Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome Mark Allen from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe). He will brief the Committee and then answer any questions that the Committee may have. The floor is yours, Mark.

Mr Mark Allen (NIA Research and Information Service): Thank you, Chair and members. I am here to talk about the Agriculture Bill, which, as you said, was introduced on 25 November. It is just six clauses, so it is a relatively short Bill. It could broadly be labelled as an enabling Bill, as it provides DAERA with powers to make the funding of fruit and vegetable aid discretionary. It would also allow the Department to further amend assimilated EU law — or "assimilated law", as we now refer to it — in areas covering the design and delivery of legacy EU fruit and vegetable aid support (FVAS) and food promotion and information support. That would be done through regulations. The legislation deals with provisions on fruit and vegetable aid support that were created during the UK's membership of the EU. I will not go into the detail of the regulations: that is in the paper, and you can read it. There is quite a bit in the annex about the powers that are covered.

I will give a bit of context. Fruit and vegetable aid support is provided through producer organisations (POs). There are a range of those across the UK. To give you an idea of scale, the most recent annual report from the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) suggests that the 2023 data, which was published in November 2024, highlighted that there were 33 producer organisations across the UK in receipt of fruit and vegetable aid scheme support. The total operational spend was just over £76 million, of which £40 million was funded by the PO members with the remaining £36 million coming from the EU.

The Northern Ireland-specific numbers are based on information kindly provided by DAERA. We currently have one approved producer organisation that is headquartered in Northern Ireland and is in receipt of fruit and vegetable support. That funding is around £2·3 million over the three years of the approved 2023-25 programme. At this point, we have no spend in Northern Ireland under promotions legislation. Any future plans for that would require a call for applications. The latest data that we have suggests that DAERA funded the costs of two Dairy Council programmes, which equated to approximately £960,000. Michelle McIlveen, for example, asked a number of questions about mushroom-specific support. I will not go over those, but members are well aware of the numbers provided. In the most recent year, the amount that DAERA provided specifically to the mushroom sector — I emphasise that this was not just fruit and vegetable aid — was £0·76 million. Thank you for that information: I found it useful as well.

I will not look in detail at the clauses of the Bill or, indeed, at the consultation. Suffice to say that that information is in the paper. In summary, I will say that the Bill is short. There were seven public consultation responses. They were mixed, particularly on moving fruit and vegetable aid scheme support from a mandatory to a discretionary funding basis, which is probably the main issue in the Bill. There was opposition to that from a number of areas. You can see the specifics of it in the table. There was a mixed response on that one. The proposal to move to discretionary funding was opposed by two of the consultees, namely the Northern Ireland Mushroom Growers Association and Sinn Féin. Then, there was support with caveats from Northway Mushrooms, Commercial Mushroom Growers UK and the Mushroom Producer Organisation. There were other responses on that issue, including from one council, but those were the strongest opinions recorded on it.

I do not want to dwell on that. I want instead to spend a bit of time on the potential issues. I have set out those issues in the paper. With your indulgence, I will look at those now. The first one that I want to flag is the limitations of the public consultation. I am not critiquing DAERA when I say that 214 organisations were notified of the consultation but only seven consultation responses were received. It is hard for us to make an assessment of whether that is a low response or an accurate reflection of the number of organisations that might be impacted. Through Citizen Space, you may get a better steer, but that is one of the things that I struggled with.

The consultation had three questions. Only one of them dealt with a specific provision in the Bill, namely the proposal in clause 1 to move from compulsory to discretionary spending. The second question in the public consultation sought the views of stakeholders on proposed new powers to allow amendments to be made to the law governing the fruit and vegetable aid scheme and promotion scheme support via subordinate legislation. However, the letter to stakeholders that accompanied the consultation questions was light on the detail of what those powers might be and how they would be used by DAERA. I still have a question about what DAERA will do if those powers are afforded to it.

