Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome the following officials to the Committee: Dr Samantha Stewart, head of food security, beef, sheep and pig policy; and Mr Kieran Coghlan, deputy principal, food security, beef, sheep and pig policy. Thank you so much for your attendance. Feel free to brief the Committee. Following that, we may have some questions.

Dr Samantha Stewart (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Good morning, Chair and members of the Committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come back to the Committee to answer any questions that you may have.

Before doing that, perhaps it would be helpful if I were to cover the policy intent of the statutory rule (SR) again, following some of the points that were raised by the representatives of the processing industry. A standard dressing specification for sheep carcasses is set out in regulation EU No 1308/2013. Any member state that wishes to have a mandatory system has to follow that dressing specification, and, even where mandatory systems are not in place, the EU specification is taken as default. That was the position in GB and Northern Ireland and continues to be the case in the ROI. However, as the UK did not have mandatory systems, alternative specifications have emerged. In Northern Ireland, it has been a variant of the EU specification, where the whole tail is removed, although the advice from the Department has always been to remove the tail between the sixth and seventh caudal vertebrae. GB had several alternative specifications, and, therefore, in its mandatory system, it has reduced those to just two — the EU specification or "reference specification" and a variant that is identical to the EU specification except that the kidney knob and channel fat are removed, referred to as "the UK specification" — but both specifications mandate the removal of the tail between the sixth and seventh caudal vertebrae. Northern Ireland is, therefore, not introducing a new specification, nor will there be three or four specifications across the UK and Ireland. Northern Ireland's will be the EU specification. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) still advise following the EU specification in ROI. GB has both the EU and the UK specification, with a coefficient established to compare prices between the two to address any issues caused by divergence.

Farmers' representatives supported the sole use of the EU specification in Northern Ireland. The UK specification has never been practised here, even though the slaughter plants could have done so under a voluntary system. If there were ever a demand for kidney knob and channel fat to be removed from the carcasses, those could be removed after classification and weighing, if need be.

Regarding requirements for the neck and tail removal, the SR introduces no changes to the dressing of the necks from either the EU specification or the current practice. As regards the tails, the draft regulations do not reflect a change in DAERA's position regarding how much of the tail should be removed. They are in line with EU standards and both mandatory specifications in GB. In addition, advice from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and our veterinary staff is that there is no hygiene risk that would require full removal of the tail as a matter of course. The draft regulations already allow for further trimming to remove visible matter, so there is no clash between hygiene and classification regulations. The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has informed us that it has experienced no complaints regarding hygiene in England and Wales associated with tail presentation, and tails were routinely removed between the sixth and seventh caudal vertebrae in Northern Ireland prior to late 2014. On a site visit at the plant, DAERA officials observed the tails being severed at this point and did not indicate delays to the line.

A specification different from GB and ROI specifications regarding tails for Northern Ireland would create divergence, and no coefficients have been calculated to allow price comparisons. However, removing more of the tail to meet a particular customer's specification can still be done after the classification and weighing has taken place. That is the stance that the RPA has taken in England and Wales, and a bonus is that the extra part of the tail is now fit for human consumption.

As I have said, the farming industry has supported the sole use of the EU specification, including removal of the tail between the sixth and seventh tail bone. That should allow for standardisation of what exactly will be removed from the carcass prior to calculation of the payment.

I hope that that briefing has addressed the points raised by the representatives, but I am happy to take any questions that the Committee may have.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you so much. Obviously, we have had the presentation before, but, since then, as you will be aware, we have taken evidence from the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association (NIMEA) in particular. You are probably well aware of the queries that it has raised. I will touch on some of those, and maybe you would like to address them.

The first relates to the process. NIMEA claims that the process as presented, particularly the tail specification, will slow down the slaughter line, which will add cost and has the potential to cause hygiene concerns. You have addressed part of that, but I would like you to go back and give us a wee bit more evidence on it, particularly on the mechanisation and the challenges that it presents to the industry.

Dr Stewart: Absolutely, Chair. Thank you for the question. We understand that this was the practice beforehand, and it is the practice in the South and in GB. I anticipate that it will take time for everybody to get used to the new requirements: it is a cut further up the tail and closer down to the end of the animal.

Mr Kieran Coghlan (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): In her presentation, Samantha mentioned that, when we did a site visit, we observed the tail being removed between the sixth and seventh caudal vertebrae and that it seemed to have no impact on the movement of the line. If more of the tail needs to be removed to meet a particular customer's specification, that can be done following the weighing.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It has been contended that there is a potential hygiene issue, but I think that you are suggesting that DAERA's scientists have said that there is not. There seems to be a bit of a difference between what the industry and the producers say and what your veterinarians say: is that fair? Is that still the case?

Dr Stewart: Very much so. In discussing it with industry, my view was that hygiene is paramount. Hygiene comes first, before carcass classification. We therefore reached out to our vet colleagues, who confirmed that there is no veterinary reason for full removal. The practice of trimming is permitted — the regulations allow for that — so, whenever there are issues of contamination, they can be removed. That is consistent with the beef scheme and the pig scheme.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There is also a contention that there is the option in GB of either/or, whereas the regulations would define us as having to do it. I think that that applies to kidney-in/kidney-out practices as well.

Dr Stewart: For tails, we propose the same as across the UK. As regards kidneys, we in Northern Ireland want to keep the kidney in because that is what the industry currently —

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Is that the GB standard at the moment, or is that in legislation that is to come forward?

Dr Stewart: It is in the GB legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It is in legislation at the moment. OK.

The industry has been speaking with one voice about the size of the operation. NIMEA highlighted the fact that, if the SR passes, it should apply to all sites, regardless of their throughput. I think that the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) also supports that contention. What is the rationale for the derogation for smaller operators?

