the transitional Monday 8 January 2007 Private Members’ Business The Assembly met at 12 noon (Madam Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before the Assembly went into recess, you promised that you would make a statement about certain happenings that occurred in the House and their implications for the security of its Members. Can you tell the Assembly when you will make that statement? Will you do so today? Madam Speaker: Thank you, Dr Paisley, for your point of order. I will not make such a statement today. My officials have been seeking meetings with the relevant people. I am grateful for your communication with my officials on the issue. However, I understand that arrangements are being made for a meeting to discuss these issues. I will make a statement in the Chamber at the earliest opportunity. Private Members’ Business Madam Speaker: Before the debate starts, I want to inform Members that the Chief Whip of the Ulster Unionist Party has told me that there will be a smaller delegation than usual from that party at the debate because some of its members are attending a funeral. The Business Committee has agreed to allow two and a half hours for each of today’s debates. The proposer of each motion will be allocated 15 minutes to propose and a maximum of 15 minutes to make their winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have a maximum of 10 minutes. Mr Ford: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I notice that the Gallery is quite empty, even though I understand that a large number of visitors intend to listen to the debate. I wonder if there is a communication problem with those visitors. Madam Speaker: Mr Ford, I am sure that that matter will be dealt with. However, as the Member is probably aware, Members should not refer to visitors in the Gallery. Mr Ford: Or even the absence of people in the Gallery. Madam Speaker: Mr Ford, you have made your point, but do remember that, in future, the Gallery should not be mentioned on the Floor of the House. Mr Elliott: I beg to move That this Assembly deplores the over-bureaucratic administration within the Northern Ireland agricultural industry and calls on the government to implement legislation / regulations with less gold-plating, and to put in place a review of current legislation and regulations with a view to reducing any unnecessary bureaucratic burden; and further calls on the government to implement the initiatives set out in the Ulster Farmers’ Union document ‘Five Steps to a Better Future’. I declare an interest in the debate; I am a farmer in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I do not know whether it is absolutely necessary to declare that — it is sometimes more of a hindrance than a help. The motion seeks to address issues that have a direct impact not only on myself but on many thousands of farm businesses, large and small, across the Province. I trust that we can unite on the issue and that it will have widespread support from all parties and local politicians — that point came across during last week’s Business Committee meeting. A few years ago, shortly after I became actively involved in politics, I met a person in a street in Enniskillen who told me that I must be mad to be involved in two of the most unpredictable professions around — farming and politics. I will not go so far as to say which is the worst of the two professions. The success and profitability of the agricultural sector reverberates throughout rural communities and the entire Northern Ireland economy. Nobody can deny that agriculture has suffered greatly in recent times as a result of BSE, foot-and-mouth disease, increased competition and changes in customer preference. Moreover, every so often there is mention of the possibility of an outbreak of diseases such as bird flu and blue tongue. Farm incomes have taken a battering, and many farmers have chosen — or have been forced — to leave the industry or to supplement their meagre farm incomes with external employment. However, farmers are a very resilient breed. Many of them have stuck with the profession throughout the crises, which makes the prevalence of bureaucracy and form-filling all the more unbearable and undesirable. This is an area in which our own Government could take a stand and make a change. Instead, the rafts of complicated paperwork from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) and, increasingly, from the Department of the Environment (DOE), continue to plague businesses and stifle the changes that are necessary for survival in this highly competitive marketplace. Some people would have us believe that farmers always have something to complain about. However, make no mistake; excessive paperwork is driving many professionals to despair, and not only those in the farming industry — police officers, teachers and health professionals also have to spend increasing periods of time preparing reports and filling out questionnaires and forms of one description or another. That places a significant burden on them and on the taxpayer because such activity takes time, and time is money. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) continually flags up the cost to UK plc of ratcheting up the amount of bureaucracy in business, and it is constantly exasperated that its pleas go unheard. After today, we hope that those pleas will not only be heard, but that Government officials, Departments and Ministers will do something about the problem and not simply pay lip-service to it. They have the power to do something about it. At the most recent CBI conference, the Prime Minister, and, perhaps more importantly, the man who may succeed him, the Chancellor, both pledged yet again to cut red tape from business. Even more recently, Downing Street reiterated that promise. However, as we have seen in the past, those promises will not be honoured. We are well aware that that has been the case not only in the agricultural industry, but throughout politics in Northern Ireland. It is time that promises made to the people were honoured. The red tape in the agrifood sector has been very well highlighted by the Ulster Farmers’ Union campaign. It has run a high-profile and high-impact campaign calling upon the Government to cut it out. The campaign was one of five recommendations made by the Ulster Farmers’ Union to improve the industry under a devolved Northern Ireland Assembly. A day rarely goes by when a farmer does not contact someone in my constituency office, or me, complaining of problems that stem from excessive bureaucracy. The decoupling of farm subsidies and the changes to the integrated administration and control system (IACS) of farms has resulted in penalties amounting to some £2·3 million being imposed for unintentional errors. Indeed, many farmers have employed professional form-fillers, and even they have had trouble getting their heads around this bureaucracy and red tape. If they cannot do it, how can the ordinary farmer? Farmers want to get on and do what they do best — farm their land. They do not want to be tied up in bureaucracy, red tape and administrative work, which is alien to them. The effect of gold-plating, whereby a Government Department overzealously interprets and implements an EU directive, cannot be underestimated. This is a major contributory factor to the burden felt by farm businesses. I was in Sweden and Denmark in April of this year. They have the same EU regulations that we have in Northern Ireland, but they are implemented and interpreted differently by their Governments. All I am asking for is a practical, common-sense approach from this Government towards the implementation of EU regulations — nothing less. We always have to gold-plate it. We have to go to the top band of implementation while other countries in the EU implement to the least possible effectiveness. One classic example of this is the 30-day standstill rule for cattle. The piece of EU legislation at the root of this rule was interpreted completely differently by the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland from other regions of the European Union, where such a nonsensical rule does not exist. The disparity caused has resulted in cattle importers withdrawing from Northern Ireland at a time when the cattle industry is toiling, since the reopening of the beef export market just last year, to regain business that it had lost. However, this opportunity is being lost and hampered by our own Government regulations. Do not get me wrong. Standards exist and are needed to safeguard the welfare of animals and consumers, to afford environmental protection and, ultimately, to maintain the industry for years to come. The livestock industry in Northern Ireland has one of the highest levels of traceability in the world. Indeed, this is one of the major selling points to the public, who are becoming increasingly aware of the supply chain. This would not have been achieved if it were not for the well-kept herd records and documents that we already have in Northern Ireland. A certain degree of regulation is therefore absolutely essential. The UUP has no difficulty with that. The proposed new waste disposal regulations are another difficulty. Farmers will be asked to apply for exemption to dispose of such things as used fencing posts and hedge trimmings. If there is no improvement in the situation in which farmers are being asked to fill in a form just to ensure that they are adhering to the latest guidelines on waste, I agree with the Ulster Farmers’ Union that a boycott of these new rules may be the only option left to make the point until a more workable interpretation of the waste rules is introduced. Farmers do not want to opt out of this new initiative. They all accept the need to handle farm waste responsibly, but I cannot accept the approach taken by the DOE that has turned the whole process into a complicated system of exemptions and licences. That is not what farmers are about, and it is not what they want. The introduction and interpretation of the new waste regulations have produced many complications and too much bureaucracy. 12.15 pm The large number of farm inspections that are being carried out is another time-consuming and admin-istratively costly issue with which farmers must contend. They are obliged to undergo inspections of cattle identification, cross-compliance, field and farm, and issues that relate to health and safety. They must also comply with the Northern Ireland Farm Quality Assurance Scheme (NIFQAS) and have their animals tested for tuberculosis (TB) and brucellosis. Need I go on? The Province needs a single inspection regime. The benefit of such a single inspection team is that each inspector would be trained to cover all aspects of farm inspections, be those agricultural, environmental or related to health and safety. Therefore having a single on-farm inspection would be better than the current situation, in which different inspectorates perform five, six or seven inspections on some farms in one year. Introducing single on-farm inspections is an obvious solution to a problem that is draining public resources as well as farmers’ patience. The current system is another appalling example of the bureaucracy that Departments impose on farmers. I make no apology for continuing to refer to the unacceptable bureaucracy that is imposed on farmers in the Province. The excessive levels of unnecessary bureaucracy — which show little sign of abating — are unworkable. In many areas, the tipping point has been reached: the damage that is being done to the sector outweighs the benefits. Recently published Government statistics show that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development issued 18 business surveys last year, with an estimated cost to farm businesses of over £318,000. Only the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment issued more. That £318,000 is probably just the tip of the red-tape iceberg with which local farmers have to deal. I am sure that other Members will cover in more detail the various recommendations that the Ulster Farmers’ Union made. The recommendations that are contained in ‘Five Steps to a Better Future’ offer practical, common-sense initiatives to improve the industry. Although parties have their own policy interpretation of the recommendations, they represent an issue on which Members generally unite. The document does not contain gimmicks or buzzwords; it recommends sensible, doable changes that will effect improvements for farmers and the public. The recommended local-produce procurement initiative would champion local produce in the public sector. The clear labelling on beef of its country of origin is essential to give local beef farmers a helping hand and to bring them back into a successful export market. If consumers can see the source of the beef that they buy and know where the farmers whom they support come from, they may give more backing to local producers. Climate change is a topic that is on everybody’s lips. Local farmers should be in a prime position to help the nation meet its targets for green-energy production while finding a much-needed extra stream of income. The Ulster Farmers’ Union proposal to promote the use of locally produced renewable energy in public buildings is an example of how the Government could put their money where their mouth is. That would set a good example to householders and help local farmers and growers. Unnecessary layers of bureaucracy must be pared away to reduce impediments to business and, putting it bluntly, to save money. The Secretary of State’s about-turn on the future of the Northern Ireland Agricultural Wages Board (NIAWB) does not sit well with his party’s pledge to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. When that quango was established, it performed the essential task of safeguarding farm workers’ rights to a fair wage. It also offered a benchmark for farm owners and managers. However, it is no longer required, and the Government must carry out their original pledge. I hope that Members will agree to the motion. I could talk for hours on this subject, but I will not — I am sure that all Members will