To build on that issue, I will move on to how DAERA intends to modify the assimilated legislation around the fruit and vegetable aid scheme, which is listed in clause 2. It is important to say, at the outset, that DAERA wants to give itself powers to amend, repeal or revoke. Those are quite extensive powers. It would also be useful to consider what could be looked at with regard to the common market organisation (CMO) regulation. I have a list of some of the things that DAERA could adjust if it continues with the fruit and vegetable aid scheme support. It could look at, for example, the expenditure that covers environmental actions. It could look at the type and number of objectives that the FVAS operational programmes must meet; it is currently two, but it might put that up or reduce it. It could look at the length of operational programmes, which are currently a minimum of three years and a maximum of five. Financial assistance is being limited to 50% of the actual expenditure incurred or 4·1% of the value of the marketed production, whichever is lower. As you can see, the power to amend, revoke or repeal could be extensive in a number of those areas. It would be useful to get more of a steer on what the Department wishes to do with those powers. To expand on that, in annex 1 of the paper, I have given a summary of the provisions of the delegated regulation, 2017/891, and the implementing regulation, 2017/892.

It is really about getting down to the specifics. I understand that the Department could legitimately make the argument, "At this point, we do not know", and I will come to the reason for that later. However, it would be useful to know more about how the powers will be wielded. It is also important to know what budget DAERA will have, and I will return to that. Equally, how do the powers that DAERA may want to utilise relate to what is happening in GB and the EU — most directly, Ireland, the EU member state that we share a border with?

That theme continues into how DAERA intends to modify the assimilated food information provision and promotion measures. I have basically said that what applies to FVAS also applies to food promotion. With that regulation, DAERA has the same powers to amend, repeal or revoke. There are a number of areas that, again, DAERA could utilise, and I have given examples: eligible products and schemes, proposing organisations and types of financing. DAERA has significant powers with regard to those schemes, and it would be useful to tease out how it will use them. DAERA is undertaking an ongoing review of existing food promotion information support. How will the legislation impact on how it uses those powers? Does it use those powers?

I spoke previously about GB developments. There was a kite flown on this in the press just before Christmas. There were press reports that the UK Government were actively considering a 25% reduction in food promotion scheme funding. How does that play into our situation? Would it have an impact on DAERA's plans? I have referenced that in a table in the paper.

I move on to the name of the Bill. I know that this is the short title, but it was introduced in the Assembly as the Agriculture Bill. Is there scope for confusion, given the fact that the provisions in the Bill are limited? That is compounded by the fact that we have schedule 6 to the UK Agriculture Act 2020, which deals with Northern Ireland-specific provisions. To further complicate matters, there are suggestions that DAERA has plans for a wider, more comprehensive Northern Ireland agriculture Bill. That is alluded to in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) that accompanies the Bill that we are considering today. The EFM refers to that proposed comprehensive Bill as being at an early scoping stage. What does that mean for the name of this Bill or its provisions? It would be useful for Members to get an update on where the scoping stage of that other Bill is and how likely the development and introduction of a comprehensive Bill is in the current Assembly mandate. More specifically, would or could any proposed comprehensive Bill be delivered by expanding the remit of the current Bill through amendment at a later date, or would it be an entirely new Bill? That is a procedural issue, but I am not clear on where it sits, and the title is potentially confusing.

The next issue that I will flag is a rhetorical question to which I know the answer. Could the current Northern Ireland fruit and vegetable aid scheme have been altered by regulation? It could not have been because of the provisions in schedule 6 to the UK Agriculture Act, which deal with Northern Ireland. We did not have the power to bring regulations. That was in stark contrast with the fact that, in England, the fruit and vegetable aid scheme closure regulations were brought forward under the UK Agriculture Act provisions, which has effectively limited the exposure of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to new applications. We did not have that power because of schedule 6, as it relates to Northern Ireland. As a result, those powers extend only to England and Wales; that is where they apply.

There are some key questions. Did DAERA explore the option of altering the fruit and vegetable aid scheme through regulation? That would have required assessment of a potential amendment to the UK Agriculture Act to extend to Northern Ireland the powers in Part 1, chapter 3, section 15. Could powers have been added to schedule 6? Will this situation be repeated? Will there be other issues further down the line where we may be limited in what we can do? It is hard for me to say at this point, but it would be useful to ask the Department why it decided to go with a Bill and not seek to amend the existing Act at a UK level. I know that that is not in our power, but the Department could ask for an amendment Bill to be brought forward. Are there other areas in which DAERA's only option is primary legislation to amend, or are the powers in schedule 6 sufficient to enable us to avoid that?

