers: Make the whole thing in advance?
31.
Mr Armstrong: Provided everything is in order.
32.
Ms Rodgers: The key point is that everything needs to be in order. Mr Jordan will explain the technicalities.
33.
Mr Jordan: The advantage in being able to make advance payments is that every aspect of the claim need not be clear initially, whereas if a single payment is being made, everything must be in order.
34.
The first opportunity for the advance payment approach will come with this autumn's sheep annual premia. The 2002 scheme will involve a single payment being made after 16 October instead of a three-stage payment. The advance payment provision is well advanced. The retention period was during January to April, and any difficulties should be resolved by October. As the beef schemes have different timings, payments can be delayed because of the time needed to deal with claim-related queries.
35.
The provision to make advance payments will help farmers when there are difficulties with their claims. They will receive an advance payment, and problems will be solved by the time the balance becomes due.
36.
Mr Armstrong: APHIS, the new computerised forms, and the new rural network system should provide greater scope for speeding up the process.
37.
Mr Jordan: Yes. An example would be in the slaughter premium scheme, which the Minister mentioned. From next year the Department intends to use the APHIS system to pay farmers directly, without their having to make claims for specific animals. Farmers will have to sign a declaration that they are willing to take part in the scheme, and on that basis the Department will access APHIS, identify animals that have been slaughtered, pay on that basis and issue an appropriate advice notice, which will tell farmers to contact the Department if they have any queries. Farmers will not have to go through the process of identifying animals that they have slaughtered and submitting separate claims.
38.
Ms Rodgers: Farmers will be paid without having to submit applications.
39.
Mr Armstrong: During the pilot scheme for APHIS, I noticed that much more information was available than normal.
40.
Mr Jordan: That is one positive side of APHIS, given the problems there have been over the past few months.
41.
Mr Dallat: The high percentage of claims achieved within the timescales is good news. I am sure that it was achieved with a great deal of time and effort by the Department. The Committee, on behalf of the farming community, would like to express its thanks.
42.
Ms Rodgers: Thank you. Last year, the Department said that it would examine ways of improving the system urgently. My officials have been working very hard, and the results are evidence of that work.
43.
The Deputy Chairperson: The topic of arable aid is causing concern, Minister. Many farmers did not claim for that aid during the time period allowed. However, as farming patterns have changed, can farmers who did not qualify before claim again?
44.
Mr Jordan: I am not familiar with the rules sufficiently to answer that question. I will write to the Committee.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Friday 3 May 2002
Members present:
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Douglas
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Paisley Jnr
Witnesses:
Ms B Rodgers ) Department of Agriculture
Mr L McKibben ) and Rural Development
45.
The Deputy Chairperson: I welcome the Minister and Mr Liam McKibben from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
46.
The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Rodgers): The Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC) is an important organisation in the red meat sector. It has a significant role to play in the strategic development of the sector, and for that reason, as I said when the Committee's report was being debated in the Assembly on 9 October 2001, I welcomed the report and the contribution it will make to the Departments deliberations on several important issues.
47.
The most significant issue facing the LMC is its future funding. As the Committee is aware, following the Committee's report I issued proposals for consultation on the need for increasing the size and scope of the LMC levy. The process is complete, and the proposals have been largely supported by the industry. When I make a decision on the way forward I will bring the necessary legislation to the Committee for consideration.
48.
My letter, dated 27 February 2002, set out my response to the report's recommendations. I hope that the Committee has had the opportunity to fully consider that letter. For the most part, I have no significant difficulty with the recommendations. However, there were several areas in which I was not able to reach a firm view on specific recommendations because of other developments. I refer particularly to the recommendations that relate to expanding the size of the LMC and to future support for marketing. The vision report's recommendation about the establishment of a food body has the potential to affect the future role and funding of the LMC.
49.
I hope that the Committee will appreciate that I must await the report of the working group, which was set up to examine the food body recommendation, before I reach a firm view on those particular recommendations. The working group is to report to me by the middle of June. I will come back to those issues with the Committee at that time.
50.
The Deputy Chairperson: It is recommended in the report that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development provide training to producers on grading standards. Has there been any uptake on that?
51.
Ms Rodgers: I said I would consult the industry about that recommendation. To date, there has been no positive response.
52.
The Deputy Chairperson: The Committee has from time to time raised the issue of mechanical grading. During the Easter period I had a visit from a man who showed me two videos about mechanical grading, which has been introduced in England. He said that they are keen for the Committee to visit England to look at their methods. I am sure members would appreciate the visit.
53.
Mechanical grading appears to be popular there. It is used for pork and lamb. To date, the system has not been advanced to include beef. The Department should consider its introduction in Northern Ireland.
54.
Ms Rodgers: The LMC has been to England to look at their system. It would be useful if we could move to mechanical classification because it would prevent many of the problems that arise.
55.
The Deputy Chairperson: Blame could not be pointed at anyone.
56.
Ms Rodgers: Human error - or subjectivity - could not be blamed. Trials are being conducted. However, the European Union will want to evaluate those before it makes a decision. The Department would be happy if there were movement at that stage.
57.
Mr Paisley Jnr: The Committee brought out its report last year, to which you replied in February. Today you have indicated that the working group will respond in June with its findings on those issues, particularly the food body and the recommendations on the funding and size of the LMC. Will that report be made available to the Committee as soon as it reaches the Department, or only after you have already made your conclusions on it?
