Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome from the Department Anna Campbell, acting director of the agriculture and environmental schemes division; Gregor Kerr, programme director at the future implementation unit (FIU); Aidan McEvoy, head of the controls and assurance branch; and Denise Phillips, head of the FIU policy branch.

Good morning, guys. Please feel free to brief the Committee, and then we will have questions.

Mrs Anna Campbell (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thanks very much, Mr Chairman and Committee, for the opportunity to brief you this morning on the draft statutory rule (SR) and SL1 for the Farm Sustainability Standards Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, which we intend to lay through negative resolution. The purpose of the briefing is to outline to the Committee what, the Department believes, the standards and penalty matrix will achieve and what they will mean for farmers.

Through their application, the farm sustainability standards seek to ensure that farm businesses observe minimum standards in order to receive subsidy payments without reduction. As you will be aware, in July, the Minister made a number of final decisions on the implementation of the standards and penalty matrix so that both are in place for the launch of the new suite of schemes on 1 January 2026. Those decisions included that the penalty regime will apply to all schemes; a clean break from cross-compliance in respect of repeated breaches; retention of the ability to apply cross-compliance penalties in respect of breaches that occurred prior to 1 January 2026; that, in the event of a breach, mandatory training will be completed in advance of payment being made; and mitigation in the event of landscape feature removal without prior permission. It is worth repeating that the standards have been devised so that a farmer who is taking reasonable care should have little difficulty in meeting them. They are minimum standards and are not intended to be excessive or onerous.

In general, in developing the standards, the Department analysed the results of the future agricultural policy proposals consultation, took on board industry comments and acted on lessons learned from the current cross-compliance regime. That has resulted in the Department designing out issues such as the perceived unfairness of cross-compliance. We have achieved that through development of a matrix that recognises improvement and does not simply take a formulaic approach. We have also removed unnecessary and duplicated requirements on the protection of waters from pollution, food and feed law and unauthorised obstruction of water from designated watercourses. Those will still be controlled but outside the farm sustainability standards regime.

The new standards and penalty matrix may not be seen as perfect by everyone. However, we believe that they offer significant improvements on the current system. The standards are more relevant to Northern Ireland agriculture and its environment than cross-compliance in that they are targeted at local issues. For example, the addition of bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) to the standards addresses a specific issue that affects cattle farms, and that aligns with other industry-led measures and departmental policies to speed up the eradication of that disease in Northern Ireland. That will result in better animal welfare, reduced antibiotic usage and higher productivity on beef and dairy farms. The standards will promote good farm management practices, encourage responsible stewardship and complement the regulations that protect the environment, animal and human health and animal welfare. When measuring the success of the new standards and penalty matrix, the Department wants to see a significant reduction in the number of non-compliances and repeat breaches. In essence, the Department wishes to see farm businesses farm in line with the standards.

The penalty matrix is more proportionate than under cross-compliance. The uneven distribution of penalties against payment amounts has been addressed by using statistical analysis to derive the minimum penalties in the matrix. That has the effect of creating a smoother and more proportionate escalation of the penalties through the various levels of severity in the matrix and replaces the simple multiplication by two or three, depending on the intent that is determined.

In response to views gathered in the consultation exercise, the penalty matrix no longer includes the concept of intentionality, considering only the impact of any non-compliance on the environment, animal and human health and animal welfare; in other words, the severity of the impact. The Department has taken care to carry out a moderation exercise between the various standards with regard to the assessment of the severity of non-compliances. That is to ensure consistency and proportionality across all of the requirements. Our colleagues who deal with the various cross-compliance arrangements (CCAs) have provided the Committee and stakeholders with examples of how the penalty matrix will work in respect of the various areas of responsibility. Scenarios demonstrating the outcomes of the new penalty matrix in comparison with the current cross-compliance model — for example, in respect of late bovine TB tests — have demonstrated that the progression of a penalty is clearer and fairer, replacing the current multiplier with a regime that also allows for improvement.

It is important to stress that education is at the heart of supporting farm businesses across the sustainable agriculture programme. We want to help farmers to comply with the standards, not to punish them. In a significant change of approach, the Department seeks to change behaviours through proactive communications, along with improved support, guidance and training of farmers on the new regime. That will include the introduction of a guidance letter, which will let farmers know what they need to do to ensure compliance. Letters will inform farmers of the nature of the breach and what they should do to improve and meet that standard. We will introduce participation in mandatory, standards-specific online training following a breach to minimise repeat breaches. One of the key benefits of the new standards is the flexibility to make changes and meet emerging needs in agriculture and the environment or in the response to analysis of breach data. We expect a focused review of the standards to be undertaken in 2028, but please be assured that future changes to the overarching standards or the penalty matrix will be available for scrutiny by the Committee.