be pleased to hear that. I want to see the Government, through DARD and the DOE, introduce a practical, workable approach. Rather than imposing unnecessary and unreasonable bureaucracy and red tape, those Departments should be available to assist farmers through these difficult times. Mr Clyde: As I have been involved in agriculture all my life, I too should declare an interest. Agriculture was the largest industry in Northern Ireland, before the outbreak of BSE. That was followed by foot-and-mouth disease, with its restrictions on the movement of cattle. The combination of those two diseases resulted in the end of the export of beef and live animals. Following BSE and foot-and-mouth disease, DARD imposed so many restrictions that many farmers decided to reduce their farming interests or to retire altogether. Currently, only 25% of Northern Ireland farmers work full time on their farms. The massive drop in profits means that more than 50% of farmers are over 55 years old, as few young farmers see a future in working on the family farm. Twenty years ago, agriculture was the biggest employer; today, it is in real decline. Much of that is due to bureaucracy imposed by DARD, of which I shall give some examples. In the Republic of Ireland, the CAP IACS form consists of two sides of A4 paper; in Northern Ireland, it is eight pages. One unintentional error on that form can result in farmers losing tens of thousands of pounds. That is wrong. There are 19 statutory management requirements to be adhered to for CAP inspections, as well as good agricultural and environment conditions. Under the current system, eight different inspectors from DOE and DARD can visit one farmer over a matter of days. There is an issue with the severity of CAP inspections. DARD appears to have a policy to look for faults during cross-compliance inspections. In 2005, £2·3 million was taken away from farmers as a result of errors and breaches. The comparable figure in the Republic of Ireland was £229,000. In the first year of the single farm payment scheme, a large number of farmers lost out due to unintentional errors in respect of duplicate fields. Duplication may occur — for example, when a farmer includes land that he uses as conacre on his IACS form that the owner of the land also includes. The Department should return those forms, indicate the mistakes, and allow farmers 30 days to correct them. It seems that DARD has a “can’t-do” instead of a “can-do” attitude. I turn to the issue of waste management. Approx-imately 28,000 farms are large enough to have at least one employee. Each farm business must register separately to secure an exemption to handle certain farm wastes, such as the storage of second-hand wire and paling posts, the burning of hedge cuttings and the movement of stones and soil. To gain exemptions to handle those farm wastes, a number of forms must be completed. I suggest two possible solutions: first, wherever possible, farms should automatically be exempt from regulations; secondly, farmers should receive an exemption by ticking a box on their IACS form. Farmers work a long day every day, usually from 6.00 am to 6.00 pm and beyond. At the end of their working day, they have paperwork to complete in the evening. It is therefore easy to make mistakes when filling in forms. Often, those mistakes result in the farmer being penalised by the Department. On the other hand, civil servants in DARD can also make mistakes — are they penalised? I do not think so. Mistakes are blamed on computers or, on some occasions, the farmer. It seems that the Department will use any excuse to hold up the single farm payment. In my constituency of South Antrim, a water pipeline is being laid from Lough Neagh to Belfast. A farmer informed me that he must write to the Department to explain what he will do with the land when work on the pipeline is complete before he can receive the single farm payment. There are other conditions imposed by DARD. One is a six-day standstill rule for a farmer who sells stock. If he buys an animal and brings it to his farm, he cannot sell any stock for six days. If the farmer takes an animal to market, does not sell it and brings it back to his farm, the same six-day standstill period applies. DARD also imposes a 30-day standstill on the movement of animals bought at market for export to other EU countries, and that puts buyers off. The imposition of a brucellosis test in the 30 days before animals can be sold results in additional cost to farmers. The EU directive on nitrates restricts farmers from spreading slurry for several months. Given the change in climate, I suggest that such a restriction should apply only in December and January. Those are some reasons why I support the ‘Five Steps to a Better Future’, as advocated by the UFU, and I support the motion. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht seo inniu. I welcome the debate because my party and I feel strongly that the rural way of life is under severe threat. Moreover, there is a lack of understanding and a dividing or fault line in Irish society between the city slickers and the rural communities. In County Mayo, there were townies and buffs — anyone who lived outside the town was called a buff. Other derogatory terms such as redneck and, famously, culchie are often used to describe people from rural communities. I am originally from County Mayo in the west of Ireland, and some people may say that I should have stayed there. Some Members: Hear, hear. [Laughter.] Ms Ruane: However, here I am — for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer. I have a strong sense of the land and agriculture and the role that they play in our society. I am aware that many farmers often endure a lack of respect but, ultimately, whether here in Ireland or in any country in the world, they put the food on our tables. My father had a great grá, or love, for the land. He was a part-time farmer from peasant stock — and I use the word “peasant” proudly — during some of the worst times for farmers in Ireland. The centenary of the death of a famous Irishman, and one of my heroes, Michael Davitt, who fought for the rights of small farmers is being celebrated. As children, we learned about his three demands — they were a bit like those of the UFU today, but differ to an extent because times have moved on. In Michael Davitt’s time, however, there was land-lordism in Ireland and he demanded free sale, fixity of tenure and fair rent. Therefore, Sinn Féin continues a long tradition of fighting for the small farmer. Michael Davitt was also a Fenian in the best, or true, sense of the word and not in the derogatory way in which it is sometimes used. Cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht seo. Mrs D Kelly: As the Member has quoted Michael Davitt, will she agree that in latter years he denounced violence and progressed the cause of the peasant farmer, and indeed many people living in poverty, not only throughout the island of Ireland but throughout Britain? Ms Ruane: That is a debate for another day. Michael Davitt is my hero and a proud Fenian. To do justice to the debate today, I will not be deviated from it by Dolores or anyone else. I pay sincere tribute to the farmers’ unions and stress the need for continued partnership with them, and Sinn Féin looks forward to continuing that work. I join my party colleagues Michelle Gildernew and Francie in urging Members to support the motion that rightly recognises the considerable difficulties faced by farmers who are being increasingly burdened by overly bureaucratic and complicated procedures and legislation. There is general agreement between Sinn Féin and the farmers’ unions — the UFU and NIAPA (The Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association) — on the difficulties facing the industry. Not least of those difficulties is the fundamental problem of red tape in DARD and the practice of gold-plating EU regulations to the detriment of farmers, their families and rural communities in general. When the Sinn Féin Assembly team met with representatives of the farmers on several occasions to discuss the key issues facing the industry, the importance of tackling the red tape in DARD and of establishing a Programme for Government for an incoming Executive of locally accountable Ministers was top of the agenda. The contrast between DARD’s approach and that adopted in Dublin could not be more stark. Indeed, that was highlighted by the DUP MEP Jim Allister, no less. A comparison of the two approaches illustrates why all-Ireland co-operation is needed on the real and practical issues that impact on rural communities across the country, and the Six Counties in particular. 12.30 pm The response shown through the farmers’ charter is a case in point. The zero-tolerance approach of DARD is hurting farmers who are penalised when they make even the slightest error in completing copious unwieldy and overly complicated application forms. Many farmers whom I have spoken to have told me that so much time is spent filling in forms that it impacts on their ability to work the land. In the South, the charter of rights for farmers for 2005-07 stressed the need for user-friendly farms and maximum consultation. We need the same provision in the North of Ireland, and Sinn Féin joins others in calling for a similar charter. Indeed, an all-Ireland approach to farming is essential. The failure of DARD to be a champion for farmers highlights why it is so important to have in place a fully functioning, power-sharing Executive and North/South Ministerial Council. For the past two years, my party has organised a number of public meetings with farmers throughout my constituency of South Down, where we have focused on key issues such as the proposed Mourne national park, the impact of EU directives and the more recent planning directives. I have no doubt that the problems that are besetting rural communities are being further compounded by a growing level of frustration at the amount of red tape that farmers are facing every time that they are faced with filling in a form. The current situation is indicative of a system that is, quite simply, failing farming communities. We have reached a point where farmers are being unfairly penalised because of the bureaucratic hoops through which they are expected jump every time that they apply for a basic entitlement. The Ulster Farmers’ Union’s policy document, ‘Five Steps to a Better Future’, puts forward a number of workable and extremely practical measures that, if implemented, would go some way to addressing the excessive amount of red tape. Sinn Féin agrees that an independent review of the cost, volume and often unnecessary nature of farm bureaucracy must be a priority for an Assembly when one is reconvened. Other practical steps that could be taken include compulsory beef-labelling in the food sector, showing the country of origin of beef in restaurants. That relatively simple measure would be an excellent way of promoting the North’s agricultural produce. Compulsory beef-labelling in the food service sector has been implemented in the South of Ireland and is an effective and relatively simple marketing tool. My party supports the removal of the Agricultural Wages Board (AWB) because, with the introduction of the minimum wage in 1999, the AWB has become yet another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. Furthermore, we want investment in the farming industry to allow farm businesses to be handed over to younger family members. We also advocate the introduction of a farmers’ retirement scheme. We welcome the UFU’s focus on renewable energy opportunities — that is far-sighted and is the way to go. Planning policies need to be in sympathy with local people while also securing the future of our rural landscapes for the next generation. We are debating these issues in the Transitional Assembly, but it has no power. We still have direct-rule Ministers. We call on the DUP to join the rest of us in getting the Assembly and the all-Ireland institutions up and running. That is what farmers — on every corner of this island — need. We need to work closely with the South of Ireland at all levels so that we can become champions for our farmers and help to build a dynamic, confident and vibrant industry. Now is a time of tremendous opportunity; marketing should be done on an all-island basis, using our clean, green island trademark — oileán glan glas. More people are aware of the importance of organic food, and we need to support farmers who are developing that. My father was a learned man who, like many people in the farming community, was interested in education. However, he also had a real grá, or love, for the land. We had a few acres of land; we would cut turf every year. We had cattle and a little vegetable garden that the rabbits and cows used to break in to — they ate more vegetables than we ever did. However, my abiding image of my father was that he would come in from work, put on his anorak and boots to go and find Daisy, our cow. On the way out, thinking that she did not see it, he would rob my mother of a little piece of her brown bread. Daisy would come running up to him. If we are to support farmers of the present generation, we need to take seriously the issues raised by both farming unions. “Culchie” is a derogatory term often used to describe people from rural areas — I do not know whether it is used in the North of Ireland, but it is in the West. It is derived from the name of the town Coillte Mach. It is a small, one-street town — well, it probably has three streets now. Every year the people of the town held a “culchie-come-home week” festival. The word “coillte” means “the woods outside” in Irish. I am proud to be a culchie. Go raibh maith agat. Mr P J Bradley: I do not exactly have an interest to declare, but I too was brought up on a small farm. I was lucky; I grew up on a farm to which no bills ever came. We did not have plenty of money, but neither had we a car, nor electricity, nor a telephone. That was a different era; time has moved on. [Interruption.] My colleague has suggested that we did not have to pay for anything, but we