Another key issue is that the Bill is being introduced before completion and publication of the review of post-EU agricultural support, including the fruit and vegetable aid scheme and food promotion. The consultation outcome report published by DAERA in June 2024 stated:

It would be useful to establish the terms of reference and progress of those reviews. Additionally, it would be helpful to determine whether the referenced reviews are dedicated stand-alone processes for the fruit and vegetable aid scheme and food promotion scheme. It is legitimate to ask whether, in bringing the Bill forward in advance of the outcome of any review process, DAERA is in danger of prejudging or limiting subsequent policy decisions and actions.

The Department has argued that it needs the powers in the Bill to align with any new policy development in those areas. Members may wish to explore the robustness of those arguments. In defence of the Department's stance, it appears that there is still a lack of clarity about DAERA's future decisions and actions to support the horticulture sector, which would incorporate the fruit and vegetable aid scheme and the promotion of local food under the auspices of the recently published food strategy framework. Indeed, as Members will be aware, that work only came together in the latter part of last year.

Part of the challenge is that the latest available information on the DAERA website relating to future agricultural support, including horticultural support, states that information is being updated and will be available in early 2025. I checked that last night, and there has been no change. Rather bizarrely, quite a bit of information that was on the website last year has been pulled. I understand the reason, which is that it is being worked on to take account of proposals, pilots and suchlike, but that effectively raises questions about what information DAERA is utilising to inform future decisions and what those decisions will be.

I am nearly done. Does the proposed move to discretionary funding for the fruit and vegetable aid scheme amount to a potential means of closure of the scheme by another means? The central point to consider is that the Bill does not commit DAERA to a continuation of fruit and vegetable aid scheme support in either its current form or an amended form. I make that comment, however, in the context of the Minister's publicly stated position of support for the horticulture sector and of his having said that he has no plans to close the fruit and vegetable aid scheme. Minister Muir made those comments at the Bill's Second Stage on 3 December:

In that context, it would be useful to know whether horticultural support developed as part of the new agricultural policy will match, enhance or replace existing fruit and vegetable aid scheme provisions for the mushroom sector in particular. In addition, could any fruit and vegetable aid scheme continue to operate separately alongside new horticultural supports, or is DAERA more minded to consolidate those supports?

A dedicated impact assessment for the local mushroom sector is lacking. That sector relies most on the funding. DAERA is under no legal obligation to conduct any such work, but, when I looked at it, it was striking that that sector is probably the most affected. It would be useful to have more detail on the potential impacts on the mushroom sector if the scheme were to stop totally or be significantly reduced through the use of discretionary payment. I know that you have already had evidence from people in that sector, and I have no doubt that they will be keen to engage through Citizen Space or with the Committee directly. This may be a question for that sector: what will be the impact of change? What level of change could you accommodate, or will any change be adversely impactful on your businesses? That is for the mushroom sector. We could equally throw this question back to DAERA: has DAERA undertaken or will it undertake any such detailed impact assessment work, pending a change? If the answer is yes, when will that information be shared with members?

Budgetary challenges are the issue that most of you around the table are most informed of. You have only to pick up a paper on any day to realise the challenges that the Executive face. The challenge, through the lens of the Bill, is that a move from mandatory to discretionary funding is probably not an environment in which discretionary funding will be available in significant amounts. I did not include that in the paper, because the paper was published two days before the Executive's draft 2025-26 Budget, which is now out for consultation, was published. Following its departmental allocation, before we had the current draft Budget, DAERA's business plan for 2024-25 said:

That is the reference that I am making to discretionary funding. Discretionary funding will be under pressure if statutory obligation funding is under pressure. The Finance Minister's most recent statement said:

That is the negative. The positive is that the Executive have, as you know, ring-fenced support for agriculture, rural development and fisheries. The challenge, as many stakeholders have highlighted in the press, is that the amount that has been ring-fenced is not inflation-linked. The question for the Department is this: is there a shortfall, even with that ring-fenced money? There is an additional question about where that shortfall will have the greatest impact. For example, you would assume that the fruit and vegetables aid scheme falls within the scope of agricultural support money, but, if there is a shortfall of however many million, again, whilst it may be ring-fenced, the question becomes, "What is ring-fenced?", because there will probably be shortfalls even within the ring-fenced amount.

