Committee on Public Petitions díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 May 2022

Consideration of Public Petition on a Ban on Herbicides in Public Areas: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

I welcome everybody to this afternoon's public meeting. We have members present in the committee room. Apologies have been received from Deputies O'Donoghue and Griffin.

The Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl, and the Cathaoirleach, Senator Mark Daly, have published a Covid-19 code of conduct for the parliamentary community from March 2022. Face masks should continue to be worn when people are moving around the campus and during the meeting except when speaking. This will help to reduce the risk of Covid-19 spreading among the parliamentary community and I ask for members' full co-operation on this.

I propose that we approve the minutes of the private and public meetings held on 11 and 12 May 2022, which have already been approved at a virtual meeting. We must do this for procedural reasons. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

Our next business will be the committee's engagement with officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Before we start, I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses regarding references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. The witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if any of their statements are potentially defamatory in regard to an identifiable person or entity, the witnesses will be directed to discontinue the remarks. It is imperative that the witnesses comply with such direction. Before we hear from the officials, I propose we publish the opening statement on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee I extend a warm welcome to Mr. Bill Callanan, chief inspector; and Ms Anne Marie Dillon and Mr. Aidan Moody, senior inspectors at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I suggest Mr. Callanan should make an opening statement for approximately ten minutes. We will then have questions and comments from members, with each member having approximately ten minutes. If people keep to a ten-minute slot, there will be time for supplementary questions. I invite Mr. Callanan to make his opening statement.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear before it today. I am joined by my colleagues, Ms Anne Marie Dillon, senior inspector in the pesticide controls division, and Mr. Aidan Moody, senior inspector in the pesticide registration division.

I note the committee has raised some specific questions on the sustainable use of pesticides and I will provide some information on those matters later in the statement. We are happy to provide further information if required. I would like first to provide some context and information on the regulatory framework for authorisation and use of plant protection products in Ireland and on the current requirements regarding pesticide use in public areas.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is the competent authority in Ireland with responsibility for the authorisation of plant protection products, including herbicides. Pesticide active substances contained in plant protection products are approved centrally at EU level based on detailed assessments prepared by member state regulatory authorities and a rigorous peer review process managed by the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA. Products are subsequently authorised, or not, nationally by the relevant competent authorities in accordance with scientific evaluation and decision-making criteria specified in EU Regulation No. 1107/2009 and taking account of local agri-environmental conditions. The Department is guided by the scientific opinions and conclusions of EFSA in regulatory approval issues concerning pesticides.

In regard to the use of pesticides, it is important to note the scale of pesticide use in Ireland is relatively low compared with many other countries, as evidenced by an estimated average application rate of 0.67 kg/ha of utilised agricultural area, UAA, which is among the lowest in the EU. Ireland is also making good progress in reducing chemical pesticide use as measured by EU indicators.

Controls on the use of pesticides are implemented under the sustainable use of pesticides directive, Directive 2009/128/EC, which has been transposed into Irish law by SI 155/2012, European Communities (Sustainable Use of Pesticides) Regulations 2012, as amended. The directive specifies various measures to address risks to human health and the environment, including requirements for training and certification of pesticide users, distributors and advisers, and inspection and certification of pesticide application equipment. The use of integrated pest management, IPM, which includes alternative approaches and techniques to chemical use, is also promoted.

The current position regarding use in public areas is that public bodies or others may decide to use approved products if they comply with all the relevant provisions of the sustainable use directive. It is stipulated that pesticides should not be used in areas used by the public unless a risk assessment has shown that their use is necessary and appropriate risk management measures have been put in place. Non-chemical methods should always be considered in the first instance if they are suitable to deal with the weed or pest issue of concern. In cases where pesticide use is deemed necessary on the basis of the risk assessment conducted by the user, products that are authorised for professional use can only be applied by a professional user who is registered with the Department.

The European Commission is finalising a proposal on a new sustainable use regulation to replace the sustainable use directive. This is expected to be published before the end of June. The Department will continue to engage proactively with other member states on relevant matters, including additional provisions concerning pesticide use in public areas.

