Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Friday 3 May 2002
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Response to the Inquiry into the
Livestock and Meat Commission
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 L McKibben ) Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
The Deputy Chairperson:
I welcome the Minister and Mr Liam McKibben from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Ms Rodgers:
I said I would consult the industry about that recommendation. To date, there has been no positive response.
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.
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.
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.
The Deputy Chairperson:
Blame could not be pointed at anyone.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
Mr Bradley:
It would be very difficult to monitor.
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.
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.
Mr Armstrong:
Perhaps the monitoring carried out with them results in -
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.
Mr Armstrong:
Could you inform us of the results?
Ms Rodgers:
Yes.
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?
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.
Mr Dallat:
Does that mean that, depending on the vacancy, you target particular organisations?
Ms Rodgers:
All producer organisations are informed that a vacancy is arising.
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?
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.
Mr McHugh:
I am sure that that is very painful for it.
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.
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.
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.
Mr McKibben:
That would be no problem.
Ms Rodgers:
We would be happy to discuss it with NIMEA.
The Deputy Chairperson:
NIMEA raised the matter, and the Committee would also like to have clarification.
Ms Rodgers:
Certainly the best way would be to have discussions with the organisation. I take the point.
3 May 2002 (part iii) / Menu / 3 May 2002 (part v)