58.
Ms Rodgers: The working group will examine the food body specifically - whether there is a need for such a body and, if so, what its remit should be. The group will report before the end of June. I will then consult with the Committee on the proposals that it has made, which could have implications for the LMC. I will not know that until I have seen the report.
59.
Mr Kane: Following the identification of an apparent case of the classification of carcasses being changed by meat plant staff, how comprehensive were the investigations at other plants? Who carried out those investigations? Have any distributors or retailers made an issue of that matter in communication with the Department?
60.
How was the Department made aware of the incident? Was it by chance? Had any such allegations, albeit unproven, previously been brought to its attention?
61.
Ms Rodgers: The incident was reported to us by the LMC. We carried out investigations and forwarded our findings to the Director of Public Prosecutions; that case has now gone to court. We monitored all the meat plants at that stage, something we do continuously. We carry out an average of 20 checks a year in each, and I am not aware of any other cases which have come to our attention except that which is now before the courts.
62.
Mr Bradley: What is your view on the Committee's recommendations regarding the statutory processor levy? Can your Department satisfy itself that the levy is not simply charged back to producers, who also pay their own charge?
63.
Ms Rodgers: I agree with the Committee's recommendation, and I understand that it is now going forward and that there will be a statutory levy on processors in addition to that on producers. As you know, there will also be a transaction levy. You also asked whether processors pass the cost back. That is a commercial issue, but I hope that it will not have that effect. I refer to the recommendation in the 'Vision for the Future of the Agri-food Industry' report that there be more co-operation across the food chain, more discussions and a better understanding of everyone's need for a fair slice of the cake. There is currently no evidence of the existing voluntary processor levy being passed back.
64.
Mr Bradley: It would be very difficult to monitor.
65.
Mr Armstrong: Stress suffered by those grading cattle could lead to error and instances of cattle not being graded correctly. Might another grader not be brought in to ease their burden and reduce error? There might also be an analysis of graders' expertise.
66.
Ms Rodgers: I take your point. Graders are rotated across plants with that very point in mind: to avoid subjecting them to too much stress. The LMC also regularly analyses performance to ensure consistency. As I said, the Department also carries out monitoring. Human stress is human stress, I suppose.
67.
Mr Armstrong: Perhaps the monitoring carried out with them results in -
68.
Ms Rodgers: I know that those who do not grade that regularly come in twice a year to be trained. All we can do is assure you that precautions are taken both by the LMC and by us to ensure that there is as little stress as possible.
69.
Mr Armstrong: Could you inform us of the results?
70.
Ms Rodgers: Yes.
71.
Mr Dallat: Currently only the main producer bodies are notified of appointments to the Livestock and Meat Commission. Would it be difficult to inform all producer organisations of any vacancies?
72.
Ms Rodgers: All the vacancies are advertised openly, and appointments are by the Nolan procedures. When vacancies arise, the LMC will advise what expertise is required. Different types of expertise are required, such as marketing, producing, technical knowledge, and so forth. Therefore a vacancy is advertised on the basis of requirements, and the advertisement also points out that selection will be carried out openly. As well as that, the LMC writes to all the industry organisations with an interest to inform them that a vacancy is arising.
73.
Mr Dallat: Does that mean that, depending on the vacancy, you target particular organisations?
74.
Ms Rodgers: All producer organisations are informed that a vacancy is arising.
75.
Mr McHugh: We have mentioned training for producers. If things were done correctly in the processing sector there would be no need to train producers. However, what have the LMC or the meat plants done in the meantime to improve relations with farmers?
76.
Mr McKibben: The LMC has taken seriously the Committee's recommendations about the need to improve its relationship with producers. I know that during the winter the LMC held a series of producer meetings at different locations. It organised those initially on a county basis, and several meetings were held before Christmas. Since then the LMC has had further meetings with individual groups of producers, either with producer groups or groups that the two main producer associations specifically asked it to address. The LMC has a continuing commitment to that.
77.
Mr McHugh: I am sure that that is very painful for it.
78.
Ms Rodgers: It is useful that the LMC is talking to organisations, because it is important to create a better understanding of the problems that producers experience and also to explain what the LMC does.
79.
The Deputy Chairperson: The need to ensure joined-up government was raised with regard to LMC funding, but it seems that people here are not clear what lies behind that recommendation. In fact, the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters' Association (NIMEA) raised it, and it is also outlined in the report. As NIMEA raised the matter, can we get to the bottom of it and find out what lies behind it? We are not clear what is meant by that, and I think perhaps that you are also unclear about it.
80.
Ms Rodgers: We would be happy to discuss it with NIMEA, but the Department no longer engages in direct promotional activities. Mr McKibben will be able to tell you if there would be a problem in talking to NIMEA about that.
81.
Mr McKibben: That would be no problem.
82.
Ms Rodgers: We would be happy to discuss it with NIMEA.
83.
The Deputy Chairperson: NIMEA raised the matter, and the Committee would also like to have clarification.
84.
Ms Rodgers: Certainly the best way would be to have discussions with the organisation. I take the point.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Friday 3 May 2002
Members present:
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Douglas
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Paisley Jnr
Witnesses:
Ms Brid Rodgers ) Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development
Dr George McIlroy ) Departmental Official
85.