Regarding the questions addressed to the Department by the committee concerning various enforcement and awareness-raising issues, the following points should be noted. The Department's role is to implement the regulatory system for authorisation and use of plant protection products. This does not include recommending or trialling particular products or techniques beyond the requirement that all professional users must use an integrated pest management approach in which the potential for using non-chemical methods must be carefully considered in the first instance. An enforcement plan for pesticides is implemented as part the Department's overall multi-annual control plan. The plan is risk-based and includes inspection of local authorities. The Department is also actively engaged in awareness raising with a range of stakeholders to help them comply with requirements for the sustainable use of pesticides. Examples include: presentations to local authorities, the Office of Public Works, OPW, and other stakeholders; the provision of information and updates to a range of key stakeholders; and the provision of extensive information on the Department's pesticides website, including guidance on best practice and responsible pesticide use and risk assessment templates for users. This information will be reviewed and amended as necessary when further details of the Commission's proposal on a new sustainable use regulation become available.

The Department is committed to implementing the requirements around the sustainable use of pesticides to minimise the use of chemical pesticides. A wide range of actions are undertaken to achieve this objective, including the implementation of a planned programme of enforcement activities and the provision of extensive advice and guidance to stakeholders. EU indicators show that good progress is being made in reducing the use of chemical pesticides.

An integrated pest management approach is critical to achieving the sustainable use of pesticides. All professional users of pesticides, including local authorities, must always consider in the first instance if there are suitable non-chemical alternatives that can be used. In cases where pesticide use is deemed necessary, authorised products must be used and users must comply with the product label instructions for permitted uses. Products are authorised by the Department on the basis of scientific evaluations and risk assessments demonstrating safe use without posing an unacceptable risk to humans, animals or the environment. The Department is guided in this process by the scientific outcomes from the EU assessments and peer review processes for pesticide active substances, including in particular the scientific opinions of the European Food Safety Authority.

My colleagues and I are happy to answer whatever questions committee members may have.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Callanan. Before I call members, I will ask two or three questions briefly. Mr. Callanan stated "It is stipulated that pesticides should not be used in areas used by the public unless a risk assessment has shown that their use is necessary and appropriate risk management measures have been put in place" Does the Department have enough resources to check and enforce this?

Mr. Bill Callanan

We have a risk control plan, which sets out that a certain number of inspections are to be conducted of farmers, professional users, distributors and local authorities. We perform approximately five inspections per year, with 45 inspections over the past ten years.

Chairman

Is that enough?

Mr. Bill Callanan

It is in line with our commitment to the inspection rates that we set out.

Chairman

Mr. Callanan stated that the Department was engaged in awareness raising. Will he expand on what the Department does in this regard? Is there a focus on raising awareness before the spraying season opens?

Mr. Bill Callanan

We do not differentiate in terms of season. It is for any use of pesticides throughout the year. I appreciate that, where the chemicals the Chairman is referencing are concerned, there may be a season for local authorities.

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Bill Callanan

I will ask my colleague, Ms Dillon, to go through some of the types of awareness raising. We have a great deal of engagement with stakeholders, not just local authorities, but also farmers and other potential professional users of pesticides, such as golf clubs, pitch owners etc.

Ms Anne Marie Dillon

I will expand on the examples. The Chairman mentioned the time of year. While that is important, pesticides are used throughout the year. This year, we focused on raising awareness earlier in the year and have given presentations on the requirements to, for example, a Cork local authority and the OPW. We also engage with other end users, such as greenkeepers on golf courses, and we have attended a conference of the Association of Turfgrass Professionals Ireland, whose members include greenkeepers and people who maintain the turf on football pitches and so on. We put as much information as possible on our website. We include guidance on particular types of use and ensure that this information gets out. We also engage on an ad hoc basis with stakeholders who have questions on any particular aspect of the requirements.

Chairman

Do the witnesses envision the Department directing local authorities to move away from using pesticides and towards more environmentally-friendly solutions? We all know the amount of work that Tidy Towns groups around the country do. Is the Department encouraging local authorities to get in touch with them regularly? They may not be using pesticides, but they are doing some work for councils.

