Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I welcome, from the Department, Brian Ervine, a principal officer, and Deborah Currie, a deputy principal officer. I ask that you take up to 10 minutes to address the Committee, and that will be followed by questions. OK? You are very welcome.

Mr Brian Ervine (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): Thank you, Chair and Committee. The function of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides is to provide independent advice to government through the four devolved Administrations. Essentially, its key output is whether a pesticide or an active substance is approved for use. It examines whether it is safe, whether controls can be put in place to make it safe and so on. Essentially, it is the key advisory body on pesticides policy and safety.

The process that will see the abolition of the committee will result in its re-establishment as an expert committee. So, essentially, the committee will remain under a different name and status, but its functions and members will remain the same. The procedure is essentially an administrative change that has no real practical impact on the functions that the committee carries out.

As for the impact here for us, the reconstitution has enabled us to strengthen our role within the governance of the committee. Certain things in the terms of reference have been strengthened and will now require our Minister's agreement.

Essentially, it is an administrative issue, and the functions will remain the same. Members of the committee will be asked to transfer to the new expert committee, and it is envisaged that they will do so.

No one from Northern Ireland sits on the committee, but representatives from the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) sit on it as observers, and AFBI is also involved in other committees that are related to pesticides. AFBI carries out the scientific work and analysis on pesticides for DARD.

I will give the Committee some context on pesticides. A number of legislative changes have occurred, and we are progressing them with a phase-in time. That is all driven by the EU directive on the sustainable use of pesticides. As a result of that, four things will impact on farmers here.

First, the range of substances that are approved for use will decrease over time due to a more rigorous assessment and approach at EU level. Secondly, the sustainable use directive requires the promotion of integrated pest management, which looks at other ways of managing pests to reduce the use of chemicals. Thirdly, there is a requirement for training and certification. Farmers under a certain age were required to have certificates of competence already. There was an exemption, but that is being phased out, so older farmers who had relied on that exemption will need to gain a certificate of competence or look to somebody with a certificate of competence to apply pesticides for them. Fourthly, spraying equipment and apparatus now needs to be checked and tested at certain periods.

We have been working on communicating those changes to the industry. They have been known about for a long time and are gradually being phased in. A lot of good work has been done by the industry on the overall governance of pesticides over a number of years through a voluntary initiative.

That is the context and the main issues.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): What you are saying is that the effect will be almost cosmetic. In substance, there appears to be very little change, but, still and all, you have to abolish the committee to form another one.

Mr Ervine: Yes, exactly. It would be fair to say that there is a significant legislative process about this for very little impact. However, it is beyond our control, and we are just one of the devolved Administrations carrying through the reorganisation under the Public Bodies Act. The process started in 2010/2011.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Will the committee that will replace the existing committee have any different functions?

Mr Ervine: No, it will be the same. It is really an administrative issue that is creating quite a bit of administration for all concerned around the table.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK. Does anyone have any questions?

Mr McCarthy: Given what you have said in response to the Chair, it must be costing something. How much will it cost and who will pay for it in these stringent times?

Mr Ervine: Do you mean the functioning of the committee?

Mr McCarthy: Yes, and its abolition and resurrection.

Mr Ervine: I suppose that the abolition is a cost that is borne by DEFRA and the devolved Administrations and officials working through it. The actual cost of the committee is fairly modest, and that is covered by DEFRA. We make no direct payment to that. There are administration costs, but there will be no change to the cost structure of the committee, and the costs of the committee are modest.

Mr McCarthy: It seems a bit odd and strange, but there we go.

Mr Ervine: That is right. It is driven by that Government policy from back in 2010 or 2011 to cut the number of public bodies. While this body has been cut, it has been —

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Replaced.

Mr Ervine: Relabelled.

Mr McCarthy: It is very exciting.

Mr Buchanan: Can we be sure that it will not add an extra bureaucratic burden to farmers? No matter what changes within the agriculture industry, there is always a tendency to add more bureaucracy to farmers. That is the last thing that we want.

Mr Ervine: The reconstitution of the committee will not make any practical difference whatsoever. However, the EU sustainable use of pesticides directive will add requirements to certain farmers. It is an inescapable EU requirement that will look for further certification and whatever else.

Compared with other member states, the pesticides regulations and framework that we have in place are fairly robust, and a lot of good things have been done anyway. A lot of people have gone through the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) and have done their City and Guilds training for pesticides application (PA) and so on. I suppose that the key impact will be on the older farmers who had relied on the exemption from gaining a certificate under "grandfather rights". Basically, anyone aged over 50 could have relied on that exemption, but that will disappear at the end of the year.

