NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY Monday 4 June 2007 Executive Business Committee Business Private Members’ Business Adjournment The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mrs D Kelly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Many Members, and the wider public, want to know when the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will make a statement about the junior Minister’s comments, and whether he will have anything to do with equality issues in the gay and lesbian community. Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Member knows that if she wants a debate in the House on any issue, the appropriate procedure is to submit a motion to the Business Office. Executive Business Welfare Reform Bill First Stage The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie): I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 1/07] to make provision about social security and for connected purposes. Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed. Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on the list of future business until a date for its Second Stage is determined. Welfare Reform Bill Accelerated Passage The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie): I beg to move That the Welfare Reform Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure, in accordance with Standing Order 40(4). Mr O’Dowd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A Cheann Comhairle, will Members be able to respond to the Minister for Social Development’s comments this morning? Mr Speaker: Only the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development is permitted to take part in the debate. Ms Ritchie: The Welfare Reform Bill proposes to put into law the same social security provisions as the Welfare Reform Act 2007, which was passed recently at Westminster. By definition, social security Bills are exceptional. The unique position of social security, child support and pensions is specifically recognised in the Act that created the Assembly and from which it draws its powers to pass laws. Under section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I have a duty to consult with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with a view to maintaining single systems of social security, pensions and child support between Northern Ireland and Britain. Section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 recognises the long-established principle of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on social security. I acknowledge that the parity principle is, to some extent, frustrating to an Assembly that is keen to pass its own laws and form its own policies. However, the Northern Ireland social security system is not self-financing. The cost of paying benefits in Northern Ireland is subsidised heavily by Great Britain. For example, in 2005-06, to meet its benefit obligations, the Northern Ireland National Insurance fund needed a transfer of £185 million from the Great Britain National Insurance fund. In the same period, expenditure on non-contributory benefits, which are demand led and financed from taxation revenue, was more than £2·26 billion. The funding depends on parity. Therefore, when Members ask what reason we have for maintaining parity, the answer is that there is approximately £2·4 billion worth of reasons. This issue is centred not simply on the money; there are important administrative reasons for maintaining parity. Owing to the fact that there is, in effect, a single system for social security across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Department for Social Development and the Department for Work and Pensions share computer systems for the payment of benefits. If we were to consider breaking parity, we would not only have to pick up any additional benefit costs, we might have to fund new computer infrastructures. Just think for a moment of the huge teething problems that that might cause. Therefore, I hope that the Assembly will appreciate the sound financial reasons for maintaining parity. The Bill introduces a new employment and support allowance to replace the existing incapacity benefits. The new allowance will help to give individuals more appropriate support to enable them to stay in, or return to, work. The Bill also provides a framework to reform and improve the design and administration of housing benefit, including the introduction — Mr O’Dowd: Will the Minister give way? Ms Ritchie: No. I have barely started, and I wish to continue. Perhaps the Member’s questions will be answered as my speech progresses. The improvements to housing benefit include the introduction of a local housing allowance for the private-rented sector. The Bill also includes measures to clarify the law relating to disability allowance and attendance allowance; extend loss-of-benefit provisions; tackle benefit fraud; and clarify various aspects of existing legislation to make it simpler to administer and easier to understand — something that Members will welcome. Parity covers not only the content of the legislation, but, as far as possible, the timing of its implementation. To ensure that certain of the Bill’s proposals are implemented at the same time as in Great Britain, the necessary powers must be available as soon as possible. The Welfare Reform Act 2007 received Royal Assent on 3 May 2007. Some of its provisions came into force on that date, with further substantive provisions due to come into force on 3 July, two months after Royal Assent was granted. The corresponding Northern Ireland provisions cannot come into operation until the Bill has completed its passage through the Assembly and received Royal Assent. Most of the remaining provisions will be brought into operation by a series of commencement Orders. For instance, section 58 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007, which provides an easement of the “relevant employer” condition and makes it easier for persons suffering from certain dust-related diseases — including mesothelioma and other asbestos-related conditions — to claim compensation, is due to be brought in on 24 July 2007. Section 59, which widens the group of dependants who may make such a claim, comes into operation on 3 July 2007. The Northern Ireland equivalents of these provisions are included in clauses 52 and 53 of the Bill. Members will be aware of the consequences of some of these terrible, and frequently terminal, diseases. In order for Northern Ireland claimants not to lose out on these easements, it is vital that the provisions come into operation as soon as possible after the Westminster Act. People in Northern Ireland, who pay the same rates of National Insurance contributions and income tax as people in Britain, have the right to expect the changes to apply here with the minimum of delay. Although the local housing allowance changes are not due to come into operation until April 2008, in Britain, powers to make regulations providing for the introduction of the new local housing allowance will have been exercised by October 2007, subject to an exception that I will explain later. It is important, therefore, that the Northern Ireland regulations be made as soon as possible after their British counterparts. The process for deciding local housing allowance that is provided for in the Bill differs substantially from the present method for housing benefit. The detail will be set out in the regulations, and the staff of the Housing Executive and of Land and Property Services, who will operate the new arrangements, need to familiarise themselves with those processes before their introduction in April 2008. Welfare rights bodies, which advise and represent appellants, will also need time to prepare for the new system. For the reasons that I have outlined, therefore, I am asking that the Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure set out in Standing Order 40(4) so that Northern Ireland law on these matters can be brought into line with that in Great Britain with the minimum of delay. The granting of accelerated passage will mean that there will not be a formal Committee Stage. However, I have discussed the Bill’s provisions with the Committee for Social Development. The Committee has some concerns about the proposal to pay local housing allowance directly to tenants. I too have reservations; it could lead to tenants’ getting into debt and, possibly, to more evictions. That is why I have given a firm undertaking to consider the matter further and to return to the Committee before I seek to make the necessary regulations to give effect to that proposal. In short, I will propose regulations to give effect to direct payment to tenants only if I think that it will work properly. I will take further advice on that and on the assessments that are under way in GB. I want to make that absolutely clear, and I have already told the Committee for Social Development as much. Northern Ireland is lucky in that housing benefit is not paid using the same computer systems as in GB. The retention of the current system, whereby payments are made to landlords, will not break parity in any significant way. Therefore, we are in the happy and exceptional position of having some leeway. Experience shows that social security Bills are likely to be a regular feature of future legislative programmes. However, I do not, and will not in the future, seek accelerated passage lightly. In this case, there are good, pressing reasons for accelerated passage, not least of which is to allow people who suffer from asbestos-related conditions to benefit as soon as possible from the easements in the Bill. The Bill was originally an Order in Council, which was due to have been passed at Westminster. Given that it did not complete the legislative process before 8 May 2007, I am introducing the Bill instead. This is, therefore, an exceptional situation, and, in future, more time should be allowed to consider social security Bills. There will, of course, be opportunities for all Members to make their views known, and for the issues to be fully discussed, at Second Stage, Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. I look forward to hearing Members’ views on the Bill. 12.15 pm The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development (Mr Campbell): On 24 May, the Minister attended a meeting of the Committee for Social Development to explain her reasons for requesting that the Welfare Reform Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure. The Minister also outlined the consequences of accelerated passage not being granted. The Committee listened carefully to the Minister at that meeting. The Committee is well aware that the Bill represents a parity measure to parallel the Welfare Reform Act 2007, which applies to Great Britain. The Committee understands the importance of maintaining parity to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland benefit from reforms at the same time as they are introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, at the meeting with the Minister, the Committee left her in no doubt that it could not support her request for accelerated passage if the proposed change to the method for paying housing benefit would go ahead without further consideration by, and consultation with, the Committee. The Bill provides for regulations to be introduced by the Minister to establish the norm that housing benefit be paid directly to the claimant, not the landlord — which is the current practice. It is envisaged that the payment of housing benefit to claimants would promote personal responsibility and empower claimants to budget for themselves; help workless tenants to develop the skills that they will need when they move into paid work; encourage claimants to open bank accounts; and promote financial inclusion and payment modernisation. Obviously, the Committee welcomes any measures that would help to empower people to budget for themselves and assist them in returning to work. The Committee recognises that people who receive housing benefit live, necessarily, on relatively low incomes and that they sometimes struggle, with good reason, to prioritise their money. The last question that we want people to ask is whether they should heat their homes so that they are comfortable and safe for themselves and their children, or whether they should pay the rent. The Committee has concerns that the payment of housing benefit directly to claimants, some of whom are already struggling, could result in rent arrears and a rise in evictions. That would undoubtedly put pressure on an already overburdened social-housing sector. Having listened to the Committee’s concerns, the Minister undertook not to introduce any regulations that would change the current method for payment of housing benefit until she had considered the matter in greater detail and had held further discussions with the Committee. The Minister has outlined her position on that matter. Despite the Committee’s misgivings about direct payments to housing benefit claimants, it welcomed the Minister’s assurances that the provisions of the Bill are beneficial, and the Committee is satisfied that that is the case. The Committee will, of course, consider the practical implications of welfare reform in greater detail in the future. In light of the Minister’s unequivocal undertakings, the Committee supports the Minister’s request that the Welfare Reform Bill be granted accelerated passage. Question put and agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support): That the Welfare Reform Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure, in accordance with Standing Order 40(4). Committee Business Report on Devolution of Policing and Justice Matters Mr Speaker: I advise the House that the Business Committee has agreed that