To summarise, the Department considers that the standards reflect the current environment, animal and human health and animal welfare issues in Northern Ireland. They are more relevant to Northern Ireland, with unnecessary requirements having been stripped out. They can be changed in response to emerging issues, and there will be opportunities to review their operation and impact and adjust them accordingly. The matrix is simpler. We have removed the complexities of the current regime by discarding factors such as permanence, on-farm/off-farm extent, and the intentional and negligent factor. In the development of the standards and penalty matrix, we have shared more detail with stakeholders than has been made available in the past. We have taken feedback on board and believe that that has resulted in standards that are more relevant to Northern Ireland and a penalty matrix that is more proportionate. Those will underpin the integrity of the Northern Ireland agri-food industry.

My colleagues and I are happy to answer questions that the Committee may have.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much. I was reading part 2, which gives further detail on the requirements. It would nearly put me off buying a farm if I were going to buy one. It is a lot of responsibility, but I get the value of it: the protection of soil, water, biodiversity, animal welfare. Aside from on bovine viral diarrhoea, which you mentioned, have there been any changes or additions to that part of the regulation?

Mr Aidan McEvoy (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): There is nothing of significance.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Nothing of significance or nothing other than BVD?

Mrs Campbell: Great efforts have been made to ensure that we maintain elements of the previous regime as long as they meet the environmental, animal and human health or animal welfare standards. In previous briefings, we have had colleagues from veterinary side with us. We are not aware of any specific amendments that are added in at that standard, as it stands.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. I am thinking particularly of animal movements. I would like to see improvements in the transportation of live animals, where that is useful. I do not suggest that there is anything awry, but it is an area that I would like to see addressed.

On measurement of compliance, does the new SR make any difference to the Department's operational capacity in its inspection regime and the identification, reporting and monitoring of issues?

Mr Gregor Kerr (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The number of inspections is proposed to be the same as it was under cross-compliance, so that is a 1% inspection for the majority of things. For animal health, some of the veterinary services will have to inspect 3% of herds and 5% of animals, but that is under domestic legislation. It will remain at that general 1%, which is a mixture of random inspections and risk-based inspections.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. I have a final question. Anna, you said that it will come into operation on 1 January 2026: are breaches prior to that date applicable to the new regime and the new matrix? Is that what you were saying?

Mrs Campbell: One of the Minister's decisions is to retain the ability to apply cross-compliance penalties in respect of breaches that occurred prior to that date. Basically, what we are trying to ensure there is that there will be not be a gap. Importantly, there will be a clean break from cross-compliance in respect of repeated breaches. The 1 January date will mean a fresh page for repeated breaches.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. I have a final, final question — I always do this. I note that the penalty matrix will be monitored and that a review can and probably will be conducted. When is that review anticipated? Will it be after one year?

Mr Kerr: It will be in 2028, by which time we will have two years' data.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There will be two years to allow for embedding.

Mrs Campbell: We will need to use 2026 as our baseline data; 2027 will allow for comparison data, and that will guide us towards a full review in 2028.

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

Mr McAleer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have been looking at the explanatory note, which states:

The "authorised person" referred to there already had powers, and this regulation gives them more powers. What are those additional powers?

Mr Kerr: They are essentially the same. It is to make sure that, in any of the schemes that require farm sustainability standards to be applied, the authorised person can enter to inspect on the basis of that scheme.

Ms Denise Phillips (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The definition of "authorised person" has not changed.

Mr McAleer: So the powers are in addition to any existing powers.

Ms Phillips: Those are the powers that are listed on the warrant cards.

Mr Kerr: The powers that are there at the moment are set out on a card that the authorised person has to have. This allows the authorised person to enter to inspect on the basis of one of the other schemes that may come along.

Mr McAleer: Yes. I also note that a human rights assessment has not been carried out. Could that leave it open to someone taking a case?

Mr McEvoy: An equality impact assessment (EIA) was carried out.

Mr Kerr: Yes, an equality impact assessment was carried out.

Mr McAleer: But not a human rights assessment.