did. [Laughter.] I thank Tom Elliott for agreeing to sponsor the motion with me, and I also thank the members of the Business Committee. All five political parties were involved in the meeting on 3 January 2007 where it was agreed that the motion would be debated today. That itself sends a message on behalf of farmers and rural communities to whoever might be listening that, in the Assembly, there is unity on the need to address the plight of farmers. The motion is a twofold exercise. It demonstrates to the farming community that all parties represented in the Chamber are fully committed to supporting the industry — to the best of our current ability — in whatever way we can. It is also an opportunity to give proper recognition to the excellent and ongoing work by the UFU on behalf of its members and the industry. The motion was prompted by the recent launch of the UFU’s early initiatives programme, ‘Five Steps to a Better Future’. I thank the UFU for its willingness to share its research and findings with the SDLP during a visit to Parliament Buildings, and with all the parties at its Antrim Road headquarters in December. I have no wish to be presumptuous, but I believe — and I have heard it already — that my appreciation will be echoed during the course of the debate. I also pay tribute to the consultants involved on their professional input to that presentation. When — or should I say, if and when — the Assembly gets up and running once more, our new Ministers could do worse than be assisted by that publication, which was prepared by professionals during what has been a period of limited care and attention by direct-rule Ministers since October 2002. Any incoming Minister of Agriculture will welcome the fact that priorities for attention are listed, as he or she goes about planning the future survival of all farming. He or she will be further encouraged that the priorities were endorsed in January 2007 in this Transitional Assembly. We also have the report of the vision group, as initiated by my former colleague and Minister Bríd Rodgers. That will also be of great benefit to any incoming Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. Mr Elliott dealt efficiently with the demands that bureaucracy continues to make on family farms. It is wrong and unacceptable that farmers should have to split their working activities on a 50:50 basis between manual work outside the home and reading EU, UK and DARD documentation, filling forms, keeping records and contending with the proliferation of inspectors who have virtually taken up residence on some of the larger farms. It was pleasing to learn in December that proposals driven by farm commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel are eventually being taken forward in Europe to streamline EU market rules for agricultural products. Press release IP/06/1824 states that the aim is to establish a single common market organisation for all farm products to replace the 21 existing organisations. That is part of the Commission’s better regulation agenda to cut red tape. The press release went on to advise that the proposed Common Market Organisation (CMO) would allow the repeal of more than 40 Council Acts and replace over 600 legal articles with fewer than 200. The Department of Agriculture should monitor the progress of the proposed EU changes, and as soon as they are introduced the Department must embark on its own programme and make changes to reflect the EU reduction in bureaucracy. There is no doubt that the 21 organisations, the 40 Council Acts and the 600 legal articles that are referred to — and currently apply — do make imple-mentation demands on the Department. However, when the proposed changes are made in Brussels, there will have to be visible evidence of pro rata changes in DARD. Most interested Members of the Assembly have seen the ‘Five Steps to a Better Future’ document. I wish to devote the remainder of my speech to dealing with the subject of public procurement, and my colleagues Dolores Kelly, Tommy Gallagher, and Patsy McGlone will deal respectively with the different sections of the publication. I welcome the fact that the importance of public procurement is one of the five iniatives highlighted in the publication. That section is directed primarily at the current and, hopefully, at the next, home-based, Minister of Finance and Personnel. It deals with public procurement and highlights how a firmed-up policy on public procurement could enhance the production and use of locally produced farm supplies. The proposed initiative refers to Government procurement in England through the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative (PSFPI) that applies there. PSFPI legally binds all national and regional authorities in England to increase tenders for small and local producers. The legislation has, among its objectives, the aim of increasing the capacity of small suppliers to meet demand. Each Minister, all Departments and every member of the Northern Ireland Procurement Board should become fully versed on the detail of the points referred to in step two of the document, which deals with public purchasing. Given that a Government policy on food procurement has been operative in England for almost four years, I believe that it is not too much to ask any incoming Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Northern Ireland Procurement Board to recognise the benefits to the local economy, rural communities and farmers if the legislation contained in PSFPI were to be introduced in Northern Ireland. The last telephone call that I took before coming into the Chamber was from a farmer who knew that this debate on red tape was taking place. He is involved in the potato sector and is still waiting for a winter-aid payment, yet farmers in all the other sectors have been paid. Because of red tape, he is still waiting for that money to come through. As Members speak, there are farmers who have been waiting for payments for a couple of years — they are still not receiving them. I am pleased to jointly move the motion. I sincerely hope that those in a position of responsibility will pay immediate heed to the comments made, in the Chamber today and that they will commence the work required to assist in reinstating the viability of family farms and the rural economy. After all, agriculture is the leading industry in Northern Ireland, and it is the duty of Members to keep it that way. We do not have the ultimate powers; however, those who are currently in power and those who will come into power should do what they can to protect the industry. Mr Ford: I welcome the opportunity for the Assembly to debate this topic and thank Mr Elliott and Mr Bradley for introducing the motion. I start by declaring my second-hand interest — as my entry in the register of Members’ interests shows, my wife has an interest in matters agricultural, and I do declare that I got my wellies dirty before I came here this morning. I wish to look at one particular aspect of the way in which bureaucracy has operated and at one of the few successes that the former Assembly could record. Back in the early part of 2002 the Committee for the Environment had to consider slurry and silage effluent storage regulations. Madam Speaker, I trust that I have not offended your sensibilities by referring to them. When the DOE sent civil servants to that Committee — and I am sure the Minister at the time will recall exactly how his officers carried out their functions — it was clear that there was no understanding of the needs of Northern Ireland’s farmers. All that the DOE did was to change a few words here and there in the regulations that had been introduced in England and Wales some years earlier to make them fit for Northern Ireland — then it imposed them on us. I remember meetings at which members of the Committee for the Environment tried to question officials to find out what was what. I have no doubt that the Committee Chairperson, the Member for Mid Ulster Dr McCrea, has memories of the fight that he and I had with officials on that occasion. 12.45 pm The attitude of the DOE civil servants was that they knew what they wanted to do, and they did not care what anyone else thought. That led to huge problems in trying to persuade people about the realities of farming. For example, the DOE civil servants argued that in the year in which the regulations were introduced in England and Wales, pollution incidents were cut by 50%. I asked the officials whether they could explain how such an amazing change could happen, and also for the rainfall statistics for the two years in question, since most people know that problems with silage effluent are closely related to rainfall. However, they did not have any rainfall statistics. Since they were quoting statistics for overall pollution incidents, I asked whether they could give me a 10-year trend rather than just taking two random years, which might have illustrated how successful the regulations had been. The civil servants did not have those figures either. I then asked the officials whether they were aware that farmers in England and Wales were able to get capital grants to install slurry stores and silage effluent run-offs at the time that the regulations were introduced there and which did not exist in Northern Ireland five years ago. They did not even know that grants were available at the time. However, they expected Northern Ireland farmers, at a time of huge financial difficulty, to fund the additional required storage. It was only through pressure being put on the DOE civil servants by the Committee for the Environment, coupled with lobbying by the Ulster Farmers’ Union and others, that there was any change in the way in which those regulations were applied. When some capital funding was obtained — inadequate though it was — DARD went ahead and gold-plated the storage requirements so that all the extra funding that was given for capital grants was used up on that gold-plating. The two Departments responsible were totally inadequate in their understanding of the needs of the farmers for whom they sought to legislate. DARD officials should take back responsibility for reflecting back to other Departments the needs of the agriculture industry and working farmers. They should not always assume that their job is to impose the wishes of other Departments on farmers, when those Departments have simply lifted regulations as they have been applied across the water but which do not apply in Northern Ireland. Sadly, that is one example of the many things that DARD officials have failed to do in liaising with other Departments. The key requirement of the Ulster Farmers’ Union’s five-point plan — the need for DARD to start to review its red tape — is absolutely correct. Until DARD examines what is necessary, appropriate and reasonable, we will not move forward. P J Bradley referred to the issue of public procure-ment, and that is another area in which Northern Ireland has failed to make any of the changes that have been made in the Republic or across the water. Government spokesmen talk about the need to cut down on transport. The issue of food miles has suddenly become a major issue in the UK; however, in Northern Ireland, the response from DARD is doing nothing to encourage a reduction in food miles, which would benefit the environment by cutting down on unnecessary transport and assist agriculture and food processing, which remain, despite all the recent changes, vital sectors of our economy. Those industries would have a future if DARD would only give them the support that they need. Notwithstanding the issue of procurement, the Government have completely failed to act on the issue of energy. The Government recently produced a £59 million renewable energy fund, which, among other things, gives grants to individuals for micro-generation on their own houses. However, at the same time, the challenge fund that helped some farmers to develop biomass businesses with willow and miscanthus has ended. What worse example could there be of a lack of joined-up government when the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) is funding a set of grants for renewable energy while, at the same time, DARD is stopping funding for the production of the materials that produce renewable energy? NIO Ministers have completely failed to take account of initiatives that are joined up, match one another, or have any real opportunity to give farmers the long-term security of income that they need and require — it has been about initiatives that look well. DARD is not the worst Department when it comes to looking at the issues, although there may be people who believe that it is. In the previous Assembly, I was a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee for the Environment, and DARD civil servants had a greater understanding of what needed to be done. However, at times there was an inability to reflect that understanding elsewhere, and DARD was unable to look at the overall needs of the industry with civil servants from other Departments. Until there is some form of joined-up government in which OFMDFM works with DARD, DOE and DETI on issues such an energy and public procurement, there will be no prospect of giving farmers — on whom much of our economy, and all our rural economy, depends — the income and security they need. That will only happen when we have a working Assembly. Today’s debate should reinforce the need for the Government and those parties that have the opportunity to put structures in place to do so now so that our farmers and everyone else will benefit. Dr McCrea: Agriculture remains Northern Ireland’s primary industry, and yet the unacceptable amount of red tape imposed on it is crippling and threatens the future of those employed in the industry. It also threatens rural life in Northern Ireland. Recently, I had the opportunity of raising the issue of Northern Ireland agriculture in a debate in the Great Hall in Westminster. I pointed out that agriculture is three times more important to the Northern Ireland economy than it is to the UK economy as a whole. Through such debates, and today’s debate, I trust that someone in Government will wake up to the serious threat facing the industry and take the action necessary to remove some of the impediments that stand in the way of progress. There are more than 27,000 farms in Northern Ireland, half of which are large enough to have at least one full-time employee. Similar to other regions of the UK, there have been great changes to the agricultural sector here, resulting in many farms merging with others and becoming larger. That reconstruction has resulted in the number of farms falling by approximately 1% to 2% per annum. Fewer young people are entering the industry and older farmers are leaving — we are seeing a haemorrhage in the farming industry. I understand why so many young people fail to enter the industry. They cannot enter an industry if there will not be a viable wage at the end of their labours — and the tragedy is that there is not a viable wage. There is a great hoo-ha when we hear that farm incomes have increased by 10% due to something that has happened in the previous year, but 10% of little is still little. We must realise that the agricultural industry is facing a crisis. Departments — not only DARD — have an interest in this debate, and issues must be faced and grappled with. Everything humanly possible must be done to save the industry. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) It is noteworthy that farmers on large holdings have a younger age profile than those on smaller holdings. Therefore it is vital that farmers are given the help and assistance necessary to survive. I fear that the agrifood sector, Northern Ireland’s largest employer, will be unsustainable without larger holdings having a secure and viable long-term future. Northern Ireland farmers supply the Province’s main food-processing companies. Furthermore, a large volume of milk is exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland for processing. The Northern Ireland food industry has a gross annual turnover of more than £2 billion, which accounts for approximately 21% of the total turnover of our manufacturing sector. The two largest sub-sectors of the food industry — milk and milk products, and beef and sheep meat — account for almost 50% of that industry’s turnover. That reflects the importance of those commodities for Northern Ireland’s primary production. My colleagues and I again recently met an Ulster Farmers’ Union team, which was led by its president, Mr Kenneth Sharkey. We discussed the union’s ‘Cut it Out’ campaign, which calls for more farm work and less paperwork. I thank the union for its active leadership in the fight to preserve Northern Ireland’s farming industry. I assure the union and the industry that the Democratic Unionist Party will resolve to support their efforts, and that we will use our team at Westminster to constantly press the Government to act in the interests of the farming community. Similarly, our MEP, Mr Jim Allister, has used his skills to great effect in the European Parliament on the matter, and he will continue to do so. The Assembly informs the Departments of its disgust at some of the gold-plating for which they are responsible and its disgust at the regulations that are being forced on the farming community. Although other regions of the United Kingdom can focus on local supply, such as farm markets, and on niche markets, such as organic produce and traditional breeds, that is not an option for Northern Ireland farmers because they rely on exporting 70% of their produce outside the UK. The Government can do more, and they could display a better understanding of the crisis that the industry faces. For example, the high number of farm inspections was mentioned earlier. There is duplication of inspections, which may originate from DARD, DOE, and the farm quality assurance scheme, etc. That duplication means not only a duplication of costs; if one wants to bring disease to farms, a good way to do so is to have inspector after inspector visiting and moving around. That threatens the security of the disease-free status that the Northern Ireland farming community has enjoyed and has sought to protect. Instead of having a plethora of officials who inspect one farm after the other, filling in their own forms and keeping themselves in a job, we must seek practical solutions. More is spent on officialdom in Departments than on trying to keep the farming industry alive. We must ensure that the issues are tackled practically and cohesively. The DOE seems to hold a different opinion than DARD. I concur with the Member for South Antrim Mr Ford, who said that there seems to be a lack of cohesive thinking in the Departments. I recall a meeting that our party held with the DOE and DARD. When they were together, it seemed that, although DARD took the lead, the DOE tail was wagging the dog. It seemed as though the DOE was the unmovable object and wanted to gold-plate legislation. I can understand why we have gold-plating, but it must be applied across the whole of Europe. I am sickened that regulations are being forced down the throats of farmers in Northern Ireland, while in the Irish Republic or other parts of Europe, it seems that anything will do. There is no level playing field, and we demand that there be one. I remember the crisis in the pig industry in Northern Ireland, and I recall meetings that took place at that time with Lord Dubs. Before that crisis, the Depart-ment told farmers that if they gained a quality-assured certificate, they would be on the pig’s back and that everyone would want their produce. In reality, instead of being on the pig’s back, they were under its belly. The Department placed so many regulations on the farming community that it put it into the pig’s manure. It is time for realism in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. There has to be joined-up government to ensure that we save this vital industry for rural Northern Ireland. I believe that it produces the best produce in the world. We should be backing the industry to the hilt. 1.00 pm Food produced in Northern Ireland should be labelled so that people know that they are getting the best possible quality — instead of food from another part of the world getting a Northern Ireland label just because it is processed here. We must ensure that there is honesty and integrity in the industry. Elected representatives and the Assembly must stand 100% behind the farming community, which forms the backbone of Ulster industry — in fact it is our primary industry. We have a duty to give that community our wholehearted support. Mr Kennedy: It is always a pleasure to speak after Dr McCrea. He is a hard act to follow, and I congratulate him again on another fine speech. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate, and I thank my colleague Tom Elliott and Assemblyman P J Bradley for bringing this important issue to the attention of the Assembly. A high degree of public interest has been created today. Agriculture remains one of the largest employers in Northern Ireland, and it is one of the key industries — if not the key industry. It is certainly a key industry in my constituency of Newry and Armagh. I join with others in paying tribute to the UFU. For many years, the UFU has provided its members with good, steady, consistent leadership, and its administrative department has produced excellent briefing papers and documents that are an important asset to public representatives. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party I welcome the ‘Five Steps to a Better Future’ initiative, which was launched by the UFU in November 2006. The first step in that initiative is to reduce bureaucracy in agriculture, which has led to the new ‘Cut It Out’ campaign. There is too much red tape in the agriculture industry affecting the day-to-day work of farmers. I can confirm — as will other Members — that it is causing unnecessary stress and worry, leading in some cases to serious medical conditions and suicide. Farmers are finding themselves in difficult situations, and the quicker that the Government realise that they are adding to the pressure on farmers — in many ways, they are inflicting it — the quicker they will realise that they need to do something about it. The general view expressed by Members from all parties in the House is that there is too much red tape, not only from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, but from associated Government agencies and, in particular, the European Union. Earlier, it was mentioned that Government agencies have commissioned 18 business surveys into local farms, costing approximately £318,000. However, the cost to genuine farmers was £2·3 million in penalties. Therefore, we must ask what manner and level of madness are DARD and Government agencies permitting when an industry — in particular, the agriculture industry — has to employ professional form-fillers? Mr Hussey: It is my understanding that the ratio of DARD civil servants to farmers is between 1:7 and 1:8. Is there a degree of self-protectionism from the Department in that it must generate red tape in order, at times, to justify its existence? Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his well-made and relevant point. Northern Ireland’s farmers and agriculture industry need and want a locally devolved Administration at Stormont as quickly as possible. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I hope that that is achieved as quickly as possible. Direct rule Ministers have been either incompetent or not sufficiently interested in Northern Ireland’s agriculture industry. Therefore, they have not represented the industry properly and have not dealt with its problems. In addition, since 1997, the Labour Administration has been largely unsympathetic to the United Kingdom’s rural communities. I have no doubt that a devolved Assembly would be more responsive to the needs of the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland. It might not solve all the industry’s problems and would not be — and could not be — a panacea for all its ills. Mr Simpson: Does the Member agree that red tape is a problem in the farming community? For example, one of the major obstacles faced by farmers is that when they consider re-diversification, they are met by the bureaucracy of the Planning Service. Mr Kennedy: I very much share the Member’s concern about that. I make the point that not only will dealing with the problem of red tape be a priority for the Minister of Agriculture in a newly devolved Administration, it will be the Executive’s priority to create the conditions for joined-up government, which, hitherto, have not existed. If the agriculture industry is to find its way through many of the problems that it faces, such conditions must exist. I have no doubt that an Executive and working Assembly would make a significant contribution to renewing confidence in the agriculture industry. I welcome this debate. Mr O’Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. However, it highlights the weaknesses of the business conducted in the Chamber for the past number of weeks. The motion: “calls on the Government to implement legislation/regulations with less gold-plating”. The fact is that the elected representatives in this Chamber should be the Government. Unfortunately, we have spent the past hour outlining the agriculture industry’s problems. The agriculture industry knows what its problems are. It needs solutions to those problems from an effective local Administration that can help to resolve them. The EU is responsible for much red tape. However, it is down to civil servants to interpret that red tape. We have seen examples of how other EU nations interpret red tape. Indeed, we need only look to the Government of the Twenty-six Counties. Indeed, many farmers who are in the Public Gallery or are watching this debate on television have farms that straddle the border. On one side of the border, DARD implements a ridiculous amount of red tape, and, on the other side of the border, an Administration operates a policy that is pro-farming and pro-agriculture. A local Administration could greatly improve the situation for the agriculture industry. We cannot solve all its problems, but one hour’s debate — or one, two or three days’ debate — will certainly not solve those problems. We were elected to make decisions and to implement legislation and policy; that is what we should be doing. Would it not be more effective for Assembly Members to debate this motion at an all-Ireland ministerial council meeting than in this Chamber? Would it not be more effective to lobby the European Union with a single voice? It has already been stated that the agriculture industry does not have the same impact on the UK economy as it does on the economy of the island of Ireland. Agriculture does not have a voice in the British Government, but an all-Ireland ministerial council could be a single voice for agriculture that could not be ignored. I am my party’s health spokesperson, and Members may wonder why I am speaking to a motion on agriculture. The basic tenet of a healthy society is the food that it consumes. Our locally produced and manufactured food is undoubtedly the best in the world, and over the years it has been proven that food from local farms is second to none. That is why we need an agriculture industry. We must ensure that our food is produced locally and is not shipped some 1,000 miles from various places around the world to the plates, diners, restaurants and schools meals kitchens of Ireland. The longer that food travels and is stored, the less healthy and nutritious it is. The rural community is under attack from various quarters. There is Draft Policy Planning Statement 14 (PPS 14), proposals to close some rural post offices — which we will debate later today — health planning and threats to our rural schools. All those attacks are detrimental to the agriculture industry and rural communities and should be resisted by a local Executive, not an Assembly debating shop. After today’s debate, a single voice will emerge from the Assembly. Unfortunately, DARD is not packing its computers into removal vans and pulling out of DARD offices. Tomorrow morning, DARD officials will implement the same policies that they implemented today, and the agriculture industry will face exactly the same problems. All we can do is debate. It is clear, a LeasCheann Comhairle, that we are in danger of producing more methane than the entire agriculture industry. Go raibh maith agat. Mrs D Kelly: Several Members have highlighted overly bureaucratic administration in the agriculture industry, and I support those views. My contribution on behalf of the SDLP will be to call for the imple-mentation of the Ulster Farmers’ Union initiative for origin labelling of beef in the food sector industry. Throughout 2006, the Ulster Farmers’ Union was in correspondence with DARD, the self-proclaimed rural champion, but to no avail. It is clear from the correspondence that not only was there an attempt to kick this issue into the long grass but, in typical Civil Service-style manoeuvres, to pass responsibility to an agency — in this case, the Food Standards Agency Northern Ireland. That ploy got short shrift, but the anomaly still exists in Northern Ireland of food-labelling regulations for beef applying to retail products but not to beef destined for the food service sector. The food service sector is growing rapidly in Northern Ireland and, in 2005, was estimated to be worth £1·6 billion, representing a growing market opportunity for local producers. 