the motion will be treated as a business motion. Therefore, there will be no debate on the motion. Mr McCarthy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This matter is of great importance to every elected representative and member of the community in Northern Ireland. What mechanism exists for the consultation of Assembly Members who are not members of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee? Mr Speaker: It is entirely a matter for the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to decide how it will inform party leaders and other parties of its business. That is not the business of the House. Mr Burnside: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since you have ruled that there will be no debate in the Chamber, may I ask the Committee Chairperson, through the Chair, why this motion is being brought before the House at this early stage, when there is no demand from the community for the transfer of policing and justice powers and the criminal investigation into the Northern Bank robbery, carried out by the Republican movement, Sinn Féin/IRA — Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. That is not a point of order. Mr Burnside has been an Assembly Member for quite a while and a Member of another House for a shorter time, so he should know about procedure. This is a procedural matter, which the Committee has rightly brought to the House to be dealt with and approved. Mr Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that the Business Committee recommended, and decided unanimously, that this be treated as a business motion and that if the Member has a problem with that, he should take it up with his party’s representatives on the Committee? Mr Speaker: The Member is quite right: Members should not bring to the Floor of the House for debate issues that should be dealt with by the Business Committee. It was agreed by the Committee and by the Whips that this is the best way forward, as it is a procedural matter. The Chairperson of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee (Mr Donaldson): I beg to move That this Assembly calls on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to report, by 29 February 2008, on the work which needs to be undertaken, in accordance with section 18 of the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Act 2006 — (a) as to the preparations that the Assembly has made, and intends to make, having regard to paragraph 7 of the St. Andrews Agreement, for or in connection with policing and justice matters ceasing to be reserved matters; (b) as to which matters are likely to be the subject of any request under section 4(2A) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that policing and justice matters should cease to be reserved matters; and (c) containing an assessment of whether the Assembly is likely to make such a request before 1 May 2008. If the Member for South Antrim has a problem, he should consult his colleagues who sit on the Business Committee, which agreed unanimously that this motion be presented to the Assembly. It is a procedural motion, and I am surprised that Mr Burnside did not check his facts before raising such a supercilious point of order. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly calls on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to report, by 29 February 2008, on the work which needs to be undertaken, in accordance with section 18 of the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Act 2006 — (a) as to the preparations that the Assembly has made, and intends to make, having regard to paragraph 7 of the St. Andrews Agreement, for or in connection with policing and justice matters ceasing to be reserved matters; (b) as to which matters are likely to be the subject of any request under section 4(2A) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that policing and justice matters should cease to be reserved matters; and (c) containing an assessment of whether the Assembly is likely to make such a request before 1 May 2008. Private Members’ Business Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to speak and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Mr Elliott: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses serious concern at the unjustified delay in payment of Single Farm Payments to some farmers and calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to initiate the Single Farm Payment timescale for 1st December to 31st March each year; and to ensure that no farm inspections relating to the Single Farm Payment scheme take place outside the timescale of the scheme. It is my duty to declare an interest as I am a farmer and in receipt of single farm payment. I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, who has just taken her place in the Chamber, for being present to hear the debate and the departmental officials who are also here. The single farm payment scheme came into effect in 2005, and this is the third year that it has been in operation. It was the result of the decoupling of agriculture subsidies from production. It was hoped that this new one-stop shop for subsidies would help to simplify the process; however, since its inception, there have been problems. Some of those are only to be expected after a seismic shift in the system, with even experienced form fillers finding significant difficulties in the completion of the necessary paperwork. However, there have been other unjustifiable delays that could have been avoided through changes to the procedures used by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to administer this funding. Many who are not from agricultural or rural backgrounds may not realise the significance of the single farm payments, but far be it from them to suggest that this is a matter of farmers having their noses in a trough. It is a means of helping to maintain an agriculture industry in the Province. Recent figures show that farm profits in Northern Ireland are in the region of £190 million, but the single farm payments come to £220 million, which means — Mr Burnside: I too must declare an interest — and this is on the Register of Members’ Interests — in that I am a farmer who received a single farm payment last year, though not this year. There are many administrative problems with this. Will the Member ask the Minister to investigate the number of lost and mislaid application forms? Many farmers in the Province are not getting their payments because of some administrative problem in the Department. Mr Elliott: I have no difficulty with asking the Minister several questions on that front, whether it be about lost application forms, or about failure to properly administer entitlements that have been transferred to new owners, or about single farm payment applications that have not been sent to producers. Clearly I have a number of questions there. I was saying that the single farm payments are clearly relevant to Northern Ireland’s agriculture industry. As I said, farm profits are in the region of £190 million, whereas single farm payments are something like £220 million. That tells me that there is a real net loss of some £30 million. We farmers do not want to have to rely on single farm payments or subsidies. What we want is the proper market value for our produce, but unfortunately we are not getting that. Big industries, big retailers and, indeed, big processors are making big profits while the farming industry survives on a very meagre allowance. The spiralling costs and worries that arise from not being able to meet the mounting pile of final demands for bank loans and other bills affect entire family circles in the farming community. Mr Bradley, the Member for South Down, recently put down a question for written answer and was advised that: “At 16 May 2007 [fewer than 94% of] applicants had either been paid their 2006 Single Farm Payment or been advised that a payment is not due because of ineligibility or the application of penalties under scheme rules 2,456 applications have not yet been finalised; not all of these claims may subsequently be eligible for payment. Validation of the 2006 applications continues and the objective is to pay out at least 96.14% of the budget by 30 June 2007”. — [Official Report, Vol 22, No WA2, pWA3, col 1]. I will return to that later, because I believe that 30 June is too late in the year. Since the introduction of single farm payments, many farmers have contacted my office about them. Many are totally frustrated by the delays, which are often due to something minor that could be addressed quickly and without a penalty being imposed. However, they are not always dealt with efficiently by the Department. Many complaints even date back to the 2005 scheme — two years ago. At that time, many farmers were penalised because of the dreaded duplicate fields problem, brought about by simple mistakes on the parts of owners and tenants who both unintentionally claimed for the same fields. I estimate that that cost the industry in the region of £2 million, with a number of individual farmers losing their single farm payments — some for as many as three full years. 12.30 pm The motion is in no way designed to lambaste the Department of Agriculture’s staff, but, rather, the system that it employs. Through regular contact with many staff in Orchard House and other departmental officials who are involved in the operation and processing of single farm payments, I know that many of them are dedicated to their jobs and, in fact, have a lot of sympathy for farmers. Many of those officials work overtime to try to resolve as many issues as possible. In spite of that, they often bear the brunt of a farmer’s frustration, which, in many instances, is justified. However, that frustration is misdirected because in many circumstances the hands of the staff are tied by the protocols and procedures under which they operate. I do not want to sound entirely negative, so I must praise the initiative set up by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, DARD Direct, which is based at Inniskeen House in County Fermanagh. That provides a one-stop-shop for all DARD queries, and despite some teething problems, for customers and staff, efficiency and practical conditions for customers have been improved. Members must consider some possible solutions. There is a problem with resources and the streamlining of work that the staff are required to do to deal with the simple aspects of the scheme, and I do not want to see staff or the Department of Agriculture requesting additional resources. However, staff must be better targeted at the needs of the customer, and that may, on occasions, require a diversion of functions for some staff. If the processes are properly resourced and streamlined from the outset, there will be a more rapid processing of applications, a resolution of problems and, ultimately, payment of moneys. The deadline for the completion of the integrated administration and control system forms for this year’s payment was a few weeks ago. However, there are ongoing issues being attended to from the 2005 and 2006 applications. Farm inspections, their ensuing problems and reports are often cited as reasons for delays in payments being made. Therefore, a concerted effort towards getting those completed earlier would help the situation — particularly as DARD has said that there will be a 50% increase in claims this year. That increase will mean that the number of farms inspected will rise from 5% to 7·5%. At a time when we are hoping that the new Administration will mean a reduction in the inspection regime and red tape, this is another disaster for the industry because there is even more red tape and bureaucracy. That will impact hugely on the efficiency of the payment scheme, and considering that there are some 40,000 claims in Northern Ireland, there will be a notable increase in the workload for the inspectors. Further to that, the separate inspections that are carried out on different dates and times — Mr S Wilson: I appreciate the Member’s comments about the inspections, the number of staff required to carry them out and the detail into which they go, but how does he suggest that the Department should deal with fraudulent applications if inspections are not to be stepped up? Mr Elliott: The problem with the system is that many fraudulent claims may slip through the net, and the Department may not know anything about them — many ordinary farmers who merely want to go about their daily business are penalised. The Department has not caught up with those who are making fraudulent claims, so a new system is required to enable that to happen. All farms are subject to animal identification inspections, and they undergo at least one testing per year for tuberculosis (TB), brucellosis or both. There is no reason for those inspections not taking place on the same date, thus saving a double visit to a farm. There is also an opportunity to pay farmers some of the money that they are owed earlier. That would help alleviate some of their problems. Mr Speaker: Mr Elliott, your time is up. Mr Elliott: With respect, Mr Speaker, I had two interventions, and I think that I should have the opportunity for one more minute, but I accept what you are saying. Mr Speaker: Only Members who have fewer than 10 minutes in which to speak will get a further minute if they give way to another Member. Dr W McCrea (Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development): I would like to be associated with the sentiments that have been expressed by the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Elliott. I am grateful that this important matter is before the House. The introduction of the single farm payment was hailed by the EU as the new way forward for agriculture. Under the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform package, the single farm payment scheme replaced 11 schemes with one single payment scheme. Farmers were to have greater freedom to farm to the demands of the market, as subsidies would be decoupled from production and environmentally friendly practices would be better acknowledged and rewarded. That was the plan in 2003, before the introduction of the scheme in 2005. How well have the farmers done since the introduction of the single farm payment? That we are having this debate is an acknowledgement that many farmers in Northern Ireland have fallen foul of regulations. I agree with the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone Mr Elliott that we are not criticising individual members of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, I genuinely believe that there are problems at a senior level in that Department, in the area of policy-making. Down the years, the Department has been assiduous in its gold-plating of legislation that comes from Europe rather than dealing sympathetically with farmers’ problems; especially when the single payment scheme was first introduced. I cite the example of duplicate fields — an issue that has already been mentioned. When, in the first year of the scheme’s operation, a landowner inserted the name of his tenant into his integrated administration and control system (IACS) form — and the person who was renting the ground also submitted an IACS form with his own name on it — there was absolutely no desire on either party’s part to make a fraudulent claim; rather it was a misunderstanding about the new procedure. When we spoke to Commissioner Fischer Boel about that issue, she said that the problem was not EU rules but the interpretation of them. I agree that it is a problem of interpretation. There is also a new problem, that of field variance. It seems that payment may be withheld even if farmers are only 0·01 hectares out in their calculations. People may believe that money from Europe goes into farmers’ pockets. I understand that, but I must point out that it is their rightful payment; it is not something that has been gifted. Therefore, they deserve to have it. When officials from the Department appeared before the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, they said that they had successfully processed 94% of payments and hoped to have 98% cleared by the end of June. It seems that the 6% who have not received their rightful entitlement will just have to wait. The departmental officials almost boasted that they had processed 94% of claims, but what about the 6% of farmers who have made claims and not received payment? They have had to borrow money from the bank while they await the arrival of the cheque from the Department. I suggest that if we were to tell departmental officials that 6% of them would have to wait six months for their wages, there would be a hue and cry, so why delay the rightful payments to the farming community? When the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development met departmental officials, it was informed that there is a suggestion that the number of farm inspections may be doubled over the coming year. It has been acknowledged that there is a problem with the number of inspections on farms at present, yet now we are told that the answer to some of those problems is more inspections. There needs to be a good dose of realism injected into the Department. Senior departmental officials need to wise up and realise that they are penalising the largest single industry in the Province, and the backbone of our prosperity over the years. Farmers’ backs are against the wall, and they are being forced further and further into despair. The House must declare today that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should get single farm payments into the hands of the farmers. That money is rightfully theirs, and that it where it ought to be. Mr Speaker: In case any Members are trying to watch the business in their own rooms, I have to inform them that the system has broken down. Attempts are being made to repair it. Mr S Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. How will you convey that information to those Members who are trying to watch, since they will probably be unable to hear what you say? Mr Speaker: I hope that they are listening somewhere in the Building. Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. This debate is of serious concern to farmers and the agricultural community, and I remind those who might find it difficult to listen to debates on agriculture that the countryside is as important to them as it is to anyone else. It is not just for farmers, the Minister and the Department. It is important that the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has a position on the matter, and I speak as a member of that Committee. The Committee is not unanimous on this motion, while we may go forward as saying that the Committee said this, that or the other on this issue. I tabled an amendment with regard to the timescale in the motion, but it was not accepted. The wording of the motion creates difficulty, and more effort should have been made on that. The timescale gives rise to a situation in which farmers may end up worse off. Rather than a timescale of four months to resolve all the difficulties in the issue, 12 months has, so far, not been enough for the Department to complete matters for many farmers. I should not like to see farmers, who were required to have absolutely everything right, restricted to four months. That is what Departments do; they will confine them further, and that could cause great difficulty. I do not want that to happen. I support the farmers’ organisations with regard to the cutting of red tape. Bureaucracy has been a great detriment to farmers and to the future of farming, and I ask the Minister to consider the matter. As a farmer, I should declare an interest in the debate. How Departments interpret the rules made by the EU is of vital importance. Some farmers have had to wait 10 months for money on which they depend, yet it seems that I can get the thing resolved with one phone call. There is something seriously wrong there. I often wonder whether there are members of departmental staff who move from somewhere else in the Department and then find jobs in this extra 50% of policing of farmers. In some instances, it is just that. The size of a tractor in a field is measured, or a small area of gorse. We all know that gorse grows from year to year, so while there might be a large area in one year, in two years’ time there might be only a small plot of an acre. That is knocking farmers out of their right to payments. Those matters should not be treated as difficulties, and officials should not be sent out to measure for hours on end, causing the farmer worry, stress, and a loss of money. The inspections should be cut. I do not want to see another 50% extra staff spending all day in making difficulties for farmers on their land. I have no doubt that the Minister knows exactly what I am talking about. I do not want things made more difficult for farmers. It is of vital importance that the matter be resolved; that is why it has been discussed in the Committee and why I welcome this debate. I have difficulty with the timescales mentioned in the motion, and deadlines may cause further difficulty. Simple things such as the length or size of fences, and bends in fences, have been given as reasons for farmers’ not having received their rightful payments. That issue must be looked at. Instead of getting into an antagonistic debate about single farm payments, the Minister and her Department must do some work to explain to farmers and farm organisations how the matter can be resolved and returned from a European level to a ministerial level. The important thing is for farmers to receive their money. Go raibh maith agat. 12.45 pm Mr Burns: I support the motion and thank Mr Savage and Mr Elliott for bringing the issue to the Assembly. I have no personal farming interests to declare: I do not receive any single farm payments. However, I support the rural way of life, and in my rural constituency of South Antrim, many farmers are experiencing extreme difficulties with the single farm payment. The delay in receiving the single farm payment is of great concern, particularly to those who are suffering as a result. The main reason for those delays is the weight of bureaucracy in the Department, and, due to even more internal bureaucracy, the lack of resources to process claims. In 2005, when the single farm payment was introduced to combine all the previous types of payment, it changed to a payment based on landownership rather than production. The system is unique to Northern Ireland and has resulted in a disproportionate number of applications in comparison with other EU countries. Northern Ireland must comply with EU regulations, but that is not the issue. Instead, the issue is finding a way to comply with regulations without making the system more complicated and cumbersome for local farmers. Older people, some who live alone, find it very difficult to complete the application forms: a lady whom I know had to hire a solicitor to fill out the application, which left her with further unmanageable debt. Farmers also face fines for late applications, which reduces, or in some cases wipes out, the payment that they finally receive. Inspections are another problem affecting the single farm payment. Not only is the inspection system complex and time consuming, it is unsuccessful. Farmers have complained that inspectors act like they are strictly policing them, instead of offering advice and help. Due to the increase in the number of inspections, a review of the system must be initiated to prevent further delays. Farmers are experiencing great difficulty in getting answers to even the simple questions that they have about their applications. If farmers want to adjust their applications after submission, it is difficult to even contact the staff at Orchard House. Politicians must ensure that there is an immediate reduction in bureaucracy, so that the single farm payment helps farmers, as was the intention of its introduction. We must insist that the £15 million that is due to be paid out reaches the farmers who need it to relieve the debt and distress that they are experiencing. Although the Department is meeting the majority of payments, to leave some people with nothing is not good enough. The Department must address that situation by developing and revising the systems to ensure that no farmers lose out. I support the motion. Mr Ford: As with most Members who have spoken, I have an interest to declare. Although the modest amount of single farm payment that my wife receives does not make a great deal of difference to my finances, it is listed in the register of interests. On behalf of the United Community group, I support the motion, and congratulate Mr Elliott for his introduction to it. The debate has reached the point where it is unnecessary to repeat everything that has already been said. However, the fact that, two weeks ago, almost halfway through this year, 6% of claims for 2006 were outstanding, is an indication of the problem with single farm payments. Its introduction, in 2005, was more complex in Northern Ireland than it was, for example, in Scotland or Wales. There were good reasons for that, given the mixture of full-time and part-time farms, and land let out and taken in conacre. The Department wanted to ensure the payments were fair, which, unfortunately, introduced some complexity, and, in many cases, area-based issues have created problems. As the Department examines the future of single farm payments, it must consider ways to simplify it and ensure that the payments are dealt with. DARD must prevent fraud, but it is also time that the Department distinguished between fraud and minor clerical errors that are made by people whose full-time employment is not to fill in complex forms but to farm. The fundamental problem is what the farming community views as a perceived lack of sympathy. That does not come from the individuals who administer policy, because they operate within the rules, but the perception of the gold plating that has been going on for too long must be addressed. I have heard the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development speak as the Sinn Féin spokesperson on several occasions. She supported the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) campaign against red tape. Shortly before the elections in March, representatives from all five parties spoke to UFU members in Cookstown, and there was considerable sympathy for the plight of farmers and the UFU five-point plan. The Minister has been in position for several weeks: she has had the opportunity to familiarise herself with the problems and to sort out what is necessary and unnecessary. She spoke about that issue at the Balmoral Show a couple of weeks ago, and I hope that she will soon have more to tell the House about how she intends to address the problems that she has seen for herself. The issue is not about the Assembly’s passing the motion but rather how the Department responds. I hope that the Minister can inform the House, first, about what is being done to ensure that the issue of the timing of payments is dealt with, and, secondly, how she intends to deal with minor discrepancies such as duplicate fields or land being taken for road-widening schemes that hold up entire payments over issues that amount to no more than 1% or 2% of it. Perhaps part payments should be considered; farmers are already accustomed to receiving part of their wool-clip money in one year, with the remainder being paid the following year. If part payments were made, farmers would know that they