Mr Kerr: It has been assessed against it. The full assessment was not required, but it has been screened.

Mr McAleer: OK. No problem. That is great. Thank you.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you for your presentation. When this was presented to us previously, I asked whether it was still a policy in development and there was a possibility of further consultation. I am disappointed that that has not taken place. I know that you have asked for legal advice on that. Why would you not go out for public consultation on it?

Mrs Campbell: The work that we have done on the process to date has been done in light of the elements of the original consultation that were highlighted for us to focus our attentions on.

We have continued to have close engagement with the agricultural policy stakeholder group (APSG) as we have gone through the process, and we have utilised that opportunity to take on board an awful lot of feedback. The proposals have been informed by that process to a considerable extent, so it has been particularly useful. We have not received indications that the group is not content with the direction of travel. We know that we have to get the balance right and that not everybody will like every part of it, but we believe that we have landed on the right balance. Our ability to reflect and to address things as we do assessments throughout implementation will allow us to make changes if required. We will absolutely take that feedback on board throughout the process.

Miss McIlveen: My preference would have been for the policy to go out for further consultation. Your paper says that details were presented to the APSG for "consideration and comment". Does that mean that the group agrees with the proposals? Your paper does not say that. Does the group agree with the proposals?

Mrs Campbell: At this point — we have taken final decisions to the Minister — there are no outstanding areas of disagreement. As I said in my opening statement, not everyone will like every part of it, but we have made considerable improvements to how the process works and in making it much more specific to Northern Ireland. That is where we have landed with the stakeholder group: there were no points of disagreement when we took the policy to final decision.

Miss McIlveen: OK. Let us look at the first paragraph of part 1 of schedule 1 to the regulations, which amends "the Horizontal Regulation" by putting "severity" in place of "severity, extent, permanence". Will you talk me through the rationale for removing "extent" and "permanence"?

Ms Phillips: That was done to simplify the process. Under the current cross-compliance regime, an inspector will look at whether there was intent; the extent of the breach; whether the breach is on-farm or off-farm; and whether the breach is permanent or rectifiable. All those aspects are looked at in the round. It was decided that the way forward on simplifying that was to focus on the impact and consequences of the breach, so the other elements have been taken out of the equation.

Miss McIlveen: They have been removed, but, if there were to be an incident that was seen as severe in the moment but that did not have longer-lasting extent or consequences, would that still be taken into consideration?

Ms Phillips: Yes. That would be the impact.

Miss McIlveen: That would be the impact, as opposed to — OK. That would remain.

In the same part of the regulations, paragraph 9(b) specifies:

Is that not quite a severe penalty?

Ms Phillips: It has to be remembered that those are the penalties for very high-impact breaches. The provision for exclusion from schemes was always there. The Department did not adopt that but is doing so now, in light of current environmental issues. It will only come into play in cases of very high-impact, repeated breaches. Without exclusion, we would be allowing people to apply for public money while they are not complying with the basic rules of the scheme.

Mr Kerr: That example is the maximum penalty that can be applied. It is for the third repeat of a very high-impact breach, in which case it is the fourth time that a very high-impact breach has been found; that is where the penalty will come in. For the first occurrence of a very high-impact breach, the penalty is 50% of all payments. We are talking about a business that has had a very high-impact issue multiple times.

Miss McIlveen: OK. Can you give me some scenarios to show what that would look like?

Mr Kerr: I do not have the full detail, but, potentially, it involves repeated instances of animal death or animal cruelty.

Miss McIlveen: Is that the only example that you can give of what "severity" means?

Ms Phillips: It depends on the nature of the environment. It could also be someone who is a continual polluter at a very high level. For different types of farming, there are different scenarios where that could come into play.

Mr McEvoy: If you take the matrix as a whole and what Anna outlined about the focus on education, mandatory training and warning letters, you will see that it is not envisaged that many people will get to that end point. You are right: it is assessed based on the impact. As Gregor said, the first very high-impact breach brings a 50% penalty, but, if that is repeated within three calendar years —. If somebody gets to that stage — as Denise outlined, it is public money — that would be at the extreme end of the penalty matrix, but you have all the other components of it, which have been outlined, such as the warning letters and training. Hopefully, those components will prevent somebody getting to that point.

