Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome the following officials to the meeting and invite them to brief the Committee: Paul McHenry, director of the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE); Alan Galbraith, head of the college support service; and Nigel Murphy, head of knowledge transfer and innovation.

Was that good? Did I get it right?

Mr Paul McHenry (College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise): That is it.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Thank you very much. Please brief the Committee.

Mr McHenry: Thank you very much. Good morning, and thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to speak to the Committee today about the farming for sustainability innovation scheme and to add to the written briefing that was provided on 3 July.

First, I will highlight a drafting issue with the copy of the statutory rule (SR) that was initially provided. There was an oversight, but it does not represent any material change to the policy intent. The regulations that were previously provided referred to international innovation visits to venues "outside the United Kingdom". That should have read "outside Northern Ireland". We want to be able to open up the international innovation visits to other parts of the UK, so that was changed.

The innovation scheme that DAERA proposes is intended to assist in investigating, developing and implementing innovation solutions on farms in Northern Ireland. The proposed innovation scheme is made up of three elements that are interlinked and cumulative in innovation investigation, development and implementation on farms. The three elements are titled 'Innovation partnerships', 'International innovation visits' and 'Innovation farms', and they build on the success of previous, similar schemes. The elements have been revised and improved on the basis of feedback from participants and industry stakeholders.

I will now hand over to Alan, who will provide a more detailed overview of the new innovation scheme and its associated elements.

Mr Alan Galbraith (College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise): Thank you, Paul. Good morning.

Innovation is widely recognised as an essential condition for business success. Innovative businesses tend to have higher levels of growth, sustainability and competitiveness. While the farming industry clearly recognises the benefits of innovation, there are significant constraints at farm level due to limitations of finance, manpower and opportunity to collaborate and, of course, to the risk involved. However, there is also clear recognition that considerable innovation needs to be deployed at farm level if the agri-food industry is to meet the challenges it faces.

Under the previous NI rural development programme (RDP), DAERA developed and delivered a range of schemes to encourage the adoption of innovative practices. The schemes were highly valued by the industry. As Paul said, the proposed new scheme aims to build on their success and has incorporated the lessons learned. The scheme and its three elements have been co-designed in consultation with a wide range of internal DAERA and external stakeholders, including the agricultural policy stakeholder group (APSG). In the new innovation scheme, DAERA proposes to retain but enhance the three-element approach.

The first element is innovation partnerships. As in the predecessor scheme, innovation partnerships will allow for a bottom-up approach and allow all farmers to come forward with truly innovative ideas. This is about generating innovation. Farmers will be encouraged to link with industry experts, academics or researchers to solve a problem or issue. They will receive up to £150,000 to investigate their issue and will have access to a further fund of £40,000 per group for potential capital works. The previous scheme was well received and indicated that there was a considerable appetite for that approach, so it is proposed to have 35 three-year partnerships over the next five years.

The second element is international innovation visits. As in the predecessor scheme, it is proposed that participating farmers will have the opportunity to visit farms in other countries to explore innovative solutions that cannot be found in Northern Ireland. The new scheme will facilitate visits across the world and not just in Europe. All trips will be organised by CAFRE, and the costs associated with travel outside NI and accommodation will be paid for. In the new scheme, farmers who go on a visit will benefit from the support of CAFRE technologists and will meet fellow participants after a visit to assess opportunities and barriers in implementing a solution on their own farms. If required, it is proposed that the scheme will cover the cost of expertise to help farmers to implement the solution. Findings from the visits will be shared with the wider industry, further disseminating the findings of the innovation. The objective is to deliver 10 unique international study visits in each of the five years and to give 150 farmers per year the opportunity to investigate innovative practices across the world.

The third element is innovation farms. That is a network of farms to let farmers experience innovation that could be seen in Northern Ireland but had not been widely adopted. As in the previous scheme, it is proposed that the host farmer will receive a hosting payment of £786 per visit to compensate a farmer for their time, preparing and sharing their farm data, and preparing their farm for each visit. The scheme will be enhanced by bringing host farmers into a group that will be supported by CAFRE technologists, through which they will be provided with the latest research input and given priority access to the international innovation visits when appropriate. It is proposed that farmers who visit innovation farms will be given increased support from CAFRE to implement what they see on host farms if it is appropriate to their needs. They can then decide whether an innovation is suitable for implementation on their own farms. The aim is to develop a network of 50 innovation farms by the end of the five years.

The scheme will, through those three elements, provide a range of interventions to consider, develop, assess and implement innovative solutions on farms to meet the significant challenges facing the industry. It is anticipated that the scheme will be well received by the industry.