1.15 pm In recent days, we have heard commentators, including celebrity chefs — I do not know if my colleague from Upper Bann is one of those or not, but I do know that he has such a background — speaking about food miles as being a deciding factor when meat, chicken, fruit and vegetables are being purchased. More people are becoming increasingly discerning about the food they buy: we know that from the way major retailers have advertised Northern Ireland produce so enthusiastically. The measure was introduced in response to customer demands to be able to buy local products. Why should customers of the food service sector — restaurants, pubs and other catering outlets — not have the same choice? DARD quotes European legislation as its guide and states that costs are prohibitive — not something that seems applicable when determining whether to hire consultants to advise on policy matters. DARD has even asked the UFU whether the industry could meet the potential increase in demand if such an initiative were to be introduced. Therefore, DARD is not contemplating that such a demand is possible, and, if one does materialise, DARD is wondering whether it can be met. Is DARD a rural champion or defeatist? I assure Members that the farming community will rise to the challenge gladly. After all, farmers are not afraid of hard work or long hours. Consumers too will meet the challenge gladly. They have already indicated their desire to have “labelling of origin” introduced. Consumer research conducted by the UFU in the ‘The Irish News’ and the ‘News Letter’ in 2004 showed that 96% of consumers would like to have the option of having dishes prepared with local produce in local restaurants; 99% want local produce to be labelled on restaurant menus; 97% would support a restaurant that voluntarily promoted local produce and low food miles; and 100% of respondents want to see more restaurants providing local produce. Further research by Periscope and the Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) also shows a growing interest among Northern Ireland consumers in purchasing local produce. DARD should show some leadership, even at this stage, by introducing a voluntary scheme. I know that that would be welcomed by the UFU. During the debate, we have heard examples of good practice and proactive measures by the Government in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister, Mary Coughlan, announced the introduction of the Health (Country of Origin of Beef) Regulations 2006, which came into effect on 3 July 2006. That decision by the Govern-ment in the Republic of Ireland highlights the need for urgent progress to be made on the issue in the North. The Scottish Parliament is also taking steps not only to assist the farming community but to give the public the good information that it wants by introducing a voluntary code. A restored Assembly could make a difference to the industry. The SDLP welcomes the will to work positively for the good of all in Northern Ireland, and I trust that other parties will show moral courage in the days and weeks ahead. Indeed, Mr O’Dowd talked about how this Assembly, while it can debate, has no power. That is true, but let us hope that he and his party will stop giving the DUP a veto on policing so that we can all move ahead. Finally, I too congratulate the UFU on its vision and on its efforts to cut red tape in the industry. I support the motion. Mr Paisley Jnr: I welcome the debate and the immense interest being shown in it. I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, and it became very hard to drag people out to a debate on agriculture. Perhaps the presence of so many people watching us today has encouraged Members to come to the debate, and I genuinely welcome that interest. As well as that, there may be an election coming, and that may have something to do with some people’s interest in the issue. However, it is good to get packed Benches, new faces and new Members speaking in the debate. People from the farming community and the rural community will judge for themselves as to the voices that are committed to the subject, and I hope that after today’s debate they will continue to see that there are people in public life who support them and want to see them endorsed, encouraged and supported in a practical and efficient way. I apologise that after my speech I will have to break with convention and leave for the meeting with the Security Minister in the Senate Chamber. I do not want the Member who will follow me to think that I am leaving because he is speaking. A Member said earlier that we should be the Government, that we should be in charge and that we should be responsible for running the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Of course local people want Northern Ireland’s elected representatives to have their hands on the levers of power and to run an efficient and effective Government. What they do not want, however, are parties in here that are not truly democratic and that are not linked to the democratic way forward. What they do not want is an Assembly that will become unstable, as happened in previous efforts to get an Assembly up and running. What farmers want to hear today is that there is going to be a real, genuine, solid commitment by all parties to the rule of law, support for the police and for the courts. Then we can move on and see progress happen instead of this nonsense of paying lip-service to the democratic principle and then ignoring it in the breach. Perhaps the reason — and this may have dawned on some Members — that health rather than agriculture spokespeople are taking part in this debate is that certain selection processes have not taken place. Perhaps some people are going to be deselected. We just do not know; however, stranger things have happened. We shall see in the days ahead. This is a worthy motion and one that the DUP, through its agriculture spokesman, Mr Clyde, has supported admirably today. ‘Five Steps to a Better Future’ is a very progressive document and shows that the UFU is taking the initiative. Where the Department has failed to identify issues or, worse still, has ignored issues, the UFU wants to do what it claims to do best — to represent the men and women of the field and try to identify and resolve the issues. The motion focuses a good deal of attention on red tape and bureaucracy; however, it would be wrong to assume that that is all that the UFU has identified in its report. It has identified a host of issues that the Department should get to grips with. Mr Shannon: Is the Member aware that there are 1,440 Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials in County Down — one for every two farmers — while in the west of the Province there are only 400 in each county? Is he also aware that such is the monitoring and the officialdom in County Down that the Department has been known to hire a helicopter to check on farmers? Will the Member agree that the introduction of a citizen’s charter would be the best way forward so that there would be no criminalisation or penalisation? Will he further agree that 14 days’ notice of an official visit to a farm is the way forward? Mr Paisley Jnr: The issues that the Member for Strangford has identified go to the heart of the motion. It is not just the gold-plating; it is the crippling effect on the industry in Northern Ireland. There are so many officials, as Mr Shannon has rightly pointed out, that they almost outnumber the people entering the agriculture industry. The UFU report identifies real, positive wins, and we should not have to wait for an Assembly Government to get up and running. DARD could start putting them in place immediately. I know that departmental representatives are here today, and I would encourage them to look at this report and recognise that there are points in all five sections that could be acted on and put in place immediately, if they really cared about listening to the farming community. Mr Storey: Does the Member agree that there is a serious issue when a Department has an underspend of 40% of EU Peace II money, which equates to €32·5 million, at 19 September 2006? Surely serious questions must be asked about why the Department has allowed that scandal to continue? Mr Paisley Jnr: I am glad that the Member has raised that point. I have just picked up the publication, ‘Department of Agriculture and Rural Development: Resource Accounts 2005-06’. The Member has identified the startling waste that goes on. Members should study Mr Storey’s remarks, which he makes as a member of the Peace II monitoring committee. I congratulate him on the work that he does in that area. In the publication, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development claims to have four aims, including improving the economic performance of the agrifood industry and strengthening the economy and social infrastructure of the farming community. However, the red tape that currently exists and that is being introduced is at such unprecedented levels that it is crippling the industry. The Department cannot fulfil the aims of its report if it allows that to continue. It must cut the tape and let people be free to do what they are supposed to do, which is to be good businesspeople who efficiently and effectively carry out the important task of providing food for the community. In its 2006 ‘Cut It Out’ campaign, the Ulster Farmers’ Union said that form-filling errors cost the local industry £2·3 million. We see the effects of such errors not only in farming, but across the business sector. If the Federation of Small Businesses supported us in a debate tomorrow about red tape, the same themes would be identified. There is a poison at the heart of Government: if they cannot deal with a process, they put red tape on it to slow it down. That is a minefield, and it must be tackled urgently. In Northern Ireland, a lot of legislation must be complied with, principally that which comes from the European Union. However, other Departments encourage that because of the enforcement systems that add significantly to such legislation. Mr Shannon and Mr Storey have illustrated that issue very clearly. Other EU member states do not add the same amount of red tape and compliance legislation that we do. Clearly, a balance must be struck. Enforcement is good in principle: there must be enforcement and compliance so that the consumer has confidence in the product. However, a balance must also be struck between over-enforcement, which we clearly have, and the over-indulgence that seems to occur on the part of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. There have been many examples of that, and I would like to pick up on two. The first is water quality. In Northern Ireland, that is dominated by not one, two or even three European directives, but four. There is a new Groundwater Directive; the existing Groundwater Directive, which stays in place and still has to be complied with; the Nitrates Directive, which caused untold problems for this House and for the farming community; and, of course, the Water Framework Directive. Those highlight the over-bureaucracy in the Department. Europe should streamline all that into one simple directive and one simple enforcement regime, instead of having the separate regimes that are associated with those directives. In this morning’s post I received Northern Ireland Statutory Rule No. 508, which has the very long title The Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2006. That has nothing to do with the goats in the Assembly; it is to do with another additional requirement on sheep and goat farmers. In addition to the current ear tag that they have to put on sheep and goats, they will now have to find a blue tag — I do not think that all tags are red, white and blue — to put in sheep’s ears. It actually specifies that the new tag must not obscure any other tag that appears on the sheep’s ear. Soon every sheep in Northern Ireland will have to have a filing cabinet for all the forms that are associated with it. That situation highlights the nonsense that the farming community has to go through. Instead of being able to raise the beast, get it to slaughter and get it into the food chain as quickly and efficiently as possible, we have this nonsense of filling in form after form. The Department must review and reduce the burden of red tape that is on the industry and remove it as soon as possible. I hope that Commissioner Fischer Boel’s current review of the effects of the CAP across the member states gets to grips with this issue and deals with it efficiently and effectively. 