Mr. Bill Callanan

There is an issue of which we have to be conscious. We regulate and provide guidance but it is up to local authorities whether they want to use glyphosate. A number have decided not to. We do not have the regulatory basis to tell a local authority that it should not be using glyphosate. However, we are clear in our guidance that a general approach to all pesticides should be to ask whether they need to be used, how their use can be minimised and whether alternatives are available. All of these questions must be part of the decision-making process. We give guidance on that, but we do not have the legal competence to do anything other than suggest that these pesticides not be used. That is a matter for local authorities to decide. Some have made that decision and others have not.

Chairman

Local authorities will decide whether they use-----

Mr. Bill Callanan

I am a civil servant, and we are careful not to insert ourselves in the responsibilities of the political system.

Chairman

I am aware.

Senator Eugene Murphy

We discussed this matter previously. I welcome the witnesses. Do they agree that there is a new awareness among the public – communities, local authorities, Tidy Towns groups and environmental groups – about trying to avoid using most of these sprays, particularly glyphosate sprays, given the serious questions around them? This has been my experience. Is it that of the witnesses as well?

Mr. Bill Callanan

Absolutely, and I agree with the Senator. The objective of the sustainable use directive is to minimise their use to only when they are required. This is generally recognised by all users and the public. There has been a significant reduction in the amount of pesticides being used, which is a positive development. In our role, we have a responsibility not only to point to reducing pesticide use, but also to ask whether it is safe to use, which is a critical question that has to be answered. Significant risk assessments have been done in this regard. By "safe", I mean from the point of view of the user, the environment, animals, non-target species, etc. A great deal of work goes into the safety assessments. We differentiate between safety and the clear message, which is to reduce the overall use of pesticides and consider whether there are alternatives.

That is an awareness both at public level and, I presume, among the local authorities. Certainly, from our perspective, that is the message we would give out.

Senator Eugene Murphy

That is all I want to ask for now. Thank you.

Chairman

Does Senator Buttimer have further questions?

Senator Jerry Buttimer

I have finished my questions. I thank the witnesses for the clarification. From the input we have received today, it is pretty clear in my mind. I thank the witnesses for attending and for giving us the opportunity to bring to an end any ambiguity. My knowledge is pretty limited, to be honest. Awareness raising is an important part. I ask the Department officials to highlight the importance of engagement and awareness, and perhaps also what they do. We have a piece of work to do around the responsible use of pesticides, in particular in public parks and public amenity areas. The important point is we need to bring people with us and educate people. I thank the witnesses for today's contribution.

Deputy Pat Buckley

I thank Mr. Callanan for the opening statement. I also thank Mr. James Walsh, who brought this to our attention.

Mr. Callanan covered a lot in the opening statement. A point I did not think about until Mr. Walsh raised it was spraying around public parks, children's playgrounds and so on. Is there any way to put up signage before this is phased out? In fairness to Cork City Council and Cork County Council, they are working on it and some of the municipal districts have taken this on board and will not use pesticides. Is there a way of putting up signs to say, for example, that they will be spraying in two days' time in a certain playground as an additional warning for people? If people are unaware they could be treading on sprayed grass or weeds when entering a playground, they will not be aware they could be taking some of these pesticides home. That is my question.

I want to add a word of congratulation. We have had awful problems with Japanese knotweed and I know it is an expensive and slow process to get rid of it. Even on the railway lines in Cork, especially this year, I have seen that the treatment and extinguishing of Japanese knotweed has been successful, which is to be welcomed. That is a separate issue but I want to put it on the record.

To go back to my question, is there a way for us, as legislators, to put something in place so there so should be signage or some kind of notice around public parks and playgrounds to warn people that pesticides are still in use and to take caution while they are in use?

Mr. Bill Callanan

The OPW, in its guidance, includes the identification of signage when it uses pesticides in public areas. I am not sure if that translates into similar use by the local authorities. Let us be honest about it. Signage can be a valuable indicator but it can also be a point of continual challenge and focus. From our perspective, before a product is certified as approved, we have to be able to stand over its safety. The critical element from a Department point of view is the confidence. We are very open and transparent in terms of that process, which is very rigorous. Before any signage, I would think that is the piece on which we have to be very clear and unambiguous.