The Deputy Chairperson: I welcome Dr George McIlroy, an official from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, to the meeting. If any Member wants to declare an interest in this matter, please do so.
86.
Mr Kane: I declare an interest.
87.
The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Rodgers): The Committee wrote to me on 22 April hinting at how it proposed to pursue the various strands of its inquiry into animal health, and asking for certain memoranda and updates. I have replied to that letter supplying the memoranda and information sought.
88.
However, in essence the policy evaluations of tuberculosis (TB) and brucellosis have been delayed due to the complexities of certain issues involved. Officials felt that it was preferable to have a delay and research those issues properly, rather than to complete the reviews on time without full information. That said, the brucellosis review team produced a draft report on 19 April, which is currently being considered by senior officials of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and officials elsewhere. I will consider the final report before presenting it to the Assembly. I hope to have that completed by the summer, although some parts of the process are beyond my control.
89.
I recently announced interim measures as it became clear that the disease had been increasing and spreading. These measures included allocating additional manpower and treating brucellosis as the highest priority, thereby maximising the use of our resources, as well as putting greater effort into brucellosis hot spots. In addition, steps to increase reactor removal times have been taken. More valuation officers have been recruited and an additional slaughter plant has been brought online.
90.
Turning to our action on the conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Department has drawn up a programme of publicity to be delivered over the coming year. The programme includes an advertisement in the spring issue of 'Northern Ireland Veterinary Today', monthly advertisements in the farming and local press, a web site bulletin board, which is to be launched in May, advertisements in agricultural show and breed society catalogues, individual letters to herd owners, and posters and leaflets.
91.
My statement of 12 March outlined the importance of the disease and called on the farming community to play its part. The Department is currently investigating one failure to report an abortion, with a view to prosecution. However, obtaining sufficient evidence in such cases is extremely difficult. My Department endeavours to ensure that all valuers on the approved list are independent, and this includes the appointment of valuers from Great Britain. At present, the Department is challenging the independence of a valuer in court. The North/South working group on brucellosis is enhancing co-operation and communication to establish, where appropriate, equivalent actions to deal with brucellosis and to ensure appropriate measures to help control the disease, particularly in border areas. The group's most recent meeting was on 24 April 2002.
92.
I recognise that botulism in cattle has increased over the past four years. Veterinary Science Division has been working actively to determine the causes of the disease, and has been advising farmers affected. Meetings have also been held with the poultry industry, since circumstantial evidence suggests that outbreaks may be linked to poultry waste. Advice has been given to farmers affected, and there has been publicity on the issue through articles in veterinary publications and the Department's beef bulletin, which is circulated to 1,500 beef farmers. There have also been radio interviews by the Chief Veterinary Officer and Dr Séamus Kennedy of the Veterinary Science Division. The Veterinary Science Division has been working closely with the Food Standards Agency when cases have been identified, and steps have been taken to ensure that no beef or milk from affected herds have reached the food chain. This is a purely precautionary measure, as the strains of botulism identified in cattle do not affect humans and there is no perceived human health risk. The Department has taken steps to make vaccine readily available to farmers who require it. I assure the Committee that the Department is working with farmers and others to ensure that outbreaks are kept to a minimum and that all necessary steps are taken when outbreaks occur.
93.
The Deputy Chairperson: I thank the Minister for her report. I would like to turn to the fourth term of reference in the Committee's inquiry. The Committee wishes to follow up on the Department's response to the recent PAC report on the brucellosis outbreak at the institute. Your letter of 3 May states that the Chairman's letter was unclear about what the Committee wants to do. You also referred to the Department of Finance and Personnel memorandum, which records the present situation and was presented to the Assembly on 29 March.
94.
It is unfortunate that you think the Chairman's letter to be unclear, and I will clarify this for the record. The Committee considered the Department of Finance and Personnel memorandum, which gives your Department's responses to the PAC report. When we were formulating our terms of reference, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development made several commitments in the memorandum. The Committee chose several of these on which to check the Department's actions against those commitments. The letter says that the Committee's request for a progress report on the months from January to March is impossible given that the Department of Finance and Personnel memorandum was only presented at the end of March.
95.
At first glance that may seem true. However, the report from the PAC was launched on 29 January, and referred to a much earlier Audit Office report. Members want to know whether the Department started any of the promised actions as soon as they were considered to be necessary. The reply suggests that it did not. The Committee must know where it stands. In one of its commitments, the Department outlined its proposed publicity campaign for disease prevention. One action was due to take place in March 2002, which was to be an advertisement in 'Northern Ireland Veterinary Today'. Was that done, and has the Department received any feedback?
96.
Ms Rodgers: All the actions have been started, and advertisements were placed in the spring edition of 'Northern Ireland Veterinary Today'.
97.
The Deputy Chairperson: The Department also said that it was committed to taking a test case against a farmer or vet for non-reporting of abortions. That may have got under way in the period from January to March. Has the Department made any progress on that report?
98.
Ms Rodgers: That is the case I referred to in my initial remarks. The Department has made progress.
99.
The Deputy Chairperson: In another commitment to the PAC, the Department said that it would monitor the outcomes of cases in which farmers appeal against a compensation valuation, and that it would investigate any significant differences between the original and the revised valuation. That procedure would have been put in place early, and the Committee has considered the records for the period from January to March. Are there any statistics on the monitoring of the investigation?