I will talk about the rural needs impact assessment that accompanied the Bill. That was prepared by DAERA. I will highlight a number of observations that it included. First, the Bill was deemed unlikely to impact on people in rural areas, because it delivers:

These are selected quotes from the impact assessment. If you have time to read it, there is more information in the paper. Section 4 of the rural needs impact assessment includes this statement:

DAERA included a question about rural needs impact in the consultation. Responses were mixed, but DAERA drew the following conclusion:

In light of DAERA's approach, you may want to consider the effectiveness of the consideration of rural needs. There may be particular value in looking specifically at the change to discretionary funding proposed in clause 1 of the Bill, as that will not be subject to further rural impact consideration, because no regulations are required to deliver that change. If the Bill goes through as it is — unamended — that becomes reality. To be fair, I have to say that that is in contrast to the way in which the powers outlined in clauses 2 and 3 would be utilised, because they would be subject to regulation and, on the basis of what we have seen, further rural needs impact assessment.

I have two more points, but I am conscious of time, so I will cut them down. The administration costs to DAERA of any future schemes could be a challenge because those costs were previously covered by the Rural Payments Agency. That raises this question: has DAERA actively considered how it would cover any costs that emerge, or would the RPA continue to cover them on DAERA's behalf?

The final point is that we do not have a grasp from DAERA — I realise why DAERA may be reluctant to say it, because you can wish something into reality — of whether it has done any impact assessment of the overload from other GB-based POs that try to avail themselves of support here, if the scheme continues in Northern Ireland. The risk has been alluded to in various evidence sessions. Whilst it might be hard to quantify that risk, has there been any modelling or assessment of what it could be? The risk forms part of the central premise for requiring the legislation, so it would be useful to quantify, if the Department is in a position to do so, whether there is a worst-case scenario and what that might be.

Apologies, members. That was very much an overview. I am happy to take questions and answer them if I can. Thank you for your time.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Not at all, Mark. Thank you for your time. That was very detailed, and there is even more detail in your paper, which is really good. There are some excellent questions in it. I have no doubt that it will be really useful to the Committee.

I am just looking for your perspective on an issue that has already been raised — we pitched it at the Bill officials and, indeed, the Minister in the Chamber — which is that there has been a reluctance in the sectors to engage in POs. The mushroom sector sits slightly aside that.

You said that 214 organisations and individuals were notified but only seven responded. Did anything in your research or the evidence jump out as to why there was a reluctance for other organisations to utilise the scheme?

Mr Allen: No. We could look at that issue if you wanted us to. Across the rest of the UK, there are other producer organisations and other sectors. At this point, our focus is on mushrooms, but it is a question. Having looked at it and following a conversation with the Department, I know that, historically, a fruit PO existed, but that has fallen by the wayside for reasons that are unclear. Furthermore, a lot of this is tied up with what future support looks like and what you maybe need to be to avail yourself of support. Is it more conducive to be part of a producer organisation, or is it likely that the potential support coming down the line will be more suited to individual businesses? People have maybe gone down that route. If the model offered is a PO model, maybe the applications and interest could increase. It ties into the question of what has happened and what is coming next. If you want us to look at that, we can definitely undertake something.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The Department is seeking powers in advance of a review of policy and detail, and that is probably what is causing angst for some members, because the powers are considerable. Is it common for Departments to seek powers without providing even a reasonable stab at what the policy might look like? Are there examples?