We are guided by science in regard to the approval process. There is a regulatory system at EU level which requires member states to take on a percentage of chemicals where there is a renewal of those safety assessments, and the Department does that. That is divvied out among member states and each member state has a legal responsibility to do a certain number of products. A huge workload goes into those. I know from Dr. Moody that the evaluation of one chemical can involve 10,000 or 12,000 pages of individual documents. That process is then overseen and feeds into Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, approval, which then feeds into the EU decision-making process. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is very much guided by that in terms of science and, therefore, safety has to be paramount in regard to products. Whether there are signs or not, our mantra is the overall affirmation of the safety associated.

Deputy Pat Buckley

That is excellent. I thank Mr. Callanan.

Chairman

When the local authorities lay down that pesticides would be used in public areas, they record a risk assessment and these assessments and records are retained for inspection by the Department. Will Mr. Callanan tell us what proportion of local authorities’ records are checked and how much time typically goes by between spraying and when the records are inspected? Does the Department have its own targets in terms of the rate of inspections and the timeframe involved?

Mr. Bill Callanan

Since the introduction of the sustainable use directive, we have introduced requirements in terms of sprayers, certification by farmers, registration of distributors and whether they are professional or amateur, and registration of users as professional users. Bodies like the local authorities must have a professional user who is trained in terms of the application. Consequently, they have a standard with which they must comply. When we do checks, it is based on a risk assessment type model where we do not check everybody - we just cannot - but we do a check of a percentage. There is a requirement on the professional user to have a standard of record-keeping that we will then assess at inspections. I will ask Ms Dillon to talk about our inspection regime in this regard.

As I said, we have done 45 local authorities over the past ten years, so we are looking at about five a year. Every single local authority that uses it is required to maintain these records and have the appropriate systems in place, aligned with the guidance we have provided to it . As with any professional user, we assume compliance and we do a percentage check to validate and verify that.

Ms Anne Marie Dillon

As Mr. Callanan mentioned, we have the multi-annual control plan and, as part of that, we include a number of local authorities. These would be taken as a random sample unless there is a particular issue we need to follow up. Over time, each local authority will be included as part of that programme or that rolling inspection process. From the point of view of records, they must maintain those records for a number of years and, therefore, we can look back if that is part of the inspection process. They have to maintain them. Does that answer the question?

Chairman

Yes. Is the Department not concerned about the wide use of spraying of pesticides? It is taking place widely and some local authorities have told the committee they do it because of the lack of alternatives. Is it not something on which the Department should be taking a lead and recommending they move away from pesticides? If someone does not take a lead on this, nothing is going to change. We have seen some of the responses from local authorities, some of which have said they are going to keep using pesticides while others have said they have tried different stuff. It worries me the Department is not recommending that local authorities use products like Foamstream or whatever else is available. Is that something on which the Department could take a lead?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I missed the alternative the Chairman was suggesting.

Chairman

I was referring to Foamstream and different alternatives. There was a man at the committee two weeks ago who gave a couple of different alternatives to what the councils are using. Is it something on which the Department should be taking a lead?

Mr. Bill Callanan

In terms of the alternatives, there is a requirement in the first instance to ask if there is a need to use this . It is the first principle question that anyone, including the local authorities, must answer in any risk assessment. The objective is to minimise. What I want to be clear on is the difference between us confirming it is safe versus the requirement to minimise its use. In minimising the use, there is a requirement to look at alternatives and to ask if there is a need to use this.

I assume that in local authorities' adjudication they have to consider whether what they are doing is just a tidy-up, which would be contrary to Senator Buttimer's point that people's knowledge and awareness have changed in this regard, as against whether they are creating a flooding issue or something like that. They have to manage local areas. As the Chairman has identified, there is also the management of invasive species, including rhododendron. That has to be part of local authorities' decision process.