100.
Ms Rodgers: The Department is monitoring the cases, and is investigating some discrepancies. I cannot provide statistics now, but I will write to the Committee.
101.
Mr Paisley Jnr: A scam is suspected with regard to brucellosis claims, but there is no evidence. As Dr McIlroy said at the Committee's last meeting, it is difficult to get such evidence. Has the Department successfully litigated any cases?
102.
Ms Rodgers: There is a certain amount of suspicion, and it is difficult to find evidence. One case is being followed up, but it has not been finalised in the courts. There has not been any successful litigation yet. However, as part of the Department's attempts to cut out any possibility of fraud and to save the public purse - something that the Committee is anxious that it does - it is following up any suspicious cases. It is not always easy to find evidence, and the Department must ensure that it gives regard to people's rights.
103.
Mr Paisley Jnr: I do not want to prejudice the Department's actions in the case that you mentioned. However, in your statement you said that one case the Department is pursuing concerns a dispute over valuation, which is very different to a dispute over whether there has been deliberate introduction of a disease.
104.
Ms Rodgers: A dispute over valuation is part of that case. It is a complex case, and as it is a matter for the courts, I cannot go into it now.
105.
Mr Paisley Jnr: What is the Department's assessment of the status of botulism in Northern Ireland? Is it increasing? Has it stopped spreading, or is it infecting other areas? What problems would arise if botulism vaccinations were introduced? Would it be prudish for a farmer to export vaccinated cattle, or would he be unable to export vaccinated cattle? If there is a botulism scare in the US, a taskforce examines ways of minimising the spread of the disease. Have you looked at the US system?
106.
Ms Rodgers: There is no problem with exports - it is not like foot-and-mouth disease. We have worked hard to ensure that farmers can access vaccines. There was a problem obtaining the vaccine from Australia, but we have successfully made it available. Northern Ireland is the only region in GB where farmers can immediately access the vaccine.
107.
Botulism is more prevalent during the grazing season. Veterinary Services Division has been, and is dealing with, botulism as a matter of urgency since it became more prevalent, and has looked at 42 or 43 cases. Botulism is not contagious or infectious, but is contracted through ingestion. There is a strong indication that it is caused by poultry litter. In all but two cases that we have looked at, there is a clear association with poultry litter, although it has not been proven. The vaccine has been made available, and we will continue to monitor the situation.
108.
Mr Paisley Jnr: Is the disease slowing down?
109.
Dr McIlroy: That is very difficult to assess at this time of the year because most outbreaks traditionally occur during the grazing season. We await the end of the grazing season to see if it is less prevalent than last year. As the Minister said, it is hoped that the vaccine will lead to a decrease, but it is early days.
110.
Mr Bradley: Mr Paisley Jnr mentioned the US system. I attended a conference in America in March, and learned about the early response team headed up by Prof Roger Breeze. He told the conference that the early response team could immediately dispatch scientists - and even less qualified personnel - to a farm where botulism is suspected. A test is taken and sent online to the lab, and results are available within 90 minutes. I have been in touch with Dr McCracken's Department about that. Would a similar scheme be beneficial to farmers here?
111.
Ms Rodgers: Is that in relation to all diseases, not just botulism?
112.
Mr Bradley: Yes. It could apply to botulism and foot-and-mouth disease.
113.
Ms Rodgers: It would certainly be very useful to have a fast response and result. We are looking at the American system. We received a letter from the Committee about it.
114.
The Deputy Chairperson: I thank you, Minister, and your Department for the progress made on this disease. You are at the forefront in tackling many issues on botulism. Several months ago there was a long waiting list for the vaccine, but you have taken steps to make it available
115.
Mr Douglas: Evidence suggests that the spreading of poultry litter on the land causes botulism. Has the Department advised poultry producers about good farm practice, as other producers are being asked to do? Several individuals complained to me that, although they have no poultry, their neighbours' poultry has spread the disease. Some form of good farm practice might be a step in the right direction to prevent the disease spreading further.
116.
Ms Rodgers: Meetings have taken place with the poultry producers and the poultry industry to alert them to the need to take precautions, and the dangers of spreading poultry litter. That is part of our campaign to deal with the botulism outbreak.
117.
Mr Dallat: Reference has been made to the PAC report, and your Department's response to that has been very open and forthright. Your Department has totally accepted the recommendations in an unprecedented way, and I commend your Department for that. Are you satisfied that there is nothing in the report that is unfair to your Department or the farming community? When the PAC report on brucellosis was publicised there was criticism that it was unfair to the farming community.
118.
Ms Rodgers: Are you are talking about the Hillsborough outbreak?
119.
Mr Dallat: I am not referring specifically to the Hillsborough outbreak, but the allegations that animals were deliberately affected, and so on.
120.
Ms Rodgers: The Department has responded to all the aspects of the report. I am reluctant to comment on whether it was fair or not. We can only respond to any report on the basis of our responsibilities. It is a technical report, and we have responded and taken action.
121.
Mr Dallat: There was criticism that the report was unfair to the farming community, which was a serious allegation.
122.
Ms Rodgers: Who made those criticisms?
123.
Mr Dallat: Mr Ian Paisley Jnr made them. Are you satisfied that the report was in no way unfair to the farming community?
124.
