Official Report: 5 October 1998
Contents
Assembly: Committees on Standing Orders and on Devolution
Procedural Consequences of Devolution
Mid-Ulster Hospital (Acute Services)
The Assembly met at 2.00 pm (The Initial Presiding Officer (The Lord Alderdice of Knock) in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.
Presiding Officer’s Business
The Initial Presiding Officer:
By virtue of paragraph 1 of the schedule to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, it falls to the Secretary of State to determine where and when meetings of the Assembly shall be held. I have received from the Minister of State, Mr Murphy, a letter advising me that
"The Secretary of State directs that the Assembly shall meet at Parliament Buildings, Stormont at 10.30 on Monday 5 October until 6.00 pm on Friday 30 October."
It is also the responsibility of the Secretary of State, under paragraph 10 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, to determine the Standing Orders of the Assembly during the shadow period. The Minister of State, Mr Murphy, has further written advising me that the Secretary of State has considered and agrees to the proposal from the Committee on Standing Orders, set out in the letter of the Joint Chairman, Mr Cobain, to the Minister, dated 17 September 1998, that the number of seats on each Assembly Committee should be increased by one. The Secretary of State has therefore determined that paragraphs 15(2) and 16(2) of the Initial Standing Orders are amended to read as follows:
"15(2) Committees shall consist of not less than 10 and not more than 19 members and shall be such that, as far as is practicable, there is a fair reflection of the parties participating in the Assembly and that each party with at least two Members shall have at least one seat on each Committee."
"16(2) The Committee shall consist of the Initial Presiding Officer (who shall be Chairperson), the Deputy Presiding Officer and not less than eight and not more than 17 Members appointed by the Initial Presiding Officer, following consultation with the leaders of the parties of the Assembly, and shall be such that, so far as is practicable, there is a fair reflection of the parties participating in the Assembly and that each party with at least two Members, shall have at least one place."
Members should note that at this stage the rest of the Initial Standing Orders remain unchanged.
I have previously observed that the Initial Standing Orders give only limited guidance on the conduct of our business, both inside and outside the Chamber. In such a period of transition that may be inevitable, but it can lead to misunderstandings. In particular, the way in which the Initial Presiding Officer should conduct himself is rather ill-defined. I have two remarks about how I intend to interpret my role during my time in office.
I have decided to adopt the definition that was given in Speaker Lenthall’s description of his duties:
"I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here."
For that reason I have not given, and do not intend to give, any interviews or comment on matters pertaining to the content of our business here. Therefore I am adopting the conventions that are often referred to as Speaker’s Rules.
Having dealt with conduct, I shall now turn to rulings. The Committee on Standing Orders, under the joint chairmanship of Mr Fred Cobain and Mr Denis Haughey, was mandated by the Assembly to develop a comprehensive set of orders for the guidance and regulation of our work. Although those will not become our Standing Orders until they have been adopted by the Assembly and approved by the Secretary of State, I intend to use any agreement that is reached by the Committee on Standing Orders as guidance in interpreting the Initial Standing Orders. Of course, where there is a conflict, the Initial Standing Orders must prevail.
It may also be helpful if I clarify the role of some of the items which are being sent out to Members. Four sheets of paper went out to Members last Thursday by special delivery — the Order Paper for the upcoming Assembly sitting, the business diary for the following two weeks, the schedule of forthcoming business and the all-party notices. The Order Paper and the business diary speak for themselves. The forthcoming business paper lists only those upcoming matters which have been agreed to be tabled. If nothing has been listed under forthcoming business it should not be assumed that no business will take place on that day; it means simply that no business has yet been agreed for that day.
It is important that Members understand that the all-party notices are not only a way of communicating administrative arrangements from the Secretariat to Members. Members may also use them to communicate with each other. For example, a Member may sponsor a meeting in a Committee room, which is open to all Assembly Members. That could be included by advising the Second Clerk of the details in advance.
These four papers will continue to be sent to Members by special delivery on Thursday evenings.
Later this week, we hope to have available a first version of the Assembly Members’ Handbook. This will be in the form of a loose-leaf binder so that the information contained in it can be updated regularly. Feedback on all this material, including problems with arrangements for delivery, would be most helpful.
At the last sitting of the Assembly a Shadow Assembly Commission was elected, and it has met on three occasions. To enable Members to follow the Commission’s deliberations, I have, with the agreement of its members, arranged for a copy of the