We have invested significantly in support for research organisations to look at alternatives to pesticides. Those are biological, that is, they are biostimulants and biological agents, which are growing in use. We have to recognise we are in a very mild north-western part of Europe, the climate of which is quite conducive to certain diseases of crops, making sprays necessary. For example, €2 million has been given to a UCD-led project looking into biostimulants and alternatives. Another €763,000 has been given to the economic and policy analysis of climate change, EPIC, programme, which is about IPM guidance. More than €1 million has been given to a UCD project called protecting terrestrial ecosystems through sustainable pesticide use, PROTECTS, which is all about looking at those alternatives. To be fair, however, while there are a lot of alternatives in respect of disease management, the avoidance of fungal infection etc., there are not as many alternatives in respect of herbicides except natural cultivation, whether by hand or shovel or whatever other type of management. Biologicals are not as available in herbicides as they are in pesticides.

Chairman

Mr. Callanan is telling us about crops, mainly. Our main worries, and the worries that have been raised with the committee, are that local authorities are spraying footpaths to get rid of weeds, as Deputy Buckley said when he spoke about parks and playgrounds, and that people are using those areas and bringing those agents back into their houses, which is dangerous. Local authorities should explore alternatives in that regard. One of the reasons local authorities have given, which is no reflection on the witnesses as they probably cannot do anything about this, is that there is not much of a price difference between the products and that it is a matter of getting the machinery to carry out the work. The Department, however, should encourage local authorities when treating playgrounds, pitches and so on, as opposed to crops, to use alternatives.

Mr. Bill Callanan

The general guidance is that alternatives should always be used if available and practical. I will ask Dr. Moody to comment. The Chairman mentioned alternatives to sprays such as foams.

Dr. Aidan Moody

As for the Department's regulatory function in respect of pesticides, the remit of the Department is in respect of authorisation or otherwise of products and enforcement of controls relating to the use of products, including sustainable use controls. As part of the authorisation process, the decision as to whether products can be approved is taken in accordance with the EU regulatory system for pesticides, which is widely acknowledged to be the most stringent in the world. That process involves a detailed scientific evaluation of a wide range of information and includes multiple risk assessments to determine potential impacts on human health, animal health and the environment. In accordance with that process, products can be authorised only if it is demonstrated they can be used safely for the intended uses and there are no unacceptable impacts on human health, animal health or the environment.

However, just because a product passes the authorisation process and is adjudged to be safe does not mean it has to be used. The EU system takes a very precautionary approach, in particular to use of pesticides in public areas. As my colleagues have said, the current legal position on use in public areas is that if a more suitable, more environmentally friendly alternative is available and the user has determined it can do the job, that alternative must be used, even if there are other authorised products that are safe to use. In other words, if there is a viable alternative that has been determined to do the job, it should be used first before any consideration of use of pesticide products. That is the legal position.

Getting back to the question as to why the Department does not recommend particular methods, it is not the Department's role to recommend particular products or methods. As a regulator, we have to be seen to be impartial in how we implement the regulatory system for approval and the controls relating to that. We will raise awareness that alternatives should be used where possible if they can do the job, but we are not prescriptive in that we do not say a particular method or product has to be used. That is not the Department's role. However, we prepare a wide range of advice and guidance to help stakeholders to make those decisions based on their own assessments as to what is most appropriate to the circumstances they face.

Chairman

Will the witnesses explain a little more the proposals coming down the line from Europe in respect of the new sustainable use regulation to replace the sustainable use directive? What changes do the witnesses anticipate from that?

Mr. Bill Callanan

I cannot answer that question in full because I have not seen the new directive. We anticipate it sometime in July. We will engage with it to see what the implications arising from it will be and make updates accordingly and as necessary. It is difficult to say. As Senator Buttimer identified, the direction of travel is such that there is a greater awareness as to how to minimise use and, critically, whether we have a system here that will approve and ensure the safety of products when they are needed and their appropriate use. A key message I wish to relate is that the direction of travel at European level is to reduce overall use. The overall farm-to-fork target is to reduce by 50% the amount of pesticides used. I articulated in my opening statement that our direction of travel is such that we are reducing substantially the volume of pesticides used. Everybody who uses them must ask whether there are alternatives to their use in the environment we are talking about. Subsequently, the responsibility on us is to be able to ensure whatever is authorised is fully safe for use in any environment, whether professional or amateur, whether indoor or outdoor, that that guidance is available to users and, finally, that we are implementing the regulation fully. As I said, that includes the requirements for sprayer testing, registration of users and registration of those who are retailing, distributing etc. All those are in place, but there is an ongoing evolution of this area as time goes on. There is no doubt about that.