Mr Allen: In my time working in the Assembly, it is probably a trend and one that is not unique to DAERA. I can understand the rationale for officials wanting to have powers to shape and develop, but it calls into question, as I said, how those powers will be used. I know from talking to colleagues in RaISe that those are common themes, so it is definitely a trend. Is it a trend that individual MLAs are happy with? Probably not. The challenge for me, as a researcher, is to see how powers will be used. All I can do is to ask the question. I can see how it gives a Department flexibility, but the question then becomes whether it gives flexibility without accountability. That is above my pay grade, but it is a theme that is probably consistent across all Departments to my knowledge.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The picture has become muddied with the Labour Government's move to unring-fence the agriculture budget in totality. That places additional pressure on this Bill at this time.

Mr McAleer: Thank you, Mark, for a comprehensive paper and for your presentation. You said that schedule 6 to the UK Agriculture Act complicated matter: could you elaborate on how schedule 6 interfaces with the Bill?

Mr Allen: Schedule 6 to the UK Agriculture Act 2020 was the means that we in Northern Ireland had to modify existing EU legislation and to enable us to development new programmes. It gave us those provisions and that legislative cover. The difficulty with it is that it was quite prescriptive, which it had to be. When you compare our situation with what happened across the water with regard to the ability to limit new applicants, you see that we do not have the powers in schedule 6 that England had.

We have a range of powers. I did not want to go into massive detail in my presentation, but I can give you an overview. Schedule 6 has Northern Ireland-specific provisions to modify regulations in a number of areas, but none applies to the CMO regulation. There are exceptions: beekeeping, private storage aid and market intervention — the Committee has experience of that — marketing standards and carcass classification. Those are the only ones that schedule 6 covered. The main body of that Bill, now an Act, provided additional powers in GB. Those were powers that were utilised in relation to the CMO regulation to effectively bring the closure of the fruit and vegetable aid scheme in England.

Mr McAleer: Fear was expressed about the discretionary funding. We understand that it is difficult. The Minister does not want his hands tied on this, but we also need to think about future-proofing it. While the current Minister is supportive of the FVAS, you cannot guarantee what will happen in the future. There is a fear that it is not future-proofed.

Mr Allen: Many things impact on this, Declan, as you will know, and the Budget is one. That is why I quoted from the Department's business plan. It is struggling to fund its mandatory and statutory obligations. That is the point that I make: when you move something to discretionary, does it become a lower priority for funding? That is not the challenge for the current Minister; it is a challenge for a future Minister and various Ministers in the Executive. It is a valid and legitimate question, and I suppose that it is where some of the stakeholders' fears come from. That is my reason for saying it. A move to discretionary funding could undoubtedly mean that you could see an increase in funding, but we have to be realistic that, in the current climate, the pressure is more likely to be for a decrease.

Mr McAleer: We have seen that in the past with, for example, the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) framework and other discretionary programmes. They become the low-hanging fruit when cuts are being made.

Mr Allen: There is a risk.

Mr McAleer: Finally, has the Department outlined any specific criteria to revisit its assessment, if any new impacts emerge?

Mr Allen: No. The rural needs impact assessment suggests that any future policy decisions would be subject to that. However, my reading of it, particularly on the change in clause 1 to discretionary, is that it would not be subject, because that is the decision made. It is around those powers to modify. Those powers could be significant, and my reading of the documentation suggests that they would be subject to further process. If the ultimate decision made is that it cannot be funded, is that power one that will be utilised?

Mr McAleer: Thank you, Mark.

Mr Allen: My final point on that is that a lot of that feeds into the future shape of agricultural support and programmes and ensuring that those are subject to scrutiny. That includes horticultural support.

Mr McAleer: I know that we have been lobbying on this, but what was the rationale for moving ahead with this scheme ahead of the implementation of the broader support package?

Mr Allen: The Department's rationale is clear and has been stated: it is the risk to which the Department has been exposed through GB-based producer organisations and us being liable for that funding. I know why the Department might not publish it in a document, but it would be useful to know what the worst-case scenario for that is. Ensuring that we head off a potential risk is what is providing the impetus and drive for the change. I have struggled to find a quantification of that risk, other than what we know about the total number of POs.

Mr McAleer: Thank you, Mark.

Ms Á Murphy: I will continue with the rural needs impact assessment. As stated in your paper, from the Department's point of view, there will be no impact. My reading of that, as you said a few seconds ago, is that the cart has almost gone before the horse on that issue, given that horticulture is important to rural economies. Has the impact assessment that has been carried out sufficiently addressed some of those negative impacts?