Mr Coghlan: The throughput exemption is set at the level that will cover over 90% of the dead weight sheep trade of sheep aged less than 12 months. Any smaller slaughterhouses that wish to classify sheep also have to follow the regulations. We set it at that level because we think that that is the fairest way to cover the vast majority of the trade without putting unnecessary burdens on very small operators that do not wish to classify.

We consulted on the throughput exemption. The processing industry raised no concerns at that stage, and the UFU and the National Sheep Association (NSA) were in favour of it. England, Scotland and Wales are using throughput exemptions in their regulations. There are throughput exemptions for beef and pig. It is a standard approach.

Dr Stewart: Throughput exemptions vary by region on the basis of the scale of the industry, so England's throughput is higher than ours.

Mr Coghlan: And Scotland's is lower.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. There are a couple of wee things floating about in my head, so I may come back in, but I will bring in Declan first.

Mr McAleer: There are two specs in Britain. Am I right in saying that there is no standardisation as such, given that there is already more than one spec in Britain?

Dr Stewart: There is one specification in Britain. In order to convert one specification to the other, it is necessary to gather a large number of carcasses, weigh the bits that have come out and work out a coefficient to convert one to the other. That is what the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) has done in GB. There were a number of specifications in GB, but it has been brought down to one, and there is a coefficient for the channel fat and kidney knob to convert from one to the other.

Mr McAleer: It is a voluntary arrangement in the South of Ireland, is it not?

Dr Stewart: It is voluntary for the classification, but, since we last met, the price reporting has become mandatory.

Mr McAleer: Some issues have been raised about the practical challenges for operators. Can the Department address any of the issues around getting skilled operators to do the work?

Dr Stewart: As I said, I expect that it will take a while for it to bed in and for staff to get used to it, but the Department will attend, granting licences, and will very much work with industry as the new scheme comes into effect. We do not anticipate that it will happen overnight with no issues; it will take time to work together. However, as I said, it was done previously, and it is done to this standard in the South and GB with the tail off.

Mr McAleer: You will have a number of different specifications across these islands: that inconsistency could confuse people.

Dr Stewart: There is one standard for the carcass across the UK. As I said in my opening remarks, the South's covers the same. GB has a slightly different presentation, with a coefficient to correct them. If it is helpful, I can provide the references to the legislation to show you how they are all —.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We would be able to see that side by side, broken down into our language.

Dr Stewart: You could see it as legislators.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I am a former butcher, so I understand the kidney piece. I also understand the tail piece, but, after this meeting, to give you time to present it to us, I would like to see the absolute —

Dr Stewart: Black and white.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): — black and white. That would help me to figure that out a little better.

Mr McAleer: I am thinking about some of the issues raised during our meeting in Toome that day. One was the question of whether this will impact on our competitiveness. The point was made at that meeting that New Zealand lamb, for example, is two thirds of the price of our lamb. We could be adding another regulatory burden, which could have an impact on our competitive edge. I am concerned about that.

Dr Stewart: I understand the point that you make. That work is already being done when it comes to grading and classification. As I said, it will take a bit of time for them to get licensed and up to speed with changing back to how we would like the carcass to be presented. Ultimately, the purpose of the regulations is to align the mandatory scheme with the beef and pig sectors and ensure that there is clarity about what comes off the carcass before the farmer is paid. It is about striking that balance.

Mr Coghlan: There is still a bit of flexibility. If they had to compete and there was a demand to remove the kidney knob and channel fat, they could still do that after the carcass is classified and weighed. The legislation does not tie them down in that regard.

Mr Blair: I am pretty upfront: we are here not to represent sectoral or commercial interests but to consider public confidence in how we represent interests and in consumer and environmental and other matters. I am a bit stuck on this, and I would be really keen to see the top two or three reasons for doing it in the first instance being laid out in simple terms. If it is to align with another framework, I would get that, but I would need to see it. The next thing is the reasons — whatever number there are — or the rationale for having different regulatory systems in place at all. The only rationale that I have seen is that it may not be viable for the smaller abattoirs to do this. I get that, but are there other reasons or factors as well? I am a bit stuck on the rationale for doing it in the first instance and for having different regulatory frameworks.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Are there any other questions or queries at this stage, guys?

Miss McIlveen: We are covered at this point.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK, members. There is an action arising from some of the queries or questions that have been raised. While we have the witnesses here, if there are any other queries or clarifications that you want fed back to the Committee, now would be a good time to raise them. There is a bit of space. The Minister is keen for this to be agreed before it is moved and for any issues to be ironed out so that there is confidence.

Members, are there any other queries or questions? There is nothing else.

Are you happy with my ask about the presentation in black and white in respect of what the quantifiable difference is?

Mr Coghlan: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It is about understanding why we are doing it, as John said, and — this is the worry — avoiding unintended consequences that create market disturbance.

Mr Wilson: I just have an observation and a comment. The Citizen Space survey that was issued received no responses. Is there a reason why it did not attract responses?

The Committee Clerk: That was ours.

Mr Wilson: That was ours. Is that the standard format for a survey?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We heard from the Northern Ireland Sheep Taskforce and NIMEA.

Mr Wilson: It was more about the sector —

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It went directly to them. It goes out —

Mr Wilson: Directly.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): — in that wider sense.

The Committee Clerk: I wrote to them separately.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): People were contacted about where it was to be sent. It has to go through that part of our public-facing consultation.

OK. Thank you very much. We will expect some information, perhaps within the week.

Dr Stewart: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We will liaise after that.

Dr Stewart: Perfect. Thank you so much.