I will now pass you over to Nigel, who will talk about the statutory rule.

Mr Nigel Murphy (College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise): Good morning, everyone. We are using the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 1949 to give us the legal powers to deliver the scheme that Alan outlined.

The Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) advised us that under the Act the innovation partnership element did not require a statutory rule and that there were sufficient powers there.

The statutory rule that the Committee is considering today provides for payments to be made by the Department to eligible farm businesses that are selected as innovation farms and that host visits. The rate of payment, which Alan outlined, is £786 per hosted visit. That is the same as the hosting payment made to farmers who host visits under our knowledge transfer programmes, including the business sustainability groups. The purpose of that money is to compensate host farmers for the time taken to prepare their farm, collate the information that they will present on the innovations that they are demonstrating and speak to the group, as well as for the use of their farm facilities.

The statutory rule also sets out the eligibility criteria for hosts. They must be a member of the farm business or an employee of the business who is over 18 years of age and employed by that business for at least 16 hours a week. That ensures that they have a good, practical understanding of the business for when they speak to visitors. The same eligibility criteria apply to those who travel outside Northern Ireland to investigate innovative solutions, ensuring that they can apply what they learn to their farm when they return.

It is worth noting that, for those who travel outside Northern Ireland, the scheme covers all the costs of travel, accommodation and meals. Those costs will be paid directly by the Department. There are no direct payments to the farmers, but that ensures that the farmer is not out of pocket when they are away.

Thank you. I will hand back to Paul.

Mr McHenry: Thanks very much for listening. We are happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you so much for that. Forgive me if I have missed something, but the innovation partnership does not seem to be detailed in the SR. You picked out that the SR is not intended to cover the totality of the scheme, because much of it is covered in the 1949 legislation, so maybe it does not need to be.

Mr N Murphy: We were advised that we have sufficient powers. It is an administrative scheme, so the SR only needs to cover those other elements.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. It replaces the technology demonstration farm scheme and the farm innovation schemes, as well as the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) scheme, because it covers moving that from being a European scheme to being worldwide — you picked up on that in your presentation. Maybe that is the purpose of it.

Does the new innovation scheme offer any other advantages for farmers? Conversely, is there anything that was in the previous schemes that is missing from the new scheme?

Mr McHenry: It adds to the previous schemes, rather than taking anything away. The addition is the additional support that will be provided to farmers to adopt innovation at farm level.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I have a question on the uptake of the previous schemes. Were they well communicated and well received? Was the budget for the previous schemes always spent, and were the measurable outcomes realised? Is there a programme of expected and measurable outcomes for the new scheme?

Mr McHenry: The previous schemes were impacted on by COVID a bit, particularly the farm visits and visits outside Northern Ireland, because we were unable to travel at that time. We hosted the likes of the technology demonstration farms online, however, which worked reasonably well.

The second part of your question was on measurable outcomes. That is linked to adoption at farm level — getting farmers to adopt the innovations.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Is there a system to record that?

Mr McHenry: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We have many conversations in which we identify areas of good practice, but it is about implementing that good practice and gaining the value from it. Is there a measurable output for the Department? Do you have that in place?

Mr McHenry: Yes, we will capture that information. Nigel may have more to say on that.

Mr N Murphy: By way of example, at the end of a visit to an innovation farm, the visiting farmer will be given a list of the things that were demonstrated to them and asked which of them are relevant to their farm. We follow up on that to see how much of that they implement. We identify that, and then we follow up on it. We also support those people in implementation.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): So, it is not just an enter-and-exit scheme; it is enter, review, improve and so on.

Mr N Murphy: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Thank you very much for that. I have one final question. I know that this has been drawn up with the support of the APSG. Were any significant points or obstacles raised by the stakeholder group that were insurmountable or proved to be difficult?

Mr McHenry: No. We consulted the APSG because previously, when we were delivering similar schemes, it was supportive. The ask was about getting the schemes up and operational as quickly as possible and being innovative when it came to looking at solutions to address some of the challenges that we have and will face in future.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): By golly, we need some innovation for some of the challenges that we have. [Laughter.]

The Committee will not want to stand in the way of that. OK, thank you.

Mr McAleer: Thank you very much for the presentation. You said that the new scheme will build on the past schemes. Is it building on the likes of the business development groups, for example, under the old rural development programme?

Mr McHenry: Yes. Previously, the innovation schemes that we had supported the business development groups. These schemes will also support new business sustainability groups and will add value to those. They are also opened up to people who are outside the business sustainability groups. That will add to the knowledge that we transfer to businesses. You are linking into the most up-to-date research, which then transfers into innovation. You are coming out with new ideas that farmers have never heard about before.