Miss McIlveen: I go back to the point that the Chair made in his opening remarks that, were he to look at the regulations in advance of purchasing a farm, they would put him off. Are you not concerned that, when some farmers see such regulations coming through, it may well drive them to sell their entitlements, which, in a perverse way, could be more detrimental?

Mrs Campbell: In the examples that we have given and in this discussion, we have looked at extreme events that people might think about and that might cause them to change their behaviours, but it is really important that we do not lose sight of the standards as they are written. They are the minimum standards that are expected to be met. They are not supposed to be onerous. Those standards are attainable by all farm businesses that complete work on farms and are in receipt of subsidy. There might be outlier cases, and we will absolutely have data to follow through on those cases. However, in our approach to education and training and the matrix, we are looking to drive changes in behaviour. There is an opportunity to learn and correct the sort of approaches that might lead to breaches of the standards and penalties under the matrix.

Miss McIlveen: OK. Thank you.

Mr Irwin: I was not here at the start of the meeting, so I declare an interest as a partner in a farm business.

I speak from my experience as a Member of the Assembly. I have seen the Department giving some very hefty penalties for late testing, for instance. Scores of farmers were fined for late testing, but they had no idea that that was one of the breaches. The letter from the Department said, in small writing, that late testing "may" affect — "may" affect — the basic farm payment. Many of the farmers did not realise that. It is important that, in any penalty system, farmers are fully aware of the situation.

We are talking about penalties for severe breaches. I know of one farming family who were cattle dealers for buyers. They issued a lot of permits, and they had a number of late permits in the year, and it cost them heavily out of their single farm payment for four or five years. The breach was classified as intentional once the first or second year went by. They lost a lot of money from their single farm payment for four or five years for breaches that really were not severe. There were late permits. As you know, a permit must be with the Department within seven days. When it goes into the eighth or ninth day, there is a penalty. My past experience has been that some people who have not created a big issue have been very heavily fined.

I have another issue. I agree that you need powers, but look at those powers: the police do not have powers that are as strong as them, like the power to check computers. I understand that you need to have powers, but the powers in the regulations are very strong. Without a search warrant, the police would not have the powers that you have. Am I right or wrong about that?

Ms Phillips: Record-keeping is set out as one of the checks, along with orthoimagery and things like that. There is a legislative requirement that records are kept for animal medicines, nitrates and things like that. Part of the duties of the specialist competent control authority are to check those in order to make sure that the business is compliant.

You gave an example about the movement permits — the identification and registration of movement. Our veterinary colleagues have already made a presentation on how the penalty matrix will work in future, compared with how it works under the current cross-compliance regime. In the past, where there was repetition over three calendar years, there was a simple multiplier: if it was intentional, it was multiplied by two, and, if it was negligent, it was multiplied by three. That is all gone now, and there is progression through the penalty matrix, but it also less heavily penalises a reoccurrence that is at a lesser level, which was never taken into consideration before. The examples that were presented by our veterinary colleagues and other competent control authorities demonstrated that this penalty regime is a lot more proportionate.

Going back to the point about the very high penalties, the main thing to remember is that, at every severity level of breaches, training is given after a first breach. As Anna set out in her opening remarks, this system has been developed to provide education that, we hope, will lead to smaller penalties, fewer penalties and fewer reoccurrences.

Mr Irwin: I hope that that is the case. The Department's letter said that late testing "may" affect the single farm payment. I raised a big issue about that at the time — a few years back — and the wording was changed to state that "up to 100%" of the single farm payment could be lost. Penalties should not have been imposed before farmers realised that there was an issue. Scores of farmers were fined without their realising that there was an issue. I do not have an issue, as long as farmers realise what the consequences are and it is made clear to farmers. It was not made clear in the past.

Ms Phillips: A letter is issued ahead of the bovine TB test to advise the business that a test is due and to make arrangements. When the bovine TB test is shortly overdue, another letter is issued. At every stage, the letter states that there is a penalty of "up to 100%". The business should expect a penalty when a test is late.

Mr Irwin: It did not say that in the first instance.

Ms Phillips: It says it now. We had a meeting —

Mr Irwin: I raised a big issue about it at the time.

Ms Phillips: You did. It does say "up to 100%".

Mr Irwin: OK, thank you.

Mr Blair: When these matters are reported — they have been reported repeatedly in the Committee and in the Assembly — there is a danger of muddying the waters, if you will pardon the pun, in relation to the difference between somebody being penalised for a breach and their being persistently and repeatedly in breach and a penalty escalating.