Ms Rodgers: I do not believe that it was unfair to the farming community. A report is about looking at the issues and facts and reporting in order to have improvements or issues dealt with. To imply that the report was unfair might, unfortunately, be begging the question. We could have said that it was unfair to us, but we accepted the criticisms and dealt with them.
125.
Mr Dallat: The Department has accepted all the recommendations in an unprecedented way, and is to be commended for that. However, there is still the issue of whether the report was unfair to the farming community.
126.
Ms Rodgers: I do not believe that it was.
127.
Mr Dallat: That is the answer I needed.
128.
Mr Paisley Jnr: Farmers would be the best people to judge whether it was unfair to them or not.
129.
Mr Dallat: I have just one more question, if Mr Paisley Jnr would allow me to finish? [Interruption].
130.
Mr Paisley Jnr: Keep digging John.
131.
Mr Dallat: Mr Deputy Chairperson, I ask you to have that remark withdrawn?
132.
The Deputy Chairperson: Go ahead with your question.
133.
Mr Dallat: Thank you. The Minister's support for an all-island animal health programme is now borne out. The North/South Ministerial Council is meeting in October. Will there be specific recommendations about how to approach brucellosis on an all-island basis?
134.
Ms Rodgers.One of the working groups on the North/South Ministerial Council is looking at brucellosis and TB. I expect that there would be specific recommendations as to how we can jointly work in border areas. I hope to have the all-island animal health strategy completed by the end of this year, and the approach to brucellosis would be part of that.
135.
Mr Kane: Do researchers in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have data available to demonstrate how long poultry manure should be composted prior to other farm animals coming into contact with it? Has the Department information that would lead it to believe that certain poultry houses have become contaminated by spoors of clostridium botolinum, resulting in recurrence of infection in successive crops of birds passing through the house or unit? Has the Department a policy to investigate the possibility that poultry feed may be the source of clostridium botolinum? Can you provide the Committee with figures to compare the incidence of brucellosis in the Republic of Ireland with that in Northern Ireland?
136.
Ms Rodgers: I have already stated that some association between poultry litter and botulism has been indicated. I do not have exact figures for brucellosis, but it has been on the decrease in the Republic and on the increase in Northern Ireland. I have asked my Chief Veterinary Officer to deal with this as a priority, and some measures have been taken ahead of the policy review.
137.
Mr Kane: Could those figures be supplied?
138.
Ms Rodgers: Yes. I can let you have those figures
139.
Dr McIlroy: With regard to the ensilage of poultry litter, I am undecided as to the time at which there would be no danger from botuline toxin, but I will search for references. The toxin itself is reasonably stable. Therefore, advice that there should be no possible contact with such material is safer than any quantitative assessment of a dramatic reduction in risk over time. Furthermore, in scientific terms, cattle are exquisitely sensitive to botuline toxin; therefore, even small amounts of residual toxin could cause a problem.
140.
With regard to the possibility of clostridium botulinum being brought in by feed, the organism is potentially ubiquitous. It is normally resident in the intestines of poultry, and the toxin is produced only under certain conditions in a dead animal.
141.
The Deputy Chairperson: The Minister attended a conference at Loughry Agricultural College last year, which I also attended. My sole purpose for attending was to discover what happens to poultry waste. I asked the speaker at the conference what happened in America, and the answer shocked me. He had been there for fifteen years and in that time the poultry houses had never been cleaned out. There is a different method of agitating the waste.
142.
Ms Rodgers: According to Dr McIlroy there are different problems in America.
143.
Mr McHugh: Year on year, the litter is allowed to compact or compress. The method of controlling the spread and use of it is different. Spreading by air might have something to do with it; and perhaps people do not want to deal with that. What effect or impact had the earlier use of antibiotics in controlling botulism at source? In many instances, birds kept in large numbers are fed antibiotics to keep disease down. Perhaps the increase in botulism is related to the decrease in the use of antibiotics.
144.
Also, I previously raised questions on brucellosis and the new term "bed and breakfasting" - for example, where animals from Fermanagh are moved to Bessbrook. Evidence and suspicion have been discussed here, and the Department is perhaps defensive, but if all the sums add up there is perhaps a reason for that defence. Farmers may have to move animals for fodder, but some animals should be kept in their own area for other reasons. If brucellosis and tuberculosis are to be eradicated or defeated, we cannot afford to allow farmers to move animals without the Department knowing what is happening. We need to know the history of the farms, and that each farm is clear. There should be no movement without permits, as happened previously.
145.
Ms Rodgers: I will answer the last part of your question and Dr McIlroy will deal with the issue of antibiotics and poultry. Are you talking about out-farms?
146.
Mr McHugh: No. I am referring to a farm that is taken on for winter keep.
147.
Ms Rodgers: Are you talking about a farm that uses land on both sides of the border?
148.
Mr McHugh: No, it is within the North.
149.
Ms Rodgers: Restrictions on animal movement would not apply in that instance, because the movements occur on an out-farm of the same farm.
150.
Mr McHugh: I am not talking about an out-farm. I am talking about animals that have been moved to a farm belonging to another farmer who is leasing his land for winter keep.
151.
Ms Rodgers: The animals are moving in to mix with his animals.
152.
Mr McHugh: That is correct. Other animals may be there as well.
153.
Ms Rodgers: We will be looking at that as part of the policy review.
154.
Mr McHugh: Can you see the danger?