would receive at least a proportion of their money on time, even if there were concerns about minor discrepancies. When will the Minister tell the House that she will act to move Northern Ireland away from the gold-plating culture to ensure that farmers here are treated on equal terms with those in GB, the Republic and the rest of Europe? The fundamental issue is fairness for the people whom Members represent. Mr T Clarke: I congratulate Mr Savage and Mr Elliott for tabling the motion. Single farm payments are important to the farming community, and I am glad that the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has already acknowledged that by pressing this issue with departmental officials. DUP members on the Committee intend to ensure that the issue is not dropped and will closely monitor the Minister’s words today. Although DUP Committee members will welcome any assurances that she can give, they will want to ensure that the assurances are backed up by actions. Single farm payments are not supposed to subsidise agricultural production, but many farmers do rely on the payment to keep their businesses running. The movement away from the old system of various payments for different enterprises to one single payment increases the relevance of that payment to many farmers, making it all the more important that they receive it promptly. It is unacceptable that the window for payments is so large. There is no reason why the Minister should not move to ensure that payments are processed within a much tighter timescale, such as that outlined by the proponents of the motion. It may be possible for DARD to tell us that over 90% of payments are processed on time, but that still means that many millions of pounds are in the Department’s pockets rather than in the hands of the farmers to whom they belong. The farmers’ banks and suppliers do not tend to work to a timescale in which there is no guarantee of when the finances will arrive. The majority of DARD staff, whether they carry out field inspections or pay out money in Orchard House, work extremely hard to get the money paid as quickly as possible. However, the policy staff in Dundonald House must do more to ensure that EU rules are implemented locally with minimal penalty deductions and payment delays. They often delay payments through their lack of pragmatism in the implementation of EU rules. Since the Minister took office, she has done much to examine procedures in the Republic of Ireland. Last year, the vast majority of farmers in the Republic had received their single farm payment by Christmas. Is the Minister willing to set a real challenge to her Department to guarantee that a similar percentage of farmers will receive their 2007 single farm payment in Northern Ireland as in the Republic of Ireland? Anything less will be seen as a failure by both the Minister and her Department. The Minister has already announced that extra personnel have been put into the system; it is hoped that they will clear the current backlog. That is welcome. As she has recognised that there are problems in the system, it is vital that she should take steps now to ensure that they are not repeated next year. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s proposals today; I assure her that the Committee will not drop the issue but, rather, will monitor it to see that she delivers. Mr Speaker: I apologise to the Member for omitting to mention that that was his maiden speech. Mr W Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I agree with all the contributions that have been made; Members have articulated the position of the rural community very well. I must add that farmers are currently under threat of significant financial penalties on their single farm payments resulting from unintentional errors in their applications. Difficulties have arisen in cases where both the active farmer and the landlord have claimed for payment on the same field. Thousands of applications have been affected, and the matter must be resolved. The Minister recognises that and has been dealing with the issue since she took up office. Ireland’s unique conacre system has led to huge difficulties for both farmers and landowners. Some farmers have lost a significant amount of their single farm payment for last year. Small farmers are often the worst affected, because this duplication query on their farm can comprise a large percentage of their overall claim and lead to a much larger penalty. This can result in the cancellation of the entire payment. Farmers should not have to face these financial penalties, given that the system was new and extremely complicated and that most errors are not made through direct malice. I concur with those Members who said that a percentage should be paid when small errors have been made. I think that all Members agree that the money should be in the farmers’ bank accounts, not the Department’s bank account. As my colleague Gerry McHugh said, there is a difficulty with the time constraints. I am unable to support the motion because of that. My colleague wanted to submit an amendment to say that he welcomed the initiation of the joint Department of the Environment and Department of Agriculture and Rural Development review of departmental procedures, including those that relate to farming and farm payments, with the aim of reducing red tape and bureaucracy by 25%. The motion as proposed will not benefit farmers, particularly given the tight timescale. It will not allow the flexibility that farmers require, especially in terms of errors on their forms. These undoubtedly well-intentioned UUP proposals would hurt farmers. More restrictive timescales will damage farmers and will lead to more constraints being placed on the entire agriculture community. 1.00 pm Sinn Féin supports the UFU campaign to cut red tape. Sinn Féin also campaigned for the introduction of a farmers’ charter, similar to the one that is successfully operating in the rest of Ireland. That charter must have at its heart the flexibility that is required by farmers in the face of red tape and bureaucracy. I thank the Minister for attending the debate. It is important that the Minister states how she will reduce the amount of red tape. Farmers must be allowed to farm, and I want to hear the Minister tell Members of extra measures that she will introduce to increase flexibility for the farming industry. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Speaker: I call Mr William Irwin. I remind Members that this will be Mr Irwin’s maiden speech, which should be heard without interruption. Mr Irwin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate Mr Savage and Mr Elliott on proposing the motion. I declare an interest as a farmer and as a recipient of the single farm payment. The introduction of decoupling and of the single farm payment system in 2005 was undoubtedly the single greatest change to farming since the UK joined the Common Market. Everyone was told that the introduction of the single farm payment system would give farmers the freedom to farm. From personal experience, and from those of my local constituents, I know that that is not the case. I believe that a common agricultural policy no longer exists in this country. Owing to modulation, farmers in Northern Ireland will experience higher cuts from their single farm payments than those in other regions of Europe and the UK. However, that will, no doubt, be the subject of a debate in the House another day. Farmers are also facing a more stringent interpretation of EU rules, compared to other parts of Europe. It is vital that DARD rein in the policy-makers, and ensure that farmers are no longer penalised for accidental minor discrepancies on their single farm payment forms. Last year, a significant number of farmers did not get paid a single farm payment due to fields being duplicated on one or more forms. It is clear to all — with the exception of official policy-makers in Dundonald House — that there was no deliberate attempt to carry out fraud, either by farmers or landowners. It was clear that those were obvious errors. Farmers must go through the official DARD appeals system, and possibly go to court, before they get the money that they should have received in autumn 2005. If an independent panel rules in favour of a farmer, will the Agriculture Minister guarantee to the House that the Department will not overturn that decision? The major problem with single farm payments in 2006 was caused as a result of field variances. Last year, a farmer in my constituency had seven single-farm-payment inspections connected to his claim. After each of the inspections, he was notified that he had no problems. However, it was identified that he had a field variation of 0·02 hectares over his 40 hectares of land. That was a 0·05% discrepancy with what was noted on his form. That resulted in my constituent being paid last week — six months late. When he received his money, he discovered that there was absolutely no penalty for that minor discrepancy. That begs a question: why was that payment held up for so long, and how much money was wasted in sorting out that query? It is vital that DARD staff make changes to ensure that those problems do not occur this year. The Minister’s recent utterances about field variances have been, at best, feeble. Farmers do not want to hear of more inspections or be patronised by being told to recheck their forms. A practical solution to resolve the field variance problem would be to do what is done in other regions of Europe, namely class all land that is held by a farm business as a field parcel, rather than as individual fields. It is widely believed that that would go some way towards resolving many of the issues that have been mentioned today. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Gildernew): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome all the information that the debate has generated. I have several points to raise. Therefore, to stay within the time limit, I will run through the issues quickly. Mrs I Robinson: Will the Minister give way? Ms Gildernew: If you make your point quickly, Iris. Mrs I Robinson: I represent a farming community. Therefore, I want clarification on several points. How many requests for single farm payments were received last year, and, of those, how many were allowed? How many applications for single farm payments are yet to be resolved, and what is the average appeal time? Most importantly, how many appeals that had been allowed, were subsequently overturned by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development? Ms Gildernew: I do not have that information to hand, but I will answer the questions in writing as soon as possible. Go raibh maith agat. I thank Tom Elliot and George Savage for raising an issue that is important to farmers and deserves open debate. I recognise the concerns raised by Tom, George, and other Members. Many of those concerns are not new to me, and I empathise with the majority, if not all, of the points raised. Before dealing with those concerns, I will outline the background to single farm payments, in order to illustrate the current situation. The single farm payment was introduced in 2005, as part of the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Existing livestock and arable subsidy schemes, now known as the legacy schemes, were replaced with the single farm payment. The payment comprises two parts: historic reference amounts that are based on subsidy paid between 2000-02, and a land element of £53 per hectare. The application period runs from the beginning of March until 15 May. Payment can only be made on fully validated claims when the payment window opens on 1 December. From 2005, when the scheme first opened, the number of applicants rose from approximately 27,000 for the legacy scheme, to approximately 40,000 for the single farm payment. After taking into consideration the increase in applications, along with the fact that the scheme was new, DARD set and published the following payment targets: 68% of farm businesses to be paid by 23 December 2005, and 75% to be paid by the end of January 2006. Last year, the Department increased the targets to 70% to 75% to be paid by the end of December 2006, and 75% to 80% to be paid by the end of January 2007. All those targets were met, and I acknowledge the efforts made by DARD staff to achieve that outcome. Unfortunately, not all applicants will get paid as quickly as they, Members, or I, would like. The Department has paid out £211,500,000, to 94·5% of farm businesses. That means that some 2,000 businesses have still not received their single farm payment for 2006. However, as I said earlier, DARD can only pay on validated claims, and, in some cases, payments are delayed because of queries about the applications. The Department has around 570 probate and change of business cases. Cases involving probate cannot be paid until the estate is settled, which can take between six months to several years. Year on year, the number of cases delayed by probate remains fairly constant. The Department has written to around 100 applicants on specific issues but, despite reminders, no responses have been received. This year, there have also been difficulties due to field variances that were picked up during inspections. Around 2,000 cases were delayed because farmers had not told the Department about changes to the size of fields due to land becoming ineligible because, for example, a house had been built, a laneway improved, or an area of impenetrable scrub had not been deducted. Many of the variances are small. However, the European Commission requires DARD to re-examine those cases and, where appropriate, correct the 2005 baseline position. Around 930 of those cases are yet to be processed. Such unreported changes not