Training is available. We have developed a training course, together with City and Guilds, the various agricultural Departments in the UK, the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) and stakeholders, which is specifically for those grandfather rights holders. That allows them to be fast-tracked to get their certificate. It is slightly different from the full course.

Mr Buchanan: If a farmer does not have a certificate, he will not be able to use pesticides. Is that right?

Mr Ervine: That is correct. Pesticides must be applied by somebody who has a certificate of competence.

Mr McMullan: You have answered part of my question. Young people who do the level-2 qualification can get the certificate of competence through that. There will be a charge for everybody else. You mentioned over-60s. Should that not be over-50s?

Mr Ervine: It is over-50s.

Mr McMullan: Will there be a charge for anybody who is over 50? We see charges for most things. If someone takes the test and gets that certificate of competence, will it cover them for one year, two years or five years?

Mr Ervine: The certificate will cover them indefinitely; for life really.

There are two elements. The training is provided by CAFRE, and there is no charge or cost for that. There is a registration, assessment and certification fee, because it is run by City and Guilds, and that really is inescapable.

Mr McMullan: How much is that?

Ms Deborah Currie (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): I cannot remember off the top of my head.

Mr McMullan: Not to worry.

Mr Ervine: It is in the region of £100. It is somewhere in the region of £100 to £120, depending on what modules you take and the exact format of the course.

Mr McMullan: Can a contractor get it to cover his business?

Mr Ervine: Yes. We envisage that, unless contractors are over 50 and are relying on the exemption, they will all be certified.

Mr Anderson: Apologies for being slightly late. Part of my question has been answered.

Where will the training courses take place? Will they be locally based to suit farmers?

Ms Currie: Yes.

Mr Ervine: One of the first grandfather rights replacement courses is being run at CAFRE's Greenmount campus next month. They will then be rolled out. We are very conscious that we need to make it easy for farmers to attend.

Mr Anderson: Will they all be held at Greenmount?

Mr Ervine: No, they will not all be at Greenmount.

Mr Anderson: You referred to farmers having to get the certificate of competence. What about everyone else? What about me? Would I or anyone else who was applying pesticides need that certificate?

Mr Ervine: No, it is for professional users.

Mr Anderson: What constitutes a professional user?

Ms Currie: It is anyone who uses pesticides as part of their business, be it farming, as a contractor or as an amenity sprayer. If it is part of their business, they are deemed to be a professional user.

Mr Anderson: So they have to register in some way. Has it been well documented? Do they know that they need this certificate of competence?

Mr Ervine: We have publicised it through press articles and 'Helping You Comply' bulletins. We continue to publicise it and make it clear. We have been working with the UFU on it for quite some time.

Mr Anderson: As is the case with any new legislation that comes in, there will be those who may slip through the net because they are not aware. Maybe a bit of work has to be done to educate them that they need it.

Mr Ervine: We have done that. We have consistently placed articles in DARD's 'Helping You Comply' bulletin, which goes to all businesses that are in receipt of single farm payment. We have also included pre-paid cards for registering interest in the courses. We have had an extensive publicity campaign that has been targeted at all businesses in receipt of single farm payment.

Mr Anderson: The courses will obviously take place, more or less, as and when the new legislation comes in.

Mr Ervine: Yes.

Mr Anderson: Will there be ongoing courses for those who were not on stream previously?

Mr Ervine: Yes. An ongoing programme of the other courses — the PA1, PA2 and so on — has been carried out through CAFRE for many years. The new course is essentially a bolt-on to address a specific need.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I see that AFBI has an advisory role on the existing committee. Will that continue with the new committee?

Mr Ervine: Yes, it will.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Do you think that an advisory role is adequate to represent Northern Ireland?

Mr Ervine: Yes. Government representatives sit on the committee in an advisory role rather than as independent members. It is open to our experts in AFBI to apply to be an independent member, if they so wish, when there is a call for applications. They have not done that and are quite happy with their advisory role. They are able to feed back to us various issues that come out of the committee.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK. There are no other questions.

Members will find in their papers the wording of the draft motion to be tabled by the Minister. The motion seeks the consent of the Assembly for the abolition of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, and the Committee is asked to agree it as follows:

Are members content?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK. Thank you very much.