155.
Ms Rodgers: Yes. You have raised this before, and we will look at that as part of the policy review. Moving animals from an infected herd could cause problems.
156.
Dr McIlroy: Epidemiologists have suggested that one of the reasons for the increase in the number of cases of botulism may be the decreasing use of antibiotics in the poultry industry. That is part of the current investigation by the Department's Veterinary Science Division.
157.
Mr Bradley: I am aware of a large closed suckler herd, whose owner was able to take land in conacre 12 miles from the closed herd. He was able to move his cattle into that area, with the result that surrounding farms have been closed because of the spread of TB.
158.
Ms Rodgers: All of that will be taken into account in the policy review. Those are the type of issues we must look at.
159.
Mr Armstrong: We have heard much about TB in the south of England. Has the Department had any contact with veterinary sources there to determine why that disease has become so rife? With the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic being so long, can we learn anything from their experience?
160.
Ms Rodgers: We are talking to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) about that issue.
161.
Mr Armstrong: They did not have that problem in the past, and it has become rife now. We are all in favour of disease prevention. That is the best way forward, along with promoting good farming practice. Can we link all those elements together?
162.
Ms Rodgers: Departmental officials are talking to DEFRA about their experiences as part of the policy review, as well as the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in the South. That will enable us to learn from their bad experiences and use their best practice.
163.
Mr Armstrong: We will be able to share our experiences.
164.
Ms Rodgers: Indeed. However, we must share our best experiences, not our bad ones.
165.
The Deputy Chairperson: My main concern is that the farming community will be blamed for something that is not their responsibility. During last week's Question Time in the Assembly, a reference was made to the spreading of slurry into waterways. I wanted to interject, but I did not get the opportunity. I read in the newspapers this week that the cheapest way to dispose of sludge is on grassland. I would like the Department to take a firm line on that because this is how botulism and disease can be spread. I also read in a paper from Europe that it is the cheapest way of disposing of sludge. Sludge is becoming a major problem in Northern Ireland. Another Department is involved, and if we are talking about joined-up government I hope your Department will take a firm line on it.
166.
Ms Rodgers: The review groups are looking at disease prevention, and they would also have a view on that.
167.
The Deputy Chairperson: If you do not have a copy of the paper, I will send you one.
168.
Ms Rodgers: That would be useful.
169.
The Deputy Chairperson: When the Department's officials met the Committee on 22 March they expected the Department to take about a month to formulate its position after the results of the review were available. At that time there was no mention of the Department of Finance and Personnel's involvement. Why is that Department involved, and is it aware of the urgency surrounding these important policy issues?
170.
Ms Rodgers: Again, it was probably a case of a breakdown in communications. The same thing happened in fisheries, when people presumed that others would be aware of what is happening. However, anything with resource implications must automatically go to DFP. That Department is aware of the urgency, and I will remind the Minister of Finance and Personnel that it is an urgent matter.
171.
The Deputy Chairperson: When reactors to brucellosis and TB are found on farms, can the process of removing the animals be speeded up because it is causing a lot of concern?
172.
Ms Rodgers: We have taken measures to speed it up. I was aware of the problem, and we have dealt with the backlog. One of the problems was that we did not have enough assessors, but we now have additional assessors, which has speeded up the process. We also have an additional rendering plant to take the animals, and that has helped considerably. We have dealt with the serious backlog. I am not sure that we can speed it up any more, as the animals have to be assessed.
173.
The Deputy Chairperson: The Department is acting on one breakdown in a large area, which had other farmers concerned. Perhaps it was a lack of communication, but the Department has assured me that the animals will be removed today. That will be welcome news to neighbouring farmers because they do not want to find themselves in a similar situation.
174.
Mr Dallat: Is the Department aware of the problem of smell on poultry farms following the reduction in the use of antibiotics? Following the EU Directive to reduce antibiotics, the other end of the production line is causing a pong. Secondly, is the Department aware that there may be a problem with the disposal of feathers from factories?
175.
Ms Rodgers: There is an EU Directive that states that feathers cannot be used in feed, so there may be a disposal problem, as the feathers have to be dumped in landfill sites.
176.
Mr Dallat: There is a further problem with landfill sites. Farmers were being refused access to dump feathers because they raise the level of leachates.
177.
Ms Rodgers: The Department has not been approached about that, so you are ahead of the game, Mr Dallat. The EU Directive prevents farmers from putting feathers in feed.
178.
Mr Dallat: There have been some worrying reports about feathers being buried, which may start to boil up. I do not want to cause any unnecessary scares, but there are problems.
179.
Ms Rodgers: That would be a matter for the Department of the Environment.
180.
Mr Armstrong: Dairy farmers are facing decreasing profits, and many are establishing boiler houses. Given the problems associated with chicken houses, are those farmers aware of the problems that they may bring to their farms? Many farms in my area are going in that direction.
181.
Ms Rodgers: The Department's vets have informed the farming community, poultry producers and poultry organisations of the possible dangers.
182.
Mr Armstrong: These farmers may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. They want more profit but they get more disease on their farms.
183.
Mr Deputy Chairperson: Farmers will learn the hard way. If I kept cattle near a poultry house, I would ensure that they were vaccinated.
184.