Chairman

Finally, are the witnesses happy with the Department's Straight A's for Amenity booklet on the responsible use of pesticides in public amenity areas or do they feel it needs to be updated? Is it in line with legislation and the recommendations from Europe?

Mr. Bill Callanan

Yes, but we will always make updates in line with updates of directives etc. That is a natural process. I do not know the timelines. When we get a new regulation, it has to be discussed. Consequently, we will update our guidance, as we do in any other regulatory area. That would include booklets etc. I have responsibility for the nitrates directive. We have just introduced new regulations with the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and we will translate those into guidance for farmers this year.

Senator Eugene Murphy

I wish to come in with a few comments rather than a question. It is important to ask questions, but we are in a completely different place in 2022 than we were years ago. Biodiversity is now the key word and the new word in all local authorities. Schools and Tidy Towns are really buying into biodiversity, and that applies to rural as well as urban communities.

There is a new debate starting in these Houses on the importance of our bees. The general population have laughed at this for years. They did not think it was important. There is debate going on now about the importance of the bee population. I see it going on right around me in my locality and in every county. Any local authority that is still using weedkillers is probably pulling back even if it does not have to by law. In certain circumstances they will pull back. The other thing is that with the materials being used for playgrounds and things like that now, you never see weeds coming up. I am involved in a lot of community projects, including playgrounds. The newer materials just do not allow weed growth to come up. Everything is moving in the right direction but we have to keep an eye on it. If there are concerns, we must deal with them. I accept that. However, I feel we are in a far better space than we were years ago. The Department cannot do every inspection under the sun but the way it is being handled is quite acceptable to me.

Mr. Bill Callanan

We fully endorse what the Senator is saying about the direction of travel and that awareness. I will give examples of where we are supporting this generally. We work with the National Biodiversity Data Centre and we are a significant contributor to the all-Ireland pollinator plan. We have funded somebody to work with the agriculture sector on pollinators in the general environment. Under our rural development programme we have a specific locally led project around the Kildare area for pollinators and their development at farm level. I fully agree that everybody is more aware of this issue and we need to continue that journey by building education and awareness. We are very open to providing whatever support and assistance we can in that direction. For example, on our campus in Backweston, which houses the authorisation process, we have had a new approach over recent years where we do not mow public areas in the centre for biodiversity reasons. I think "No-mow May" is the term used. It is great to see that. Even on our own campuses and farms we are a lot more focused on the achievement of biodiversity at all levels.

Chairman

I do not see any other members indicating. Do the witnesses have any final statements they want to make?

Mr. Bill Callanan

To be clear, we have a very open and transparent approach to authorisation. All the materials are up on our website if members want to look at them. Our clear guidance is that, for any risk assessment, the question is whether we need to use a product. If we do not, we will not and if we do use it, we need to have the confidence from the authorisation process to confirm it is safe. That is our role and responsibility.

Chairman

I again thank the witnesses. We had a very good meeting two weeks ago when this topic was raised. We appreciate the witnesses coming in to fill us in a bit more. I imagine we will be in contact again down the road. I know from speaking to members that these meetings have been beneficial to them. I thank Mr. Callanan, Ms Dillon and Mr. Moody for coming in today. We will release them early.

Mr. Bill Callanan

No homework this evening, is it?

Chairman

No homework.

Senator Eugene Murphy

They can work on biodiversity this evening.

Mr. Bill Callanan

That is part of my remit.

Chairman

We will pause for a few minutes while the witnesses leave the room.

Sitting suspended at 2.14 p.m. and resumed at 2.16 p.m.