Mr McAleer: There is already lots of knowledge and expertise among organisations such as AgriSearch. Do you collaborate with other groups as well?

Mr McHenry: We do, absolutely. We will work with all the key industry stakeholders to determine what innovations we need to look at in order to address the challenges.

Mr McAleer: You said that the SR sets it out that a person must be employed for at least 16 hours a week on the farm. I represent a lot of farmers who are part-time farmers and, perhaps, work on building sites during the day. They are on the farm at 5.00 am and as soon as they come home in the evening. Where do those farmers fit?

Mr N Murphy: If they are members of that farm business, they are included. That criterion applies only to those who are employed by a farm business and are not members of the business. That is because we are asking them to implement the innovations. We will ask the owner of the business to confirm that those individuals are employed by that business before they head off, say, on an international innovation visit, so that they have the opportunity to apply what they have learned to that business.

Mr McAleer: Have CAFRE and the Department looked at this as an opportunity to get new entrants involved in farming and to adopt this bottom-up, innovative approach as well? There are really good opportunities there for new entrants.

Mr McHenry: The scheme is open to category 1 and category 2 farm businesses. That should capture everybody out there, including people who are new to the industry, who has a farm business. Everybody will have the opportunity to join the scheme.

Mr McAleer: You said that the Department will, effectively, follow up with the farmer to see whether they have implemented the learning on the farm. How will that be achieved? Will there be a penalty for a farmer who has not implemented learning?

Mr McHenry: No, there will be no penalties involved in this. One of the key things that we learned from the previous programme was that it was fine taking people away to look at new innovation, but there was a wee bit of a gap there when they came back. They would ask, "How do I implement this on my own farm on a practical level?". That is where we will put in the support from CAFRE around implementation.

Mr McAleer: There will be ongoing mentoring and support from CAFRE.

Mr McHenry: Absolutely. That was one of the lessons that were learned from the old programme.

Mr McAleer: This is all welcome, so well done. I hope that it will succeed in its objectives.

Mr McHenry: Thank you.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you for the presentation. As the previous member said, the scheme sounds very positive.

Mr McHenry: Thank you.

Miss McIlveen: From a more practical perspective, you mentioned the £786, which is the purpose of the SL1, and you said that it is the same as the knowledge schemes. How did you come to the £786 figure? Will that be sufficient? I have a couple of questions relating to why it may not be sufficient.

Mr N Murphy: The rationale comes from the detailed work carried out two schemes ago on the Focus Farms schemes. Each scheme uplifted the payment by the rate of inflation, and we looked at the inflationary uplifts. The figure for the previous scheme was £600, and, because money is now worth less, it has gone up to £786. The requirements of each farm will be different, but it is much easier to administer a standard rate and treat everyone in the same way. That is how the figure was calculated. There are detailed calculations that sit behind the original figures.

Miss McIlveen: I suggest that a host farm will spend a considerable amount of time in preparation for the visit. It is like preparing for someone visiting your house: you will be going into all sorts of corners that you normally would not. An enormous amount of time will be spent on the preparation. Is there an expectation for hospitality to be part of the visit? Any farm that I have visited has been incredibly generous, and there will be quite a spread. If a farm is going to have 40 or more visitors — some of the groups will be considerably smaller — there will be a cost associated with that.

Mr McHenry: It is up to the individual farmers. You are right: they like to provide hospitality.

Miss McIlveen: It is not an expectation.

Mr McHenry: Absolutely not. It will vary from farm to farm. Some will provide a cup of tea or coffee, and others will provide a bit more. From previous business development group visits to farms, there was a bit of competition between the hosts, but we do not cover hospitality.

Miss McIlveen: An alternative venue will need to be found if there are issues with biosecurity or health and safety. What are the expectations for the alternative venue?

Mr N Murphy: If there is a biosecurity issue, the venue can be a hotel or somewhere close. The host farmer can go to a group and give a presentation on the details of their farm, which has happened in the past.

Miss McIlveen: Will the farmer have to pay for the hotel? The costs for using a hotel will vary.

Mr McHenry: There is a range of venues, and some farmers might use local community centres. It does not have to be a hotel. All we request is that the proper insurance liability is in place in case somebody is injured, but the farmer covers the cost.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you. I am not sure that £786 will cover the costs, but we are where we are.

Miss Á Murphy: I have a quick question on some of the costings associated with scheme. How do the costings compare with the previous scheme over the same period?