1.30 pm Rev Dr Robert Coulter: I too am glad that this motion has been brought before the House, and I congratulate those who have put their names to it. It allows us to highlight some of the problems that the farming community faces. As others have already eloquently pointed out, red tape has gone beyond the realm of acceptability on farms. The other evening I was talking to some farmers at a function, and they were discussing ear tagging. The end product of the conversation was that the Department should develop sheep with six ears to accommodate all the tags. That shows the nonsense that is emanating from the Department. Coming late to the debate as I do, there is little left to say. However, I would like to highlight the cost of inspections. Has the time not come for the Select Committee on Public Accounts to investigate the Department for value for money? How much do inspections cost? What is their end product? How does the Department achieve value for money if, as we have been told, there is one departmental official for every seven or eight farms in the country? No other business is as burdened by rules and regulations as the farming industry. It is a major industry in Northern Ireland, supporting some 50,000 jobs on farms and 18,000 jobs in the agrifood sector, which has an annual turnover of £2·4 billion. What other industry is so vital to the economy of the country and so burdened with red tape? I cannot think of one. If an industry is brought in from America or another country, the Government bend over backwards to give it grants and other assistance. Yet a home-grown, home-made, home-serviced industry has a pile of red tape heaped on it year upon year. Surely the time has come for the Department to consider seriously its value to the industry. The Department needs a change of mindset on the matter. This brings me back many years to when a town of which I was mayor was considering building a new meat plant. The number of regulations that we had to comply with was so burdensome that we wondered at times whether it was worthwhile. When we went to the Continent, however, we saw meat plants that had not half the regulation to which we were subject. Our regulations extended to the number of centimetres required in the approach to the killing zone. I am tempted to say that our officials must have a bureaucratic disease that requires them to place this burden on those who are doing something worthwhile in the country. I appeal to the Department to consider its attitude to farmers. There are many other things that we could talk about. Food miles have already been referred to. There is no sense in bringing food halfway around the world when we could produce it at home; in treating that produce with radiation or chemicals to keep it fresh when our farmers can provide the same produce locally; or in bringing meat from the other side of the world when our own farmers produce the same cuts — only better. Does the Department apply the same regulations to foreign meat producers and ask whether the same demands are made of them? What does the housewife think when she sees two cuts of meat in the supermarket, one from Northern Ireland that is overburdened with red tape, the other from a foreign country that seems not to be subject to the same regulations? Yet she is expected to provide meat for her family. The Department must be challenged on those moral questions. I ask DARD to ensure that its attitude to the farmers of Northern Ireland is ethical. Very little has been said about biofuel, although Mr Ford mentioned the energy side of the agriculture industry. What is the Department doing to assist and encourage farmers to get into the biofuel industry? This is a new era for farming, but, as Mr Ford said, it seems that the Department’s attitude is to make it more difficult for our farmers to get into something that will really help the industry. We also need to help our farmers to deal with the supermarkets. Time after time, in rural communities, I come across farmers who say that they are up against it when it comes to the big fellows, who can pull down the price. Look at the cost of milk, for example. How much does the farmer get for his milk per litre? How much must a housewife pay for a litre of milk that she buys off the shelf? Where does the money go in between? Those questions need to be addressed and answered. DARD has a great opportunity to take the issue by the scruff of the neck and deal with it ethically, honestly and straightforwardly, so that it can stand before the Public Accounts Committee and say that it is giving value for money. I congratulate the UFU for its initiatives and for dealing with people on the ground. I plead with the Department to stop looking only at legislation and to look at people. The stress that farmers endure has been mentioned, as has the plethora of forms that they must fill out. Will departmental officials please tell me whether they are going to support the farmers, as they should, or whether they are going to support mere legislation? Ms Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I commend the farmers’ unions and others for the work that they have done in the rural and farming sector. I welcome the president of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, Ken Sharkey, and people from the farming community who have come to hear the debate. Agriculture remains an integral part of the Irish economy, and the rural way of life is an essential part of our culture and heritage. For generations, the industry has withstood successive British Governments’ policies to force people out of farming and into towns and cities. Draft PPS 14 is the most recent example of those policies. Agriculture employs more than 50,000 people in the North, and a further 18,000 are employed in the food-processing sector. The farming industry generates £2·4 billion for the economy, which is a significant contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP). However, the possibility of an end to devolved Government here leaves the farming community with probably more to lose than any other grouping or industry. Much of the primary legislation that affects farming comes from Brussels, and its application, interpretation and implementation is one of the biggest challenges facing the sector. Without a local Minister in charge, and without the Assembly and its scrutiny Committee in place, DARD is not fully accountable. The result of that is that farmers are being short-changed. Funding programmes that should have been fully implemented have not been, and, as a consequence, millions of pounds have been lost to the industry. All parties have voiced widespread concerns in the debate about the way in which DARD operates. Its methods have caused unnecessary hardship. The culture of red-tape bureaucracy and the lack of support and flexibility offered to farmers are the hallmarks of the way in which DARD does business in the North. I presume that I speak for all parties when I say that that no one is attacking DARD employees; rather, the policies and the ethos at the top of the Department are the problem. I have listened carefully to Members’ comments. In particular, one Member’s comments must be noted. It is unfortunate that Ian Paisley Jnr is no longer in the Chamber, but he should perhaps remove his blinkers for a second and put the interests of the farming community ahead of his own narrow political agenda. He is obviously not talking to farmers because, if he were, he would know that farmers continually say that local politicians should return to power and that there must be a local Minister for agriculture. If he cannot understand the relationship between health, good diet and farming, he is sorely missing the point. It is good to hear that he missed me, having thought that I should have spoken earlier in the debate. It is good that he noticed my absence. Sinn Féin has consistently highlighted problems with DARD and, more fundamentally, the continuing damage to the local industry through its being tied to a UK position on agriculture, particularly with regard to Europe. The British agricultural policy actively supports a cheap food policy that is destroying rural communities. That policy permits the import of cheap food from countries across the world that, as Bob Coulter pointed out, do not have the same stringent controls as here. At the same time, the British Government support the dominance of massive supermarkets that control the prices paid to farmers. That must be reversed. Bob Coulter also highlighted the difference between the farm-gate price and the supermarket price. I thank God that it is no longer only housewives who go to the supermarket nowadays — consumers come in all shapes, sizes and genders. Sinn Féin has repeatedly argued that the development of an all-Ireland agricultural framework is in farmers’ interests, particularly in respect of EU negotiations and the implementation of EU guidelines and directives. Nowhere is an all-Ireland approach more urgently needed than in tackling the rural crisis that affects much of Ireland. There are clear benefits to the removal of UK status from food exports from the North. An all-Ireland food promotion agency and an all-Ireland strategy to promote animal health and consumer confidence must also be established. Ireland’s agricultural industry and rural life is continually being damaged by central Government on both sides of the border, by the EU and by world economic policies. That requires an urgent all-Ireland response. Greater co-ordination across Ireland is needed in order to find more effective ways to challenge the implementation of the raft of EU directives that will have a massive impact on farmers’ futures. Rural communities are right to feel betrayed: farm incomes are plummeting; promises of investment in employ-ment, housing and infrastructure in rural areas have been broken. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people will leave the farming industry in years to come. A common agenda for Irish farmers, fishermen and rural communities is essential. There is strength in unity. If Irish farmers took a moment to examine how their French counterparts act to support one another, they might learn that united they stand, divided they fall. There is much agreement between Sinn Féin and the Ulster Farmers’ Union on the problems that face the industry, not least the fundamental problem of red tape and bureaucracy in DARD and the practice of gold-plating regulations to the detriment of farmers. Others Members have said plenty on those issues already, so I will not go into any more detail. The UFU has identified five clear priorities for an incoming Executive in order to make early progress on a range of issues. Food miles will be an issue for a local produce public procurement initiative. It is ironic that some hospitals import patients’ food from Wales when some of the best quality food in the world is available here. Beef-labelling, in particular, should be compulsory. The poultry industry is under pressure from labelling requirements. More must be done to support the poultry industry. A renewable energy public procurement initiative should be introduced. Much more could be done to support new technologies. We can also learn from research into developing markets that has already been done on the island by organisations such as Teagasc. We must also be mindful of the VAT and taxation requirements on biofuels, as those must be made as attractive as possible to consumers. The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is also one of the UFU’s five priorities. Sinn Féin endorses all five priorities and gives its commitment to champion them. It is a time of huge challenges and opportunities for the farming industry and rural community. Without going into more detail about red tape, I wish to highlight the huge difficulties surrounding the single farm payment. 1.45 pm The “duplicate field” issue has been a huge problem, particularly for smaller farmers who are often the worst affected as the duplication query on their farms can comprise a large percentage of the overall claim and may, in fact, lead to a larger penalty, or, in the worst-case scenario, cancellation of the entire payment. Farmers should not face considerable financial penalties given that the system was new, extremely complicated, and that errors were made through no direct malice on their part. Sinn Féin supports the UFU’s efforts to have the problem highlighted in Europe through derogation on penalties for duplicate claims. Another example of the different approach taken in the Twenty-six Counties is the ‘Charter of Rights for Farmers 2005/07’, which was introduced by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Ms Mary Coughlan, a year ago. It provides information on many issues mentioned this morning, such as application procedures, inspection arrangements, eligibility and compliance issues. It also sets out specific details on time frames for the delivery of payments. Critically, the charter is tolerance-based, a concept that has been accepted by the EU Commission. The lack of tolerance by local Government Departments has led to high financial penalties on the local farming industry. A farmers’ charter could help to address that and would make an immediate difference to farmers’ lives. We are all aware of the amount of forms that have to be filled in and the penalties that are imposed if they are not. It seems that DARD’s policy is “do as I say; not as I do”. However, when the Department makes mistakes, the same obstructions are not placed in its way. Members have talked about how rural communities have been undermined. Draft PPS 14 is an example of one policy that undermines those communities. John O’Dowd talked about rural post offices and schools and the loss of access to healthcare services, and it is clear that the industry faces huge challenges. The reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) and single farm payments were supposed to ensure that farmers had the freedom to farm and to diversify. However, the culture of bureaucracy that continues to exist in DARD makes a mockery of that objective, and the situation is now much worse. Farmers are facing death by a thousand cuts, and that situation has to be reversed immediately. We need a local Minister — there is no question about that. Sinn Féin has argued consistently that farmers in the North are not getting a fair deal. The Department has not been their champion. A local Minister would do a better job than any direct-rule Minister, and, as I have said many times before, it does not matter to which party that Minister belongs. The British framework does not just fail our industry; it also sells us short. We have so much going for us — our clean green image and the quality of our food — but we are being hampered. We should have one of the most vibrant farming communities in the world, yet we do not. We need a local Minister, and we need one now. Go raibh míle maith agat. Dr Deeny: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak in the debate. I thank Mr Elliott and Mr PJ Bradley for raising the matter, and I commend the comments that Members have made. Some people might ask why a doctor would speak on the issue. However, as Mr Paisley Jnr mentioned earlier, agriculture is our main industry, which makes it an immense issue for the people of Northern Ireland. I represent a cross-section of the community, not just across different churches, but across different occupations and professions too. Members will have to excuse me as I am just getting used to the reading glasses that I bought in Dunnes Stores for £5 — as a doctor, I should have gone to see an optician. Anyhow, when I read the first line of the motion: “That this Assembly deplores the over-bureaucratic administration”, I thought that it referred to all professions in Northern Ireland. I have been a doctor for 27 years, and I know that healthcare staff certainly find it soul-destroying and demoralising that they must deal with so much bureaucracy. I am married to a teacher, and I know that the same bureaucracy exists in the teaching profession. As Tom Elliott mentioned, there is bureaucracy across many professions and it is driving people away from them. What qualifies me to speak on a farming issue? Farming, like medicine, is a vocation. When people talk about vocations, they often mention medicine, teaching, or the spiritual or ministerial life. However, farming is a vocation, too. As Mr Clyde said, farmers work from six in the morning until six at night. I did not discover until I did general practice that farmers often do not get holidays because they do not have cover. I believe that farming is a vocation. What qualifies me to speak on this? I am not from a farming background, but I now live in a farming setting in Tyrone. My mother came from a farming background in the very far east of County Down. Mr Coulter and Mr Kennedy referred to an important matter. I am a GP in a farming community. Many of the farmers are not just my friends but also my patients. The health concerns that I have for the farming com-munity are down to red tape. Although we laughed about the six years on the sheep that Mr Coulter talked about, it is serious. In the Health Service, we feel the same. I got involved in politics through a health issue. I was often quoted as calling the Health Service, because of what is happening here, an administrative monster, indeed, a bureaucratic cancer. I have been watching it for over 20 years now. I do not know what sort of a disease it is, but it is certainly contagious. And it is not just the Department of Health that has it: it has spread to the other Departments, including farming. This is a nonsense, and it is time that we as a society that is a part of Europe looked at our legislation. I agreed with Mr Coulter when he asked what was more important. Of course, we need legislation within reason, but we need to talk to the farmers. My concern is, primarily, what this is doing to our farming community. The loss of incentive has to be mentioned. Many young people are being put off farming simply because of the red tape and the amount of time that they would have to give to it. Rather than dealing with the livestock and the beasts, as they are called, they are dealing more and more with paper. As an experienced GP more of my time, and that of my colleagues, is now spent looking at forms and ticking boxes than dealing with sick people. I know from my farming patients that they are doing the same rather than dealing with the beasts. I do not like the blame game that goes on in politics. I have a brother in the legal profession. Some of my fellow Assembly colleagues who not here today are in the legal profession. The legal profession — I will keep going because they are not here today. [Laughter.]I say this in front of my brother: lawyers have to catch themselves on. They are ruining society. Everything now is defensive. We are practising defensive medicine in case we are sued in the High Court. The same applies to how farmers work. Instead of using common sense, we are being defensive because of fear of the High Court. Without pointing the finger solely at our legal colleagues, the fault may also lie with our claim culture. People are now into claiming. In the medical profession we call it “compensationitis”. We have to put a stop to it and bring common sense back into the equation, where we can support the people working in these important jobs, including farming. We should not forget that this part of the world is rural, both North and South. Setting aside the populations of the cities, the vast majority of people, North and South, live in the country. Yet all of this bureaucracy is due to centralisation. The rural people seem to have been forgotten about. The Government should not forget that people who live here in the North are rural people. When Members canvass for votes, they should show their support for the farmers. It is a pleasure to support the motion, and it seems that everyone has supported it. It is wonderful to have everyone on board. Other Members have mentioned that all parties support the farmers. It is great to see that in Northern Ireland, and I do not intend to rock the boat. Mr Poots: With the exception of the odd jab between the DUP and Sinn Féin, everybody has been speaking with the same mind. Perhaps I should keep the debate going and remind Sinn Féin Members that the only party preventing Northern Ireland from having an agriculture Minister is Sinn Féin. Perhaps Sinn Féin will tell us today when its Ard-Fheis or conference will be called and when Ms Gildernew and those of her colleagues who do not support their leadership will do so in order to allow the party to call the meeting. Perhaps we can get on with establishing a Government in Northern Ireland on the back of that. The motion contains many issues that must be addressed. Northern Ireland has been bogged down with red tape and bureaucracy for some time. We need to know what the detailed rules for the implementation of the nitrates directive are, and the farm nutrient management scheme must be more practical. The scheme that will deal with the protection of air, soil and ground waste is another example of the gold-plating of environmental issues in which the Government have gone over the top. Are the Government interested in the environment? I heard Mr O’Leary from Ryanair taking on a former Minister who had responsibility for agriculture in Northern Ireland, Mr Pearson. Mr Pearson came out worst in the exchange. I was glad to hear Mr O’Leary taking on the Government on the environment, because the Government merely pay lip-service to the issue. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the agriculture industry. Many regulations are being applied to the agriculture sector across Europe, but the most damaging factor to the worldwide environment is the deforestation of South America. Forests are being burned to create more land in which to produce more beef that will be shipped to Europe to prop up a low beef price so that supermarkets can flog cheap beef and screw the farmers in the United Kingdom. That will prevent United Kingdom farmers from getting a decent price for their beef. The Government are happy with a cheap food policy when that process can be applied, and they are not concerned about the environment, deforestation or its impact on Africa and other parts of the world. We hear a great deal about ethical food policy. The United Kingdom imports chicken from south-east Asia that is not produced ethically. The chickens are reared on wire-mesh floors that are suspended above carp pools. The carp feed on the faeces of the chickens and are then used in food production. The intestine, bones and offal of the carp are cooked, turned into meal and fed to the chickens. That would not put the desired sizzle into your chicken, but the British Government allow that food to be imported into our country. Consequently, chicken prices are driven down, and the people who are producing it properly, ethically and with regard for the environment are undermined. Today, the poor old Department has been hit, quite rightly, left, right and centre. However, in a declining agriculture industry in which the numbers involved and the profits have reduced, DARD has been innovative in creating jobs for civil servants — not for anybody else. Since there are fewer farmers, one would anticipate that fewer people would be required to regulate farming. However, what has happened? More regulations have been produced to sustain the same number of civil servants to regulate fewer farmers. That is a critical problem for farming, and consequently many people have been driven out of it. The regulations make farming less profitable and more burdensome, and they make it more difficult for farmers to do their job. (Madam Speaker in the Chair) 2.00 pm. There was a recent document on animal welfare legislation that was to have been responded to by December 2006. The best thing that DARD could do for animal welfare would be to allow farmers to do what they are supposed to do, and that is the farmer’s primary job of animal and crop husbandry. Farmers are not allowed to look after their animals and crops, because they are burdened by paperwork. It can be more detrimental to profitability to make a mistake in the paperwork than a mistake on the farm that might lead to the loss of livestock. It is sensible for farmers to look after that paperwork because of the burden that the Department could apply to them. The more that DARD puts costs into the industry, the more that people leave that industry. The issue of BSE arose 10 years ago and led to the decline that has taken place in the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland. At that time, we were warned of an epidemic in CJD and new variant CJD (nvCJD). On reflection, more farmers have lost their lives through suicide than through nvCJD. Although is has been a terrible thing for those families who have lost relatives through nvCJD, the impact goes beyond those individuals. Many people have gone through traumatic experiences as a consequence. I left school to go to agriculture college and to become a farmer; that was all I wanted to do when I was at school. A generation on, my oldest son is 17 and I would not contemplate the possibility of his leaving school to come home to farm on a full-time basis. That is the difference in the agriculture industry over one generation. Young people, the lifeblood of anything, are staying away from the industry to go into other jobs where they earn decent wages and get respect for the work that they do. We hear people on programmes such as the ‘Stephen Nolan Show’ talking disparagingly of culchies. There is no respect for those people who work hard to produce a high-quality product. The most important product that people use is the food that enters their bodies. Northern Ireland farmers do that job, and they do it well. We need a Department that will support them to do that job, a Department that is slimmer and more efficient. I am not suggesting that civil servants be sacked, but we must look to efficiencies in the Department and consider a situation where civil servants who leave are not replaced. The Department must not cost the public exchequer more money than the agriculture sector actually makes. It is not sustainable for a Department to cost the taxpayer more in pounds and pence than is yielded to the people in that industry. I welcome the many people from the farming community who are here today, and I trust that we can look to a better future in farming. However, that can only happen when the Government give proper and full support to that industry. Mr Gallagher: I welcome the debate. I want to mention the important contribution that farmers can make to the development of renewable energy and the reduction of our reliance on imported coal and oil, which contributes enormously to the problem of climate change. Before doing so, I agree with those Members who spoke about the excessive levels of bureaucracy, particularly in DARD. Some of the regulations that have been mentioned are daft and nonsensical: one states that a farmer must use red diesel in his tractor for certain tasks but change to white diesel for others. Some of the red tape concerning the cutting of hedges and the disposal of the cuttings is absurd. Although some level of bureaucracy may be necessary, it could be significantly reduced. I hope that someone from DARD will get the message from today’s debate that the present use of red tape causes high levels of stress, considerable anxiety and worry for many farming families. In its policy document ‘Five Steps to a Better Future’, the UFU recommends the involvement of the farming community in producing renewable energy. This winter alone, everyone has experienced floods and storms. We can see that climate change is happening here in Northern Ireland, not in another continent or at the North Pole. It poses a threat to future society, and something must be done about it. Although Northern Ireland covers a small area where carbon emissions are concerned, we have a responsibility to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Some measures are being taken to address the problem. For example, there is some agreement at EU level and beyond — among some countries, at least — to take the problem seriously. Targets have been set to reduce CO2 emissions in