Mr Allen: There are legitimate questions to ask around the assessment stating that there will be no impacts. I find some of those statements to be almost contradictory. It cuts across, because, if you cut the budget to a sector that is wholly reliant on a scheme, I fail to understand how it could not have an impact on the locality in which the business is based. You then get into a wider conversation about the rural-proofing process and whether this is a policy decision or a direction of travel. I am not clear about that, but I referred to that section in the paper because I thought that it merited further scrutiny, with the caveat that there appears to be a commitment, particularly under the clause 2 and clause 3 powers, to effectively conduct further impact assessment work.

Ms Á Murphy: Yes, but only after the fact.

Mr Allen: That gets into the debate on what the critical part is: is it the move to discretionary funding or the powers, or are they equally valid? For some of those businesses, particularly in the mushroom sector, if a move to discretionary funding effectively meant that the money would be gone — I am not saying that that is the case, but, if that were to be the outcome — nowhere on impact assessment is there a commitment to complete. The only effect of the impact assessment is the shape of how the Department will use the powers to modify and the regulations that it will bring forward. That argument could equally be made for where wider horticulture support is going. That process is still live, because those programmes are being developed. There is undoubtedly stakeholder engagement on that, which the Minister alluded to in his statement last week.

Mr Blair: I will follow on from the previous points, staying with the discretionary element. The Minister stated that there will be ongoing support and there is no intention to close existing support, and the Committee has engaged with and is supportive of the mushroom sector. Considering that and notwithstanding the fact that you told us that three-year or five-year programmes may be set in place, have you found in the research anywhere where there may be a need for ongoing discretion or flexibility for a funded sector or where one business area might need less support during that three-year or five-year period, while another business area of the horticulture sector might need more support, whether that is down to market changes, weather, regional issues, issues with competition or whatever else? Do you see where I am going with that? The discretion and flexibility might be advantageous there, but I need to know whether we have seen any evidence for that. I am not making that declaration; I am asking whether that is a possibility.

Mr Allen: To be honest, John, that is not something that I have looked at. I can see how you could provide a rationale for that, because business needs change. If you go back a number of years, there were energy price impacts across different sectors resulting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

On discretionary powers and the ability to adapt, I think that any programme should have flexibility. I can see the Department's rationale for that, but it is about what the outworking of that means for support. For the future agriculture support programmes, the flexibility and the design, as well as flexibility in design, has been emphasised in the documentation that I have read over the years. My question is this: how does the fruit and vegetable aid scheme support sit alongside horticulture support? Is it subsumed by horticulture support? Does it continue to exist as it is? If it is not separate, will the sectors that currently rely on it get an equal slice of the pie from horticulture support? Those are the questions that we do not know the answer to. That is why, if you were currently a recipient of fruit and vegetable aid scheme support, for example, it would be in your interests to continue with that if you were in a three- or five-year planning cycle, given that, if you were to move to more general horticulture support, you may be competing against a lot more people. That is a dilemma for the beneficiaries and, undoubtedly, for the Department. The challenge for me was that I could not get clarity on where the Department plans to use the powers.

Mr Blair: On what the intention is.

Mr Allen: On what the intention is: whether it is separation or assimilation and what that future horticulture support will look like.

Mr Blair: That is useful. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Do members have any other questions for Mark? William.

Mr Irwin: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

It seems to me, from your paper, that mushroom growers received the vast majority of payments from the scheme.

Mr Allen: Yes.

Mr Irwin: I fully understand that, given the vast exodus from the mushroom sector over the past number of years. It is important that there is support there and for the horticulture sector in general. I live in an apple-growing area, and it feels as though it gets little support at the moment. Vegetable growers in Northern Ireland are down to very small numbers now. A local company — Gilfresh Produce — supplies most of Northern Ireland and the Republic's vegetables. There is a need to safeguard the horticulture and mushroom sectors. It is important that we take the right steps in that regard. I am sure that you agree.