only delay payments, but have a knock-on effect on the Department’s processing ability. More worrying for the Department is that the level of identified discrepancies meant that the rate of eligibility from inspections had to be increased from 2,000 in 2006 to 3,000 in 2007. The Department has no room to manoeuvre on that increase, as it has been laid down by the European Commission. In an attempt to resolve that issue, I have commissioned an exercise, which I announced at the Balmoral Show breakfast. In the next few weeks, the Department will write to those farm businesses that, since early 2000, have received full planning approval for single dwellings. The Department needs to ask those farmers to ensure that they have removed the area encompassing those buildings from their farm maps. In response to Mr William Irwin, the Department is not being patronising on that point. Farmers may be reluctant to check their maps, and we are asking them to do that so that we can help them. However, as I said, a quick check now may avoid a delayed payment in the future. The Department wants to help. I shall also be announcing that additional staff will be available in mid-June to help farmers who wish to sort out their maps and their 2007 IACS single applications. I also reassure farmers that if they remove an ineligible area before my Department has identified it as an irregularity, while the Department may have to make an adjustment for earlier years, there will not be a penalty reduction for 2007. We are at the beginning of a new era in which I hope that DARD and the industry can work more closely together to deal with those issues. I have stressed many times how much I want the Department to work in partnership with everyone involved in the rural industry and the Committee to get things right. I shall now turn to points raised in the debate. I am totally against any unjustified delay to a payment. However, since taking up office, I have realised that in many cases the delay is a result of factors outside departmental control such as probate, farmers not replying to the Department and field variances — many of which take time to resolve. I also recognise that my Department should do everything that it can to speed up the process. As far as the payment timetable is concerned, I would be delighted to be able to report that 100% of cases were paid by 31 March, but I suspect that the practical reality will always be different. I am well aware of some of the difficulties, and I am considering a number of options that should help to speed up the payment process. Dr W McCrea: If the Minister wants to help the farming community, can she give a categorical assurance that, if an independent panel adjudicates on an appeal and finds in favour of the applicant, she will not overturn that appeal? Ms Gildernew: That point was made earlier, and I took a note of it. I cannot give a categorical assurance today. However, I will look at what I can do at departmental level. Dr W McCrea: The Minister can. Ms Gildernew: I cannot say that I will not overturn a decision. I will consider the issue. I want to be able to give a categorical answer, but I also want the answer that I give to be correct. I shall do my best to address that in the near future. Unlike cross-compliance inspections, which must be completed by 31 December each year, there is no legislative deadline for the completion of eligibility inspections. However, as those are linked to the 10-month occupancy rule, it could be argued that such inspections should be completed by the end of February each year. The nature of eligibility inspections means that the findings are still relevant up to the date of the last payment, as land does not change dramatically over a period of months. 1.15 pm While my Department completed all cross-compliance inspections within the timescale, because of other pressure, eligibility inspections ran on into the following year. Again, I am considering proposals to speed up the process, as I recognise that any delay in inspection ultimately creates a delay in payment. I shall quickly address some of the comments that were made during the debate. On David Burnside’s point, I am not aware of a problem with lost or mislaid forms. However, if he can provide me with details, the Department will investigate them. Dr W McCrea: He is not here. Ms Gildernew: I see that. I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for pointing that out. I note Tom Elliott’s points about Inniskeen House. That has been a very successful DARD initiative. Mr Elliott will be aware that, in advance of the deadline for IACS forms of 15 May, the Department asked county offices to stay open later to facilitation people submitting forms. In spite of the increases in inspections, the Department is seeking to reduce the number of inspections and is looking at creative ways to do so. However, the Department is tied by EU regulations on the inspections that must be carried out in 2007. A number of Members raised the possibility of part-payment, where part of a payment is paid initially and the rest is paid on completion of the process. I have asked my officials whether that can be done and have been told that, under EU guidelines, it cannot. Farmers have raised that problem with me, and I have tried to find ways to fix it as best we can. Mr Elliott: Will the Member give way? Ms Gildernew: I am sorry, but I really cannot give way. Many issues were raised in the debate, and I want to be fair to all Members. Dr McCrea’s contribution referred to gold-plating. Where there is gold-plating, I will find it. I will do what I can to get rid of it. I can assure Members that there will be no additional gold-plating. The Department will be bound by EU regulations, but it will not make them worse. Mr Burns said that our system is unique, but it is not. There is a different system in other areas, but we are not the only ones with a hybrid model. That leads to complications, but the Department felt that the system represented a fair reflection of farming practices. As for Mr Ford’s point, the 12-month period starts on 15 May, so we are not halfway through it — we are a few weeks into it. We want to get these matters right, and that is what I intend to do. I have a lot of sympathy for farmers who are in a difficult position, and I will find ways of dealing with that. Trevor Clarke said that we were focusing on the Twenty-six Counties. Farmers repeatedly tell me that the systems that they propose are the best. I look for best practice wherever I can find it, and I will endeavour to employ best practice for our farmers in the Six Counties. Willie Clarke mentioned the issue of getting money into farmers’ bank accounts. I concur, and I accept that it is very difficult for farmers when banks believe that payments have been made and farmers are still unable to reduce their overdrafts. I wish to see the freedom to farm. Many issues require resolution in order for farmers to be able to do what they do best. The transition from old to new has not been easy for either farmers or the Department, as is the case with most new schemes. The single payment scheme was not as simple as people had hoped. The European Commission is seeking ways to simplify the scheme, and I was pleased to hear the EU Agriculture Commissioner, Mariann Fischer-Boel, say that she was aiming to reduce bureaucracy when she addressed the Ulster Farmer’s Union forum last month. I support any proposals that reduce the administrative burden on farmers and on my Department, and I have a number of ideas for the European Commission that would simplify matters. For example, if farmers could claim the same amount of money on a slightly smaller area of land, that would help to resolve some of the current land variance problems. That would help to speed up the system and ensure that payments are issued quickly. Locally, I have asked staff to set up a working group comprising farming representatives such as the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association — both of which have already indicated their willingness to participate — and other interested parties, to consider how we can better work together to resolve the current problems and to develop new opportunities, such as encouraging the uptake of electronic single farm payments. I stress how important it is that farmers advise us of changes to their maths. If the Department does not tackle this issue now, it will be storing up problems for future payments. We need farmers to help us to achieve what we all want — a quick payment schedule for the single farm payment, and a minimum number of inspections. That is why I laboured that point at the Balmoral Show breakfast this year. Although I am against the unjustified delay in payments, the motion fails to recognise practicalities. For example, farmers will still have to be paid, even if the 31 March deadline was missed. Therefore, I cannot support the motion. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Savage: I declare an interest as a farmer in the Donacloney area. I support the motion. My Banbridge constituency office is currently dealing with several cases in which the single farm payment has not yet been made. When my staff contacted the Department in an effort to sort out a particular case, we were told that the single farm payment would be made within seven to 10 days. Two weeks later, that payment had still not been received. That is unacceptable — such delays are unjustified and unwarranted. The single farm payment removed the link between production and subsidies. This was known as decoupling and was designed to stop the food and milk mountains that were becoming prevalent throughout European member states. However, in order to obtain single farm payments farmers were required to observe certain conditions known as cross-compliance. Under cross-compliance farmers are required to ensure good agricultural and environmental conditions and adhere to statutory management requirements for the protection of the environment, animal welfare and plant health. These are big undertakings. These lengths, plus the endless red tape and bureaucracy that farmers have to deal with, are what is causing most annoyance in the industry. Farmers need to be allowed to do their job as custodians of the countryside instead of finding themselves buried in a mountain of paperwork. Although farmers have enough to worry about, last week the EC Agriculture Commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, while at a conference in Germany called for a compulsory 10% modulation rate to be introduced through instalments of 1% a year from 2009 to finance her reform programme. According to the ‘Irish Farmers Journal’ this is of concern, because it will double the current modulation rate and erode the value of the single farm payment However, Commissioner Boel’s decision to abolish set-aside must be welcomed. This will be one less thing for farmers to worry about. Furthermore, farmers are receiving visits, often unannounced, from farm inspectors who sometimes abuse their position and at present are serving only one purpose — annoying the farmer. That has got to change. It is particularly ironic that the Department’s website states that the aim of the rural payments and inspection division is: “To ensure that farmers in Northern Ireland are aware of, and receive, their agricultural grants subsidies to which they are entitled.” I have also obtained figures from the Department that make interesting reading. In 2006, the number of single farm payment applications was 39,871, of which 37,359 have been paid. However, 5% of farmers have not received the single farm payment to which they are entitled. That may seem like a small figure, but it equates to 2,181 farmers, which means that 2,181 families are struggling to make ends meet. That means that there are 2,181 farmers under constant pressure, living from one day to the next, hoping against hope that today will be the day they receive their long-awaited single farm payment cheques and the burden that they have been under for quite some time will be relieved. Surely in this age of modern technology it is reasonable to assume that the Department can ensure that all single farm payments are made on time. Such a payment delay would be deemed as unacceptable with private-sector funding. Farmers, like those in any other business, have to plan ahead, so there are always budgets that have to be adhered to. How can we expect farmers to budget and plan ahead if they do not have the funding to budget and do not know when they will receive it? Farmers right across Northern Ireland are the custodians of the countryside. As businesses in the countryside they need to be careful with their budgets. For businesses to thrive and prosper, they need a steady flow of finance. This is the lifeline to the rural community. Farmers are not beggars. All they ask for is a level playing field on which they get a fair price for what they produce on their farms. That is not happening at present. Remember this: agriculture is the backbone of Northern Ireland not of the Department. I would like the Department to get that into its head. We must ensure that the problems are solved as soon as possible so that they do not recur next year. Farmers have nothing to hide, and it is time for a fair deal for farmers. It is time that they were treated with dignity and respect and received the single farm payments that are rightfully theirs as quickly as possible. Many comments have been made today. All these things take time. I was glad to hear the Minister speaking today, and I ask her to consider making sure that farmers receive 75% of the single farm payment by the end of October each year. That would ease their burden greatly, and Members would not have to propose motions such as this one. This is a great opportunity to highlight the situation. I was in Brussels when single farm payments were introduced, and it was stated clearly then that it was the person who farmed the land who would be entitled to the payment. I hope that the Department will never lose sight of that point. Mr Ford said that the problems relating to single farm payments were greater in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. That has come about because the Westminster Government have got involved and want to throw their weight about. I tell them this: if they sort out the problems on the mainland and leave us alone, we will be able to sort out our own problems. A Member who is not here today said that anything that a farmer receives through the single farm payment scheme he is entitled to because he gets it due to hard work and the sweat of his brow. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion, and I hope that it will highlight the problems facing the farming community. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly expresses serious concern at the unjustified delay in payment of Single Farm Payments to some farmers and calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to initiate the Single Farm Payment timescale for 1st December to 31st March each year; and to ensure that no farm inspections relating to the Single Farm Payment scheme take place outside the timescale of the scheme. Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind up. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Mr Easton: I beg to move That this Assembly calls on the Minister of the Environment to put in place legislation, similar to that applying in the rest of the United Kingdom, to protect the rights of caravan owners on private sites in Northern Ireland. The legal definition of a mobile home is the same as that of a caravan: “any structure designed or adapted for human habitation that is capable of being moved from one place to another”. Legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom is a product of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which supersedes earlier legislation. It affects all those who own mobile-home sites and all residents who own mobile homes in which they live and who rent their pitches from the site owners. It also applies to all residents who had agreements with site owners when the legislation was enacted — whatever form those agreements took. It covers those who had agreements under the Mobile Homes Act 1975 and other forms of written agreement. It specifically covers those whose tenure and rights were based on an oral agreement with the site owner. 1.30 pm We are not talking about those who rent mobile homes from a site owner or those who use a mobile home or caravan for holiday purposes. The Act is specific in its application to residents on sites that are privately owned or sites that are owned and operated by local authorities. However, it is vital that any proposed legislation review the protection that is necessary for those who use mobile homes or caravans for holiday purposes or live in caravans on a permanent basis. The 1983 Mobile Homes Act is designed to protect the interests, and ensure the rights, of all residents whose agreement with a site owner allows them to live on a site in their mobile homes when the home is their main residence. These rights, all very obvious and reasonable in nature, relate to security of tenure and the right to sell a mobile home on site, or pass it to a family member on the death of a homeowner. In the Act these rights were established whatever a site owner or resident said. Rights on other subjects were discretionary and depended on the agreement reached between owner and resident. The Act places an obligation on a site owner to spell out those rights in a written statement, which sets out the implied and express terms of the agreement that they have made. It also requires a site owner to provide specific information and to delineate clearly these implied and express terms. The implied terms are those rights afforded to residents under the Act, and the express terms cover other aspects such as services, regulations, fees and respective obligations. Implied terms of the Act are governed by law and cannot be changed. Express terms can be changed if site owners and residents agree. They can also be changed if either party applies to court, or if there is mutual agreement to involve an independent arbitrator. There is a clear statement in the Act about the length of time a resident can keep a mobile home on site. In most cases, residents may keep their mobile home on site indefinitely, unless the site owner brings the agreement to an end. This could happen if, for example, the planning permission of the site owner, or his interest in the land, was subject to a time limit. In that case, the resident’s right would be similarly limited. There is also a clear statement that sets out the ways in which a site owner may bring an agreement to an end. It must be done by an application to the courts or by establishing agreement through an arbitration process. The grounds for ending an agreement are the failure of the resident to use his mobile home as his main residence; if the resident permits the condition of his home to have a detrimental effect on the site; and if the resident breaks the terms of the agreement. A resident can be made to leave and remove his home only if the site owner has received an eviction order from the court. The Act makes it a criminal offence for anyone other than the court to make a resident leave a mobile home or to bully, intimidate or harass a resident to make his or her position on the site untenable. Should the site change hands, the agreement between the site owner and the residents is binding on the new owner. Agreements continue to hold even if the site is sold, phased or passes by inheritance to another owner. With regard to the express terms, the legislation developed in the rest of the United Kingdom protects the residents’ rights. It requires that the express terms agreed be set out in a written statement furnished to the resident by the site owner. Again, disputes can be settled by reference to the courts or an agreed arbitrator. I must apologise to Members; I have relied heavily on Members’ patience by taking some time to outline the complexity of these matters and the impact of the legislation on the mainland, which protects those who use a mobile home as their permanent residence. My interest in the subject has been generated as a result of the experiences described to me by a considerable number of worried residents of a retirement park near Groomsport in my constituency. They live in Seahaven caravan park and have received letters from a company that has recently acquired the park from the previous owner. These are very decent, law-abiding people, many of whom are infirm and elderly. They have chosen to live in the park in the belief that they have been given an oral understanding that they could stay for life in the park’s residential section. However, they now feel that they are being pressured to accept new written agreements that will require static homes to be upgraded at a cost that may be in the region of £90,000. In addition, their tenure on the site may be reduced to a 10-year period, with no firm guarantee beyond that point. The holiday-home section of Seahaven caravan park holds, I believe, 147 caravans, and the residential section has recently been increased to allow 178 caravans. Thus, we are speaking of the rights of a significant number of people. In both cases, the residents are shocked and distraught. Many have moved there because of health reasons or because they could not find, even in old age, the cost of a conventional home. These are independent people who do not seek state handouts but merely want fair and equitable treatment. Permanent residents in caravan sites take great pride in their homes, without regard to their circumstances, but live in fear of eviction at short notice. Many are elderly people who cannot afford to pay for a new mobile home at the whim of site owners. Just like the rest of us, those residents pay rates to have their bins emptied, have postcodes and are on the electoral register. Greedy site owners should not be allowed to bully them or take advantage of them. Many people live in residential trailer park sites in Northern Ireland, and it is vital that legislation be put in place to protect trailer park residents against those who are more concerned with profit than with the rights of people to live in peace and contentment in their own permanent mobile home. I have received dozens of letters from constituents on this matter that reflect the view that they are being treated appallingly. I hope that I have faithfully represented their interests today. I call on the Minister of the Environment to introduce legislation similar to that which is applicable in the rest of the United Kingdom in order to protect the rights of caravan owners on private sites in Northern Ireland. I thank my colleagues Jim Wells, Jim Shannon and Peter Weir for their assistance in tabling the motion. Mr W Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The rights and entitlements of caravan owners who pay to stay on private sites in the Six Counties must be protected. However, this is an all-Ireland issue and is not confined to the Six Counties; tourism is promoted on an all-Ireland basis, and we should, at the very least, co-operate on these matters, whether they affect Newcastle in County Down or Bundoran in County Donegal. That can only be achieved by improving the existing, wholly inadequate legislation. The motion should be adopted so that the rights of caravan owners and site owners alike can be enshrined in law. Thousands of people holiday at caravan parks across the North, and they contribute greatly to the local tourism industry. Throughout the worst of times, as Members will know, many people used those caravan parks “to get away from it all”. In my hometown of Newcastle, the caravan sites and tourist resorts boosted community relations; in seeking sanctuary, people put their beliefs aside and got on with their lives. People from both communities were affected by the difficulties highlighted in the motion; those problems must be dealt with in the same spirit. Most park owners behave in a responsible manner and provide good value for money. There are at least half a dozen such sites in my constituency, and I know that the owners of those sites would welcome legislation that provides guidance for them as well as for the residents. There are several well-run caravan sites in Newcastle, and their importance to the local economy cannot be overstated. Some of those sites operate for 10 months of the year and not just for the summer. Although most function without difficulty, problems can and do arise. Earlier this year, a dispute between caravan owners and a local site owner caused much bitterness and was a poor advertisement for Newcastle’s image as a friendly tourist resort. At the request of some of the complainants, I met the site owner in an attempt to resolve the dispute. There was a clear lack of communication between both parties, and mediation was required to solve several issues, one of which was a problem with water pressure. Families who came down to enjoy their holidays could not even avail of proper showering facilities. The site owner claimed that the poor water pressure was nothing to do with him and that he had adequately relaid the entire site. The then Water Service claimed that the water pressure was satisfactory, and that other people tapping into the water supply might have been the cause of the problem. Similar issues have caused difficulties, and holidaymakers have demanded compensation because their break was ruined. Local councils, which look after environmental-health and public-safety matters for caravan sites, need powers to assume control of much of their running. As has been mentioned, such legislation is already in place across the water. I wish to see similar legislation introduced for the whole of Ireland. Disputes have exposed a major flaw that has arisen because of a lack of proper legislation. Caravan owners pay hefty annual fees to keep their caravans on private sites, but, despite that, it looks as if the owners of those sites can raise fees to whatever level they want. That is another issue that caravan owners wish to see addressed. Some caravan owners have been going to the same site for 10 or 20 years. Some of them are retired and some are attempting to recuperate from illness. Others have invested large sums of money in their caravans, and they take a great deal of pride in their upkeep. They simply ask for fair rights, to be listened to and for their grievances to be taken on board. The last thing that they want to hear is that, if they do not like the situation, they should get off the site. That has happened at numerous caravan sites throughout Ireland. Some people, therefore, decide to leave. They end up being offered a small amount of money for their caravan, which they have no option but to accept. They then must pay extra fees to remove the caravan from the site and for its storage. Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr W Clarke: I support the motion. Mr Dallat: I also support the motion. I want to get across the message that some of the best caravan sites are on the north coast — in Portballintrae, Portrush, Portstewart and Castlerock, and right on around the coast. Caravan owners’ rights have been swept under the carpet for generations, simply because local councils could not reach an overall agreement on how to deal with the problem. Councils were unsure whether they should pass by-laws or on whom they should depend to secure rights for caravan owners. Caravan owners on the north coast have been shouting from the rooftops for years, but all their calls have fallen on deaf ears. It is opportune that the motion is being debated, because the Assembly should take ownership of the issue and bring to an end the inequality and injustices that have gone on for too long. Coleraine Borough Council owns the two main caravan parks on the north coast, Juniper Hill and Carrick Dhu. The council’s regulations for caravan owners on its sites are liberal. Caravan owners are not told from whom they can buy their new mobile homes or caravans — an awful practice that goes on at some private caravan sites. We are told that some type of voluntary code governs private sites, but I very much question the independence of that arrangement. That code should be supported by legislation. I accept that mobile homes and caravans need replacing from time to time, in the interests of health and safety, but that is not the issue. The issue is the monopoly that private-site owners exercise over their tenants. That is very wrong. Let us hope that, arising from the debate, something happens, and that we consider new legislation and guidance. If it is deemed proper, those powers could, in future, be devolved to local councils, which have in the past played an important role in the development of tourism, which, of course, includes caravanning. Permanent residents have rights, which should be extended to those who choose to live in a caravan and to those who have no choice but to live in a caravan. My experience of caravan owners is that they are responsible people. They should be protected under the law, as ratepayers who comply with all the demands that are made of them. In return, they ask for nothing more than to be afforded basic rights. 1.45 pm As has already been mentioned, caravanners make a substantial contribution to the economy. By taking their holidays at home, they reduce the level of currency going abroad. The visitors who are attracted here from abroad bring in foreign currency. That is critical to our economy. In places such as Portrush, Portstewart, Castlerock and Portballintrae, caravan owners hugely boost the incomes of local shops, many of which are small in size and survive in the face of large supermarkets in the bigger towns such as Coleraine. Caravan owners also create many jobs in the service industries such as in restaurants, entertainment and so on. In conclusion, the issue is not simply about fair play. Those who own and use caravans play a critical part in our economy. It is well worthwhile considering legislation to ensure that they are protected with the same rights that everyone else demands. Dr Farry: I am grateful to the proposers of the motion for bringing this important issue before the Assembly. They have rightly identified an important and significant gap in the regulatory framework in Northern Ireland. Caravan owners are a group of consumers who do not enjoy effective consumer protection. Lest we think that the concern has been highlighted only by a number of recent prominent cases, we should remember that the issue has been a long-running problem within Northern Ireland. Someone who worked for the consumer protection organisation back in the 1980s told me that the problem was a major issue back then. Two problems need to be addressed. First, caravan owners do not enjoy security of tenure. Although most caravan park users have a written contract, some have only a verbal understanding or a verbal contract. In that sense, they stand apart from those who, being in a formal rented-property situation, enjoy much more protection under the law. Such caravan owners are also at the mercy of site owners who seem able to impose arbitrary charges and to control or restrict trade and access to services. As Mr Dallat said, in economic terms, that equates to monopolistic behaviour. As with other monopolies, that situation represents a market failure that constitutes grounds for Government intervention. Our legislation is now lagging badly behind the equivalent structures that exist in the rest of the United Kingdom. The current legal framework for caravan parks is provided by the Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 1963, under which we adopted the provisions of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 that applied in the rest of the UK. However, Great Britain has since then enacted the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which significantly strengthened the legal protection that is enjoyed over there that, sadly, we lack over here. It is important to recognise that we are talking about a number of types of structures, ranging from residential-park homes, which are essentially built on land for which planning permission was given for caravans to be sited, to the more traditional mobile caravans that people tow behind their cars when going on holiday. Indeed, we are also talking about people who live in a caravan as their sole primary residence. Essentially, the issue is not a problem about second homes. Often, the caravan owners are retirees who have gone to see out their final days in a residential park with spectacular views of the Northern Ireland coastline. The last thing that such people need is uncertainty about the legal situation in which such sites operate. There are two broad problems of which the Assembly should be conscious. First, we need to address the regulatory framework. I think that there will be cross-party consensus on that, so I hope that the Minister will take forward the views of the House as quickly as possible and introduce legislation. Secondly, we need to deal with the ongoing problems that relate to a number of existing parks across Northern Ireland. For example, I am conscious of the situation in the Seahaven park outside Groomsport in the North Down constituency, where residents had an understanding with the previous owner that they could site their homes in the park as long as they wished. Unfortunately, when that park changed hands, the new owner saw things differently. Certainly, all MLAs for the North Down constituency will use their best endeavours to try to resolve that issue as best they can. I know that the MP for North Down is also aware of the issue. It may be difficult to apply any new legislation retrospectively; I will be interested to hear what the Minster has to say about that. Unfortunately, some of the current disputes may end up in court. The main challenge for us as legislators is to ensure that proper legislation is put in place. I urge Members to support the motion. Mr Weir: I welcome the motion. A debate on this issue is long overdue; it has been ignored by successive direct rule Administrations. A press release from the Consumer Council, ‘Caravan Owners Get A Raw Deal’, highlights some of the complaints that the council has received from caravan owners: “- The sale of caravans and amount of commission to site owners - Being forced to buy a new caravan or to move from existing pitch” — one of the principal issues that has directly affected the situation at Seahaven — “- Being restricted to insurance provided by the site operator - Fear of being ‘blacklisted’ and ‘put off’ the site if a complaint is made”. Lest anyone think that that is a reaction to events at Seahaven or other caravan parks, this press release is dated Tuesday 12 February 2002. These issues have been ongoing for several years — Dr Farry mentioned the 1980s. Direct rule Ministers have failed to grasp the nettle and provide a proper solution. At the heart of the matter is security of tenure — the opportunity for people to live safely in their homes with the knowledge that they will not be forced or bullied out of them by the owners of the sites. I am glad that the motion has received support from around the Chamber. Indeed, one party was so enthusiastic about it that it wanted to extend the Environment Minister’s powers to the rest of Ireland. It is good that parties have united on the issue. The proposer of the motion pointed out that any solution to the problem — like the law that surrounds the area, and what needs to be done — has a high level of complexity. He rightly spent some time highlighting the issues. There is a range of different types of sites and situations. The definition of “a site” is problematic and must be examined. People may be labelled as one thing, but in the case of Seahaven, many tenants are permanent residents who pay rates and taxes and are on the electoral register as living there. The Caravan and Camping Forum for Northern Ireland agreed at its recent meeting that a Northern Ireland equivalent to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 in respect of residential parks should be addressed. We need to put legislation in place that puts Northern Ireland on a par with the rest of the United Kingdom and gives residents the same level of protection. Circumstances in Northern Ireland may mean that the legislation is not identical. However, a Northern Ireland equivalent is needed. Tackling the situation goes beyond the Environment Minister’s remit. Other issues, such as security of tenure, fall under the remit of the Department for Social Development. I hope that the Executive will consider the issues on a multi-departmental and multi-agency basis in order to provide proper legislation. This is a complex issue. The latest statistics show that caravanners made a financial contribution to the economy of £11·3 million in 2004. Behind the statistics, there are human stories. People who own and live in caravans in Northern Ireland are not people who have chosen a particular route on a whim. They are not engaged in antisocial behaviour; they are people who are the backbone of communities. They are decent people. Many have gone into the situation with a lifelong commitment to their site. They consider their caravans to be their permanent base or retirement home. Those decent people must be protected. Legislation that provides some degree of equity is needed. It is not too much to ask to simply provide caravan owners with the protection of security of tenure. The Executive must consider that issue closely to ensure that it is not put on the back burner, both for Seahaven, where the problem is particularly acute, and for other sites around Northern Ireland. I hope that Members will not need to revisit the issue in five years but can resolve it relatively easily by working together. I support the motion. Mr Gardiner: I declare an interest, as I have owned a caravan for many years. Therefore, I naturally want caravan owners in Northern Ireland to enjoy the same rights and protection as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Other Members have concentrated on the type of legislation required to extend those rights to owners here whose caravans are located on a private site. I will concentrate on why such an extension must happen and why more attention must be paid to caravan owners in general. Collectively, the United Kingdom caravan, motorhome and motor-park industries have a turnover of £3 billion, employ nearly 100,000 people and serve over one million caravanners and 250,000 motor-park residents. The caravan industry is growing steadily and makes a major contribution to tourism in the United Kingdom. The English home market for tourism has many caravanners in its ranks, and I remind the Assembly that over 43 million people live within four hours’ drive of the Lancashire ports, including many caravanners. That market is more readily accessible than expensive foreign markets in America and overseas. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) should target that home market far more, and the fact that it includes many caravanners emphasises the importance of putting in place a correct range of rights. Caravanning is undervalued in Northern Ireland and it is not assisted in any way by officialdom to fulfil its considerable potential. The Government should help to remedy that situation by compiling and maintaining reliable statistics on the size and value of the caravan holiday sector in Northern Ireland. NITB should actively market caravan holidays, include them in its inspection scheme for holiday accommodation and tourism awards and operate a grading system. The board should nominate a specific contact with responsibility for ensuring that the caravan holiday sector’s interests are properly considered and for adequately communicating with it. The Northern Ireland Tourist Industry Confederation (NITIC) should be reformed to act on behalf of all those with interests in tourism. At the earliest opportunity, the Government should reinstate a working group to prepare a new planning policy statement for tourism in Northern Ireland. It is not only right to extend the rights that apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom to caravanners here, it is economically sound because of the potential to benefit tourism. Specific actions are required to protect the rights of caravan owners under the law. In September 2005, the Office of Fair Trading published a paper titled ‘Guidance on Unfair Terms in Holiday Caravan Agreements’, in which it drew a distinction between responsible and less responsible caravan park owners. As only the former should be allowed to operate, the best way forward is to set up a watertight licensing scheme for caravan parks, which should be linked to the publication of the results of a customer satisfaction questionnaire. After all, caravans represent a substantial investment for their owners, and they have the right to expect a reasonable range of protection under the law. Therefore, I support fully the worthwhile motion. 