Ms Rodgers: That is the Department's advice.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Friday 3 May 2002
Members present:
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Douglas
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Paisley Jnr
Witnesses:
Ms B Rodgers
Ms C McMaster ) Department of Agriculture
Dr G McIlroy ) & Rural Development
185.
The Minister of Agriculture & Rural Development (Ms Rodgers): I welcome the opportunity to give an update on the Northern Ireland scrapie plan. Scrapie is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) disease. It is a fatal brain disease that affects sheep and goats, which has been present in the United Kingdom and many other countries for well over 200 years. Scrapie mainly affects sheep between the ages of two and five, and it is not transmissible to humans. Although scrapie exists at relatively low levels in Northern Ireland - an average of three cases a year - it has the potential to affect a significant proportion of animals in a flock if they are genetically susceptible to it.
186.
Through the North/South Ministerial Council, Joe Walsh and I have agreed that we will jointly tackle the eradication of scrapie from the island of Ireland. The proposed Northern Ireland scrapie plan is part of the joint approach with the Republic of Ireland. The Republic will also implement a recommendation from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), the independent experts that advised the United Kingdom Government on TSE diseases such as scrapie and BSE. However, there should be a long-term control and eradication programme for scrapie.
187.
A separate national scrapie plan has been introduced in Great Britain. The proposed Northern Ireland scrapie plan will pursue three main aims: to reduce the incidence of scrapie in sheep; to increase the genetic resistance of sheep to scrapie; and to eliminate scrapie from the Northern Ireland sheep flock.
188.
The proposals are designed to take advantage of the low incidence of scrapie here. The Northern Ireland scrapie plan will consist of two main elements. First, a genotyping scheme targeted at pure-bred rams that will be similar to the ram genotyping scheme that has been introduced under the national scrapie plan in Great Britain. Secondly, an eradication scheme targeted at the 28 scrapie-affected flocks reported in Northern Ireland since scrapie became a notifiable disease in 1992 and at any newly reported flocks.
189.
Initially, it is proposed that both schemes will be voluntary. The schemes will be based on the genotyping approach that involves testing a blood sample to look for certain genetic information, which determines whether a sheep may develop scrapie if exposed to the disease. Sheep with an undesirable genotype will be culled or castrated. Participating flock owners will be required to breed from and use scrapie-resistant sheep that will confer resistance to their offspring. Over time, that will have a significant impact on the incidence of disease in the flock.
190.
In addition to the animal's current identification, an electronic identification device will identify sheep that have been tested under the Northern Ireland scrapie plan.
191.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, like all Government Departments, is required to undertake an economic appraisal for all proposals involving expenditure or resources. Economic appraisal of the Northern Ireland scrapie plan proposals is nearing completion and will shortly be submitted to the Department of Finance and Personnel for approval. State aid approval is required for both schemes and state aid notifications have been made for each of the schemes separately and are being considered by the Commission.
192.
Subject to Department of Finance and Personnel approval of the economic appraisal and the European Commission state aid approval, my Department proposes to fund all costs associated with registering and identifying animals, all costs associated with the genotype test, including blood sampling and laboratory analysis of the blood samples, and certification of animal tests. Under the genotyping scheme, flock owners will be responsible for the cost of slaughtering or castrating sheep of an undesirable genotype and for restocking the flock with resistant sheep. The exact number of sheep to be tested in a flock has not yet been decided, but a sample size of 40, similar to Great Britain, is proposed since it is known to provide a cost-effective visit.
193.
My Department will fund all costs associated with registering, sampling and identifying animals, laboratory analysis of blood samples and the certification process, all costs associated with the slaughter and disposal of susceptible animals and lambs, and compensation for all animals slaughtered under the recommendations of the eradication scheme. There will be a maximum of two genotyping tests for each sheep purchased to replace those slaughtered. Under the eradication scheme, the flock owner will be responsible for the cost of restocking the flock with the resistant sheep.
194.
Public consultation on the proposals ended in mid-January; 12 responses were received, and most of them were positive. We aim to launch the Northern Ireland scrapie plan this summer. However, the timing of the economic appraisal, the state aid applications and implementation practicalities may delay progress. We must wait for state aid approval from the European Commission before we can launch the programme, so the timetable is beyond our control. In the meantime, my officials and I are considering the most suitable steps to minimise delay, and I am to announce the decisions about the plan and the timescale for its launch as soon as they have been cleared.
195.
The Deputy Chairperson: How do you respond to allegations that the Department has lagged behind in the scrapie plan?
196.
Ms Rodgers: We have been accused of lagging behind, and Great Britain has gone ahead with its scheme before us. Our plans were derailed for some time because we had to divert our very scant resources to deal with the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, but we are doing what we can to make rapid progress. I know that the Great Britain plan was launched last July, but the genotyping testing did not get under way until October. Therefore the difference in our respective positions is not so great.
197.
The Deputy Chairperson: When do you hope to be up to speed with Great Britain?
198.
Ms Rodgers: By the summer, subject to state aid approval and the evaluation, which must go to the Department of Finance and Personnel.
199.
Mr Kane: Could the scrapie plan not be implemented regionally to include Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland? That would benefit everyone connected with the sheep industry.
200.
Ms Rodgers: There is more scrapie in Great Britain than there is on the island of Ireland. The island of Ireland has had very little evidence of scrapie; for Northern Ireland the figure is three cases a year, and roughly the same for the South. We are working on an all-island scrapie eradication plan; a working group is also active. We hope to have it in place by the end of the year. Great Britain seems to have a higher incidence of scrapie than we do.