I ask this for clarification: can you give us any indication of how many times in the last period — whether that is one year, two years or five years — the most severe penalty was issued under the current regime? My understanding is that it is a very small number.

Ms Phillips: Do we have that data?

Mr Kerr: We do not have that figure with us.

Mr Blair: Could you give us a guesstimate of how often it happens? Does the Department deal with that once a year or more than once a year? There must be some reckoning of how often it happens.

Ms Phillips: There are records, but I do not know off the top of my head.

Mr Blair: My understanding is that it is not a monthly occurrence or anything close to that. OK. I would be really grateful if the Committee could be issued with that information for each of the past five years, so that we have a totally clear picture of how often the maximum penalty was issued.

Can the Committee also be given an explanation of how many previous breaches there were before somebody reached the maximum penalty? That would be a useful record.

I ask these questions because it would be a bad look if the political world or the scrutiny structures were seen not to want maximum impact on the breaches that have serious environmental or food security implications. Maybe it is already a bad look. For that reason, I ask, for the record and for my own clarification, for more explanation of the current penalty matrix for repeated breaches and what the proportionality is, or what the escalation of penalty is, for repeated breaches under the proposed scheme.

Mr Kerr: Under the current cross-compliance scheme, there are penalties for both intentional and negligent breaches. For negligent breaches, the penalty is tripled — it is multiplied by three — after each occurrence until it gets to 15%, at which point it is capped.

Ms Phillips: It is capped at 15%.

Mr Kerr: For intentional breaches, the penalty is doubled each time until it gets to 100%. That means that the initial penalty is what goes into the multiplier, so that never changes and that sum is multiplied again and again.

The difference in the revised matrix is that it goes from very low to very high, but each instance is treated for the severity on that occasion. Therefore, if you have a breach that is found initially to be medium, and you repeat that breach, the severity of the matrix moves but it is treated at the lower level. There is recognition of the fact that the farm has improved, even though it has repeated breaches. It can move down in severity, rather than just multiplying up and up.

Mr Blair: It is a gradual thing, and it allows flexibility for improvements.

Ms Phillips: I can give you an example of the current regime. If you have a first-time negligent penalty of 3%, and you repeat, and you have breached again but at a lower level, it attracts a penalty of 1% that is multiplied by three, so you get 3% again. On a second repeat, you could have a low breach, but you get that previous penalty of 3%, multiplied by three, which results in a 9% penalty. Therefore, the escalation is a lot quicker, and it makes no allowance for improvement in the different levels of severity.

Mr Blair: OK. That is useful. It is useful to have a conversation about the 1 per cents and the 3 per cents escalating to 9%, as well as having a conversation about the 100 per cents, so that we have a fuller conversation and have some perspective of the whole thing.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There is certainly an improvement in the matrix and a visibility in it. I have no issue with it. I have one query outstanding, which was not covered. One of the changes that I have been alerted to is with regard to historic monuments. In the previous regime, there was no automatic effect on your payments with damage to historic monuments. That has now been captured in this scheme; is that right?

Mr McEvoy: No, there always was that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There always was that. Could it be challenged or anything? Is there no change in that regard at all?

Mr McEvoy: Damage to an historic monument was penalised in the old regime, and it is still in this one. One of the points raised is whether farmers were aware that they had historic monuments on their farm, and we got confirmation that that will be the case going forward. It will be available when they access their land map.

Mr Kerr: It will be included on their farm map now. It will be much clearer to a farmer that they have an historic monument. However, the requirement was there previously, so it is not new. Perhaps it is more visible.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Do members have any other comments that they would like to make or questions that they want to ask?

Mr T Buchanan: I have just one issue, Chair.

If someone's farming business has a small breach, do they get a warning letter prior to a penalty being levied? If someone makes a small breach on their farm holding, will they get a warning letter rather than a penalty?

Mr Kerr: If it is classified as "Very low", there will be a warning letter on the first occasion. If the breach is at the next level of severity, which is "Low", there will be a 1% penalty and training and guidance. There will be no penalty or a very small penalty.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): You may slip me a fiver the next time you want to ask another wee question, William.

Mr Irwin: I think that I know the answer to the question. On the sustainability penalties, if there are serious issues, such as pollution, can they still be brought to court on top of paying the penalty?

Mr Kerr: The legal process is outside this.

Mr Irwin: There will be two penalties.