2.00 pm Mr Cree: As many Members have said, this vexatious problem has been with us for a long time, whether it concerns mobile or static caravans or mobile homes. After various bodies had spent some 20 years campaigning on the matter, a code of practice was introduced throughout the United Kingdom in September 1999. That code was expected to provide the same level of consumer protection for caravanners here as had existed for those on the mainland. In 2002, the Consumer Council noted that caravanners in Northern Ireland still lacked basic rights and that, therefore, new legislation was needed. The code of practice that had been introduced was not sufficient to safeguard people’s rights and, in many cases, was not being honoured. In his contribution Mr Gardiner gave UK-wide statistics on the park-homes business. That is an important business that generates a great deal of revenue. There are at least 12,000 owners of static caravans, and that figure continues to grow. The Member of Parliament for North Down, Lady Hermon, asked the Secretary of State: “what plans he has to extend those parts of the Housing Act 2004 relating to park homes to Northern Ireland.” John Spellar replied: “I have no plans to extend the provisions as they make amendments to the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which does not cover Northern Ireland.” Therefore it remains the case that no specific legislation here safeguards consumer rights in the park-homes business. Since the 1960s, several pieces of legislation that were made for Great Britain have been extended through devolution to cover Scotland and Wales. It is time to address that important shortcoming and ensure that the British rights that cover other parts of the United Kingdom are applied to Northern Ireland. I support the call for new legislation so that caravanners in Northern Ireland can enjoy the same rights as others. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) Mr Shannon: I look forward to speaking to the motion on a matter that has exercised my mind and the minds of many Members. My colleague Alex Easton and I have met with some caravan owners, and we are aware of the issues that are important to them. The story, which should not be repeated anywhere in the Province, is one that most of us have heard. The average person is being taken advantage of and has no protection against those who seek gain for themselves at the expense of others. One such example is an elderly couple who are in retirement and who may decide to release their equity and sell their home. They may approach a park-home owner who tells them that if they buy a caravan, they can rent the land and the amenities for as long as they want it. No contract and no written agreement has been signed — just a gentleman’s simple agreement. That couple then sell their home and begin to reap the benefit of their life’s work, taking those holidays for which they could never find the time or money. They are also able to treat their family, and retirement looks like a happy prospect — on paper at least. In another case, a man may become ill and can no longer work. The mortgage payments loom heavily on his mind, and, instead of declaring bankruptcy and going to the Housing Executive for a house, he sells his home and buys a caravan with the intention of having a quiet life, paying an average of £1,000 a year in rent, with the result that he affordably retains his independence. Buying a caravan seems to be the better option for both couples, at least until the caravan park is sold and the new site owners have more than the current plan in mind for the park. The easiest way for the owners to realise their new plans is to force the tenants out by exploiting the fact that no written contract has been signed and there is no protective legislation. The site owners decide to say that their homes, the majority of which are less than four years old, are unfit to live in and must be replaced by more permanent homes that will cost in the region of £90,000. The residents are told that they should not worry and that if they cannot find the money to buy those homes, their own homes will be bought at a generous rate. Once more, the little people are pushed around to satisfy the whims of a big company. What redress do those people have? How can they challenge those injustices? In short, they cannot: they signed no contract or written agreement and have no enshrined rights. They have nothing, and the Government have given them no protection. Had they known in advance what would be required of them when they bought their homes, they would not have had to deal with that shock, and they would have had the option of laying out more money to build more permanent homes at a time when it was a lot cheaper to do so. Instead, they find that four years later their homes are redundant. Having no contract and no indication of the needs for and standards of caravans meant that they were left to wander in the dark, as it were. That is not the case in the mainland, where the Mobile Homes Act 1983 protects mobile-home owners.The Act ensures that, from the outset, set terms are in a written contract between the tenant and the owner. Express terms can be changed by agreement between the tenant and the owner or by either party’s applying to the civil courts or to arbitration. That contract therefore expresses any requirements for homes, meaning that questions and nasty surprises do not arise in future years. Should a home be unfit for use, the park owner cannot just enforce his opinion, but must engage an impartial arbitrator, who is not swayed by thoughts of how much more money could be received for a piece of land without that mobile home on it, as a businessman is inclined to think. That is the obvious route to take. In any other rental situation, there are terms and conditions. Yet, in the Province, there are no means of preventing advantage being taken of someone when his or her home and future might be at stake. There are 12,000 owners of static homes in Northern Ireland. Some are holiday homes and are not in residential parks; however, there is still no legislation to protect them — there are only guidelines. That is unacceptable. On 26 June 2006, my colleague from Strangford Mrs Robinson posed a question in Westminster about how many caravan parks had been opened in Northern Ireland in the previous three years. The Secretary of State was unable to answer. He was able to state only how many had been granted planning permission. Why was that? Was it because the Government took no interest in the rights of caravan or mobile-home owners — except to ensure that they paid their rates? In Ards alone, there were three planning applications for parks. However, what type of park — holiday or residential? The Government did not distinguish. In 2003, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Des Browne said: “The 1983 Act covers mobile homes in designated areas that are generally referred to as Park Homes, As this is a unique type of tenure and there are no such areas in Northern Ireland it would be inappropriate to introduce equivalent provisions.” The Assembly must take the steps that should have been taken in 2003, and offer protection to residents who are clearly in desperate need of it. Action should not be misinterpreted as an attack on park-home owners. Legislation would also offer them protection, and the recently formed Caravan and Camping Forum for Northern Ireland has discussed and agreed the need for an equivalent Act in Northern Ireland. I take pleasure in supporting the proposal. Mr Armstrong: As an Ulster Unionist, who is proud to live in this part of the United Kingdom, I fully agree that citizens in Northern Ireland should enjoy the same rights and protections as fellow citizens who live in Great Britain. Therefore, when Members of the Assembly can make a difference, I have no difficulty in supporting the motion. There are two separate issues. The first concerns people in residential caravan parks who are unhappy about the terms and conditions that are imposed on them by the owners of the parks. That was recently highlighted by the case of caravan park residents in the Ards Peninsula who took grave exception to the enforced upgrading of their homes. The second issue relates to the rights enjoyed by individuals who lease space from holiday caravan sites. That was highlighted in the last year, when Coleraine Borough Council sought to sell off some sites on the north coast, provoking opposition from those with holiday caravans on those sites. My understanding is that the legal framework that covers holiday caravan sites is the same as that which operates in Great Britain. Therefore, I propose to address my remarks to the situation as it relates to residential caravan parks. Park homes, otherwise called mobile homes, comply with the statutory definition of a caravan, and are built to BSI British Standards. However, in most cases, they look like bungalows and are located in parks where planning permission permits the residential use of caravans. Those parks can resemble small housing estates, and the majority of the homes on them are privately owned and occupied as the main residences of their owners. Mr Weir: Does the Member agree that an important factor in legislating for such matters as planning permission is that the rights of caravan owners are protected without placing an undue additional burden on them? Care must be taken with any Northern Ireland legislation to ensure that caravan owners are not penalised as well as protected. Mr Armstrong: I agree that those people must not be penalised. Park homes are especially popular with older people who wish to move to more suitable accommodation and to release equity. They are not only affordable, but offer compactness, security and a sense of community. Most residents own their park homes, which may cost from £15,000 to £300,000, and enter an agreement with park owners to keep their homes on plots of land, for which they pay fees of £1,000 a year on average. Security of tenure in Great Britain is provided by the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which implies certain important terms to the contractual relationship between park owners and park-home owners. Those terms include the right to situate the park home indefinitely, to sell or make a gift of it, the right to form residents’ associations, and provisions for the resolution of disputes. There can be no contracting out of those implied terms. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 should be extended to Northern Ireland to protect mobile-home owners here. The Northern Ireland branch of the British Holiday and Home Parks Association supports that course of action. Indeed, in April 2003, Lady Sylvia Hermon of the Ulster Unionist Party tabled a written question requesting such a course of action. The then direct rule Minister, Des Brown, replied that the 1983 Act covered mobile homes in designated areas that are generally referred to as park homes and said that: “As this is a unique type of tenure and there are no such areas in Northern Ireland it would be inappropriate to introduce equivalent provisions.” However, as recent events on the Ards Peninsula have proved, that is no longer the case. There are park homes on at least four sites in Northern Ireland. The people who live in those park homes are entitled to the same legal protection as their fellow citizens who live in the same type of accommodation in Great Britain. Therefore, I support the motion. The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): I congratulate the Members who secured the debate and I welcome the opportunity to set out my Department’s position. As it will become clear, responsibility for the issue cuts across several Departments and, therefore, I can only respond as far as my Department is concerned. I sympathise with the plight of mobile-home owners described by various Members. There is clear deficiency in Northern Ireland legislation, which leaves mobile-home owners unprotected and disadvantaged in comparison with their counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There are two main issues: the first relates to the definition of the word “caravan”, and the second relates to rights of tenure and inheritance. Mr Easton, when proposing the motion, referred to definitions of mobile homes and caravans as being the same elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, the definition of a caravan in the UK is not the same as that in the Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 1963, which is my Department’s responsibility. I will not go into all the details, but in Northern Ireland the dimensions of a caravan are not stipulated in the 1963 Act but are determined indirectly by reference to motor vehicle legislation relating to what may legally move from one place to another along a public road. The dimensions specified in that legislation are not in line with those in England, which were extended only last year specifically to embrace mobile homes. On 9 February 2004, the High Court in Northern Ireland, in the case “57 Developments v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland” said that a twin-unit caravan that does not exceed 6·1 metres in width is capable of being moved lawfully from one place to another on the public highway and, accordingly, is a caravan for the purposes of the 1963 Act. In that judicial review, Mr Justice Weatherup took the view that a caravan, for the purposes of the statutory definition, is a single structure designed or adapted for human habitation and which is capable of being moved lawfully on the public highway by towing or transportation as a single structure. Some twin-unit caravans — or park homes, as they are more frequently known — are capable of such mobility, and being less than 6·1 metres wide are capable of satisfying the relevant regulations. The implication is that the definition o |