Mr McHenry: The overall cost to deliver the programme?

Mr N Murphy: We noticed from our costings that travel had increased significantly over the period. The average cost has gone up, and travel seems to be a little bit above the standard rate of inflation. We have noticed that with recent visits, and everybody has probably noticed that travel and hotels are more expensive. The costs are broadly in line, but the travel element has increased above inflation. We have accounted for that.

Miss Á Murphy: Thank you.

Mr T Buchanan: How many farmers do you take with you on an international visit? How do you choose those farmers: what part of the country they come from and so forth?

Mr McHenry: The key thing here is that we will go out with selection criteria. For instance, you might have a particular visit that is focused on dairy farmers. We will agree the selection criteria, and we will share that with the agriculture policy stakeholder group. There will be different weightings for different criteria. We have not got to the point of agreeing what those will be. Farmers from across Northern Ireland will be able to apply. We will take a total of 15 farmers in a group. On the basis of our experience of group facilitation, when you go much above that level, you do not get the same interaction between the farmers. That is why we set it at that level.

Mr T Buchanan: OK. If you are taking a group of 15 dairy farmers, for instance, but 25 have applied, how do you choose 15 out of those 25?

Mr McHenry: We will have different criteria with different weightings. We have to decide what theme or innovation we are going to look at, see whom it will be most applicable to and target our weightings on those individuals. It is difficult to give you specifics at this stage and until we know the innovation that we are going to see.

Mr T Buchanan: It is not an easy task.

Mr McHenry: No, it is not an easy task; I appreciate that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): William, do you want to declare an interest, first of all? [Laughter.]

Mr Irwin: I apologise for not being here for all of your presentation. As regards the visits to look at innovations, I am a farmer —

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Ah, good man.

Mr Irwin: — and I know that it is difficult to ascertain suitability in one visit. Will there be guidance from the Department on what it sees as the best technologies? A farmer cannot go out, do a visit and decide, "That is for me", without some guidance.

Mr McHenry: Absolutely. Again, that is a lesson that we learnt from the previous programme. It is fine going to look at the innovation, but the big bit is, "How do I adopt this?". We in CAFRE want to put more resource towards supporting farmers who want to adopt an innovation when they come back from a visit. Not everybody will want to adopt the innovation — they might say, "It's not for me" — but the next farmer might be keen to do it, and they will need technical support from us in CAFRE.

Mr Irwin: That is important. There will be different technologies and different views, and it is difficult for a farmer to weigh up what is best for him.

Mr McHenry: Absolutely. I should say that, in advance of any visit, our CAFRE technologists will look at the innovation, because they could find that it is not relevant. You could take a group of people away and find that it is not relevant to the group. To avoid that and to safeguard the investment, our CAFRE technologists will carry out an independent review of the innovation before we go to ensure that it is applicable to Northern Ireland farmers.

Mr Irwin: That is important. Thank you.

Mr T Buchanan: How do you measure the value of the international visits?

Mr McHenry: We measure the value of them by the number of people who adopt the innovation.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I have a final point on Tom's question, because it is a good one. Is there a system for feedback appraisal? I do not mean a happy sheet. Back in my day, where I used to work, we did what we called a "happy sheet". Happy sheets do not work. Is there a process of qualitative appraisal from the stakeholders who undertake the work?

Mr McHenry: Absolutely.

Mr N Murphy: We are doing that work at the minute. There is happiness, but then there is adopting and measuring that, without putting a large burden on those who take part in the appraisal. That is the secret.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): When someone goes to assess something, it is wrong to assume that it will be suitable for them. An innovation over there may not work in this context, but I appreciate that this is a scheme.

John, do you have a final question to close us out?

Mr Blair: Yes, Chair. I have a comment first, if you do not mind me giving you a subtle nudge: I have not heard any proposal for happy sheets at the Committee. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We have a special one for you, John. [Laughter.]

Mr Blair: I meant for others.

We have got on to the issue of review. Some of my question has been answered in response to Tom and the Chair. Will the review of progress, success or any of those things be done by the Department, the policy stakeholder group or both?

Mr McHenry: John, it will all be managed by the Department, but we might seek the support of others. We will work closely with the likes of the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) to carry out an evaluation of the programme, and we will do some evaluation ourselves. We will also get annual feedback from participants and produce reports on the back of that.

Mr Blair: Fair enough. Thank you.

Mr McHenry: It will be a combination.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much, officials.

Members, are we agreed that the Department proceed to make the SR and that we will then consider it in due course, subject to the Examiner of Statutory Rules' report?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much, members.