201.
Our scheme will be geared towards dealing with our problem. The problem in GB is much greater and is different to ours. There will be similar elements - for example, both schemes will be based on genotyping. In the South there will be some differences in the detail of the approach, but we are attempting to eradicate scrapie on the island of Ireland as part of the all-Ireland animal health policy. There are differences between the two islands.
202.
Mr Kane: This will not be acceptable to producers, given the fact that animals are imported into and exported from this country. Departmental officials would need to be on the ball at all times, both here and on the other side of the water.
203.
Ms Rodgers: First, if scrapie can be eradicated on the island of Ireland, the value of our animals will be enhanced. We are working on the problem of imports from GB in the context of an all-Ireland animal health policy. Those imports will be subject to similar rules as those going to other member states, including tests on scrapie. We will protect our flock from being infected. Animals exported from GB will have to be certified in the same way as if they were being imported to another member state.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Friday 3 May 2002
Members present:
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Douglas
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Paisley Jnr
Witnesses:
Ms B Rodgers )
Mr N Cornick ) Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
204.
The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Rodgers): I am glad for the opportunity to talk briefly to the Committee about the steps that the Department is taking to implement its commitment to rural proofing. As I mentioned during Question Time on Monday, the Executive have endorsed the establishment of an interdepartmental steering group, under my chairmanship, to develop further machinery to implement the policy. The group held its first meeting and began its work by considering a formal definition of "rural proofing", the scope of the exercise, and the best means of making progress.
205.
I have already said that progress has not been as fast as I would have liked. In that context, I emphasise that although formal machinery for rural proofing is being established only now, it is not the case that rural issues or the legitimate interests and concerns of rural dwellers have been ignored or overlooked. On the contrary, such views have contributed significantly to policy development because of the willing, constructive and enthusiastic participation of many groups and individuals in the consultation process.
206.
I have only two or three minutes before I must leave, so I will not say anything more except that I will leave the Committee a brief paper as the basis for the consideration of the relevant issues.
207.
Mr Paisley Jnr: On 22 February, you gave evidence to the Committee indicating that the rural proofing co-ordinator had been appointed in November 2001. You said that that would be effective in ensuring that rural communities are no longer forgotten. We have not made significant headway in this area, and Departments have yet to decide on an accepted definition of "rural proofing". Parliamentary answers have provided at least seven definitions. Progress has not been made on big issues such as the Burns Report, housing developments and other matters that affect all aspects of Government. Although the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must carry out rural proofing, your Colleagues in and outside the Executive do not seem to have committed themselves to making progress in this area. Can you expedite the process?
208.
Ms Rodgers: I must leave when I have answered this question, as I am only just on schedule. Mr Paisley has raised an important issue. I do not wish to use the word "confusion", but there is no agreed definition of "rural proofing". At the first interdepartmental meeting, we decided that we must agree a definition. That is an important first step.
209.
I do not accept that rural issues have been ignored. There is now a heightened awareness of the need to have regard for rural interests because rural proofing is part of the Programme for Government.
210.
The Burns Report is out for consultation and the Hayes review should shortly arrive at its draft policy stage. However, rural proofing is not about consultation. It is about proofing draft policies and making recommendations on a cross-departmental basis about the implications for rural communities.
211.
Mr Paisley Jnr: Have you drawn up a target list of things in the Burns Report that are good or bad for the rural community?
212.
Ms Rodgers: Looking at recommendations that are not going to be accepted would be a waste of time. We must look at the draft proposals from the Department and have them rural proofed.
213.
Mr Paisley Jnr: When the legislation appears, can we expect to see those issues addressed?
214.
Ms Rodgers: We will look at any draft proposals to measure their implications for rural communities. There will be other criteria. Rural proofing is not the only issue, but it will have more importance than it did in the past.
215.
I am afraid that I must leave the meeting.
216.
The Deputy Chairperson: We must include that issue on the agenda for another meeting.
217.
Ms Rodgers: I will leave the paper with you.
218.
The Deputy Chairperson: We are concerned about the closure of the fish factory in Kilkeel. Many jobs and livelihoods are at stake along the County Down coast. The Committee would like to throw its weight behind any proposals that can help the situation. Can you comment on that situation?
219.
Ms Rodgers: That is not a matter for me. Local representatives are in contact with my Colleague Sir Reg Empey, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, who has responsibility for the matter. It is tragic news. The loss of 150 jobs is a serious blow. There is a commitment from Young's to take the prawns from the catchers. It is a small consolation that it will not affect the catchers. At this stage, however, I do not want to jump to conclusions about the cause of the closure.
220.
A major processor in the South closed recently. That would indicate to me that there is a potential oversupply. I am not aware of the commercial considerations that led to the decision to close, but it is a tragedy for the workers involved.
221.
Mr Bradley: I have secured a meeting with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on Tuesday 7 May. I will be asking the Minister what the company's chief executive, Mr Griffiths, meant when he said that the factory did not lend itself to the high-tech investment that it required. I assume that you will receive information about the overall situation.
222.
Ms Rodgers: That may happen, but the matter does not fall directly within my responsibilities. I am sure that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will do all that he can to deal with the situation.
22 March 2002 / Menu / 3 May 2002 (part ii)