Mr Allen: That issue is above my pay grade. The Minister has definitely acknowledged — he did so in his statement to the House in May — that future horticulture support was being developed. With all of those, the questions are these: what shape will it be, whom will it benefit and how much will it be? Those are the questions that you have to grapple with in the context of a constrained budget. There is no doubt about interest in the sector or recognition of its significance; it basically comes down to the practicalities of what can and will be provided.

Mr Irwin: Do you accept that, if we look at it at face value, we see that the support is very small?

Mr Allen: Yes. If we look at DAERA's expenditure, we see that it is a relatively small amount. Again, I go back to this point: the Department says publicly in its business plan that it is struggling to meet its statutory obligations. The figures that we are talking about, such as £2·3 million over three years, could well be a challenge. That is the impression that the Department is giving us. That is before exposure to the risk of an influx of GB-based POs, were our scheme to remain open. I do not have answers. I have probably, as usual, come with questions, but those are the questions that I had when I looked at it.

Mr Irwin: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We need a researcher to get into that list of questions, if you have any time. [Laughter.]

Mr T Buchanan: There were only three questions in the consultation, and there was a poor response to it. Could the consultation questions have been more focused on the purpose of the Bill and what it was designed to do?

Mr Allen: I made that point in the paper. For example, effectively, only one question highlighted one of the potential changes. It was the significant change — let us call it that — to move from mandatory to discretionary funding. The other question basically said, "How do you feel about the Department having additional powers to modify?". I made the point in the paper that it is hard to know how the Department plans to use those powers, because it does not say that in the accompanying documentation. There were informal briefings, and more might have been said in those. I was not party to those, so I can use only what was published.

"How are you going to use those powers?" is a legitimate question. If the Department had been more explicit about how it was going to use those powers, would that have led to a greater response rate? Who knows? As with any public consultation exercise, the more information you can share and the more informed participants are, the more likely they are to give an informed response.

Mr T Buchanan: Is it fair to say that the consultation was flawed?

Mr Allen: I am not going to go that far, and I cannot, because that is way above my pay grade.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): This is our first Committee meeting in 2025, Tom. Hold your horses.

Mr Allen: As someone who sat on the other side of conducting consultations in a previous life, I will say this: it is always difficult, because the time that you have to conduct a consultation is fixed and you have to have it completed within a certain window. You may not have all the information that you need in order to inform people. As a general principle, which we always tried to apply at the place where I worked on that, we gave as much information as we could. The more information people have, the better informed they are, and the more effective the consultation exercise is. That is all I can say, Tom. Sorry.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I have some good news for you, Tom. We will put out a consultation on Citizen Space, and we will do a better job. I am not casting aspersions on other consultations.

Before you go, Mark, I will speak to the members. You are more than welcome to sit and listen.

Members, in your email inbox, there is an email from Michael Greer about the advertisement that we will seek to put out for our Citizen Space consultation to get responses. It is fine. It is kind of within the limitations of what we can do, because it is run centrally from the Assembly. However, I draw your attention to one issue that popped out to me. It states:

I have questioned that from the start: it is called the "Agriculture Bill". Can the Committee put out a little more information to say that it is particularly for those involved in the horticulture sector, producer organisations or potential producer organisations? That will draw attention to who the stakeholders or consultees are or could be, because it is our ambition to ensure that we get as good a response as possible. I will ask for that to be included, maybe with better words than mine. If members are minded, we can circulate the email again with the wording change, but we need to get it out as quickly as possible. Are members content?

Mr McGlone: I have an observation. I noticed that a smaller ad in the 'Belfast Telegraph', when compared with the ads in 'The Irish News' and the 'News Letter', is considerably more expensive.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes. Absolutely.

Mr McGlone: Did you notice that?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I noticed that. It was the first thing that I looked at. The 'News Letter' is the best value, followed by 'The Irish News', and the 'Belfast Telegraph' blows them both out of the water.

Mr Blair: It has always been that way.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I do not know the readership of the 'Belfast Telegraph", and it might have a bigger spread. I do not know, but it is something to be cognisant of. Are members content?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you, Mark.

Mr Allen: Thank you, Chair and members.