Northern Ireland: by 2010, they should be reduced by 20% from their 1990 level, after which there should be continued annual reductions of 1·5%. The target date is 2010; it is now 2007, and Northern Ireland still relies almost entirely on imported coal and oil for its energy needs. Those fuels contribute most directly to global warming. At the same time, there is a failure to harness those energy sources, such as biomass and biofuels, that could bring enormous benefits. There are some exceptions: in my Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency, a well-known company, Balcas, has won international awards for its use of wood pellets to produce energy. It is a large company that employs almost 1,000 people, and it meets all its energy needs through the use of wood pellets. Wood has been described as a carbon-neutral fuel, because as it grows, it absorbs roughly the same amount of carbon as it emits when later burned. Land and climate conditions here mean that every farm in Northern Ireland can help to reduce the reliance on imported fossil fuels by growing willow and different forms of grass, such as pampas, or sunflower crops. The Government must also be prepared to take some brave steps, to show the way and to encourage the development of renewable energy systems. That is why the UFU’s initiative calls on the Government to procure locally sourced renewable energy to use in its Departments. That should be a priority for the new Executive. We need that commitment, not just from the Department of Agriculture, but from all Government Departments. For example, they are committing themselves to converting to the use of woodchip to heat and provide energy for buildings, but we need other incentives to encourage the building of low-energy housing and the installation of renewable energy sources in existing houses. Alongside that, we need a policy for vehicles, at least for those vehicles belonging to Government Departments that are taking their responsibilities seriously by increasing their reliance on sustainable fuels. There is more that can be done by the Government to demo-nstrate to farmers that there is a future for them and that it is a future for the development of a sustainable and profitable supply of renewable energy. There is undoubtedly untapped potential for our farmers to grow the crops to produce biofuels and wood, such as willow trees, for biomass. I welcome the debate, and I hope that its result will be that the plight of the farming community is taken more seriously by an incoming Executive. Mr Armstrong: I rise to support the motion as a paid-up member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union. As a farmer and an Assembly Member, I know the problems that the farming community has faced over the past ten years since Lord Dubs came to Belfast at the time of the pig crisis. It gives me great pleasure to conclude the debate deploring the over-bureaucratic administration of Northern Ireland’s farming industry, and I back the call made by the Ulster Farmers’ Union to implement initiatives that would have a positive impact on the circumstances and morale of the farming industry in Northern Ireland. The publication of the agricultural census in 2006 shows a continuing and worrying decline in the number of farms in Northern Ireland, with a loss of 325 farms recorded last year. The total number of active farm businesses in Northern Ireland stands at 27,000. Over 50,000 people are employed on local farms with a further 18,000 in the food processing industry, contributing to £2.4 billion to our economy. If any other industry suffered the same decline, there would be an outcry, but sadly the Government are slow to support Northern Ireland’s largest private sector industry. Instead, it seems that DARD is intent on policing the farmers instead of supporting them. DARD used to be there to strengthen agriculture. That was the case eight years ago — that is what Ian Paisley said, and most of the farmers today in the Assembly know that. However, it is now entangling farmers in more red tape, which slows the agriculture industry down. Furthermore, we have fewer farmers. As Derek Hussey said, there is one farmer to every seven or eight officials. That is a big problem, and it seems that someone is keeping himself in a job. I welcome the Davidson Review of the implementation of the EU legislation. It said that in many cases, the legislation has been gold-plated in its implementation to the extent that it may run contrary to its objectives. That means that the extra measures that are implemented can seriously harm the competitiveness of the farmers in Northern Ireland. In recent times, farmers have had to face a vast range of new legislation imposed by the EU. Those have been further imposed by Westminster and implemented by DARD. Members in our debate today have referred to the various implications of the new regulations including farm waste, farm nutrient management and single farm payment, and many have not even received the weather aid for their potatoes. I think that Mr Bradley highlighted that. All have agreed that the Government have painstakingly imposed EU legislation and that they have created huge unnecessary problems. We all know of the planning problems: a farmer who wants to build an extra chicken house or put up a wind turbine cannot get his plans through without a pile of red tape. In farming, the volume of red tape is excessive. Members have heard outcries from numerous farmers in Northern Ireland, many of whom are facing heavy financial penalties. The strict approach taken by Government — by DARD — in applying penalties for non-conformities is totally unacceptable, especially since such an approach is not applied in other EU states. 2.15 pm At present, five separate Government agencies are responsible for the inspection and enforcement of these regulations. That is overly bureaucratic, and those agencies should be subsumed into a single inspectorate. I support the introduction of a farmers’ charter, which would allow farmers to be free from administration and unnecessary paperwork and offer Northern Ireland farmers the same level of protection that is available in other EU states. In October 2006, I visited Denmark to look at dairy farming methods and how Danish farmers deal with nitrates, in view of the new EU legislation now being implemented in Northern Ireland. I was amazed and encouraged at seeing how closely Danish farmers worked with their Agriculture Department, each supporting the other to ensure that the industry was promoted. All our farmers want is a common-sense approach, but they are not getting that. I commend the Ulster Farmers’ Union on its paper, ‘Five Steps to a Better Future: Early Initiatives for a New Programme for Government’. It is straightforward and to the point in its recommendations to Government and a future devolved Assembly. Colleagues have already detailed the merits of the five points. Agriculture is the single largest private sector industry in Northern Ireland, and it requires the support of all consumers. In the competitive world in which we live, it is necessary for Government to ensure that the industry is helped — rather than hindered — in reaching the best possible export markets, because Northern Ireland is an exporting country. In recent years, Northern Ireland’s consumers have been educated to demand higher quality food, which our farmers supply to supermarkets, restaurants, schools, hospitals, and so on. Northern Ireland consumers recognise the quality of local produce and choose it for themselves and their families. However, the increasing demands placed on farmers hinder the work that they endeavour to carry out daily. I fully support the motion and call on the Government to implement the initiative of the Ulster Farmers’ Union and to demonstrate to farmers that they will be supported in ensuring the future of the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland. These initiatives, if adopted, would be relatively inexpensive and would offer a much-needed boost to the largest industry in Northern Ireland. However, since 1998, when I was first elected to the Assembly and met Lord Dubs, the then direct rule Minister with responsibility for agriculture and rural development — we all know the stories about him — only lip-service has been paid to the agriculture industry. Until we, as elected representatives, can hold local Ministers accountable, there is little chance that anything can be achieved beyond debating the issue. Danny Kennedy referred to the Labour Government’s inability to feel sympathy; we know how much sympathy the Labour Party has shown over the past eight years — that is, not much to rural communities in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, Members have already referred to the need for devolved Government. These problems are another example of Northern Ireland being held to ransom by lack of progress in the political process. For Northern Ireland to move forward we must get the democratic Members of this Assembly up and going. The Ulster Unionist Party has shown leadership over the past eight years. It is now time for Sinn Féin to show some leadership and a commitment to fundamental democratic principles. I am pleased that all parties support the motion. I wish to thank Tom Elliott and P J Bradley for tabling the motion, and also all Members who have taken part in the debate. I also thank the Ulster Farmers’ Union, which is working hard in a difficult situation to highlight the plight of local farmers. All Members have agreed that our farmers demand not only devolved Government but joined-up government in Northern Ireland. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly deplores the over-bureaucratic administration within the Northern Ireland agricultural industry and calls on the government to implement legislation / regulations with less gold-plating, and to put in place a review of current legislation and regulations with a view to reducing any unnecessary bureaucratic burden; and further calls on the government to implement the initiatives set out in the Ulster Farmers’ Union document ‘Five Steps to a Better Future’. Closure of Post Offices Madam Speaker: Order. The Business Committee has allowed two and a half hours for this debate. The Member proposing the motion will have 15 minutes, and there will be 15 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members will have a maximum of 10 minutes to speak. Lord Morrow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not the custom that, when you are on your feet, all Members should be in their seats? Today in particular, I noted that when you stood to announce the next item of business, Members made a point of leaving the Chamber. Will you clarify for Members — yet again — that when you are on your feet, every other Member of the House should be in his or her place? Madam Speaker: I am most grateful to Lord Morrow for making that comment. Indeed, I have mentioned to the Clerks that I will raise that issue again at the tomorrow’s meeting of the Business Committee. Before Christmas, it seemed that that issue was commented on every week. I am at the stage where I may bring in my school cane — however, Members may enjoy that too much. [Laughter.] Mr Hay: I beg to move That this Assembly deplores the introduction of proposals by the government to close a number of Post Offices across Northern Ireland; and the implications these proposals will have for rural Post Offices. The motion stands in my name and in the name of the Member for North Down Peter Weir. However, I will accept the amendment in the names of Mr McGlone and Mr Dallat, as it certainly adds to the motion. The debate is important because the proposed changes will have a serious, devastating and unprecedented effect on the post office network across Northern Ireland and will lead to the closure of over 100 post offices in Northern Ireland. Members have had this debate before: in March 2000, the Government announced a review of services in the post office network across Northern Ireland. The Member for East Londonderry John Dallat tabled a motion that rightly criticised a number of issues in that review. Mr Dallat’s motion received the House’s full support, and I hope that this motion will command the same level of support. Out of that review, the Government announced several initiatives, the real purpose of which was to strip and downgrade essential Post Office services. The Government determined that social security benefits and other important payments would be paid directly into customers’ bank accounts. Any business, irrespective of what it is, that loses, or is stripped of, essential services, can go only one way — it must close. It will become unprofitable and will no longer be economically viable. That has been the history of Post Office services across Northern Ireland, and the outcome of every proposal that the Government or Post Office Ltd have acted on here. In March 2004, the Government announced more initiatives, which, they claimed, were about transforming Post Office branches in Northern Ireland. Those initiatives led to the closure of almost 20 post offices. Alistair Darling is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at Westminster. I do not know whose darling he is, but after this debate he will probably not be the darling of this House. In December 2006, he announced a restructuring plan to help modernise post offices. As I have said, every initiative from the Government or Post Office Ltd has ended in the closure of post offices. That has been the bottom line. Every Member will agree that local post offices, whether in rural or urban areas, are a vital part of our community. The Government’s latest proposals will have a major impact, especially in rural communities across the country. The closure of village post offices will have a disastrous effect on rural life. I acknowledge that the plans will also result in the closure of urban post offices, but my information suggests that the rural community will suffer more than anyone else in Northern Ireland. Mrs I Robinson: Does the Member agree that the rural community will suff |