Mr Kerr: That is a matter for the court.

Mr Irwin: That is the effect.

Mr Kerr: That is correct. If a criminal offence has been carried out, it will go through the courts, and it is separate to the administrative penalties, which is a reduction in the grant.

Mr Irwin: Will that happen for anything other than pollution?

Ms Phillips: It could be welfare cases.

Mr Kerr: It could be animal welfare.

Mr Irwin: Animal welfare. That is right.

Ms Phillips: Again, that is at the serious end, where there has been a high level of undue suffering.

Mr Irwin: I understand that, but those people get a double whammy.

Ms Phillips: Yes.

Mr Irwin: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Members, are we content? The questions have been asked. Thank you very much.

Are members agreed that the Department proceed to make the SR, and we will consider it in due course, subject to the Examiner of Statutory Rules' (ESR) report?

Miss McIlveen: There were some questions asked, particularly by Mr Blair, about additional information. Would it not be helpful to have the information in advance of us making the decision?

Mr Blair: I do not need to see that information before we make the decision, Chair, if that is helpful for Michelle.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Do members require any further information before they can make a decision? Are members content?

Miss McIlveen: I will reserve judgement at this stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK.

Mr Blair: Sorry, I did not hear the last comment.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Michelle is going to reserve her judgement on the decision.

Mr Blair: OK.

Ms Murphy: Do we have any indication of when we will see the matrix? A fortnight ago, I asked the Committee to write to the Department for an update.

Mrs Campbell: The penalty matrix has been included in the presentation.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It is available. It is set out like the risk assessment.

Are members content?

Mr Blair: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Qualified? John has asked for information, but the decision is not contingent on that.

Mr Blair: The information is for the record.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): When will the SR be laid?

Mr Kerr: Shortly.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Obviously, because it is to be in place for 1 January. The Minister will lay the SR imminently, this week or next week.

Ms Phillips: Yes.

Mr Kerr: Not this week.

Ms Phillips: Next week.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): You guys have to dot the i's and cross the t's.

Mr Kerr: We also have to make sure that it goes through the validation process.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. The ESR has to look at it.

Ms Phillips: The SL5 and the final SR will go to the Committee.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It is negative resolution.

Mr Irwin: My concerns come from past experience. The new regime may work, but what I have seen in the past leaves me with some concerns.

Mr Kerr: There is a review period built in, and we are happy to see whether the regime is working at that point. If there are concerns that it is not working, those will be taken on board as part of the review.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): When the SR comes forward, the Committee can pray against it, if it wants to, but that is not a position to get into at this stage.

If there is no unanimity, I can put the Question and record members' positions, or you can wait until the SR comes and decide whether to pray against it or not. Is that fair? For the record, I am reasonably content with where it is. There are just a couple of wee queries outstanding, but the visibility of the matrix and stuff is useful.

Mr Irwin: It would be useful, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Is everybody content for us to bring it back for the Committee to look at when the SR is laid? We will decide at that stage whether or not the Committee wants to pray against it. Are members content?

Mr Blair: As long as we clarify that it will not present any problems or delays for the Department.

Mrs Campbell: At this point, no. We can press ahead as normal.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): John, the Committee Clerk did not get verbatim what information you required. Are you going to seek that information yourself from the Department, or do you want to do it through the Committee?

Mr Blair: The Committee can seek it. It is a reflection of how many times the maximum penalty was issued — I think, I used the figure of five years — and how many repeated breaches there were in any or all of the examples before the maximum penalty was implemented.

Mr Irwin: You are not fully aware of the situation, John. Some minor incidents were turned into intentional breaches because they were repeats. They were minor breaches. Surely you would admit that.

Mrs Campbell: Intentionality is gone now.

Mr Blair: That is the point of asking for the figures, because they would show how many times a breach was repeated before any fine was maximised. That is the exercise that I am trying to undertake. If it is once or twice, I am probably open-minded enough to consider that somebody may not have read a letter, but, if it is seven or eight, I would have reason to be sceptical.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That is not an unreasonable request.

Mr Blair: I am never unreasonable.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Well, when you are in the Speaker's Chair, John,

you change —

Mr Blair: I am known for my reasonableness.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): — from reasonableness to very authoritative.

Mr Blair: No, no.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK, members, we are content with where we are. We will get the SR and then decide whether we are going to pray against it. The information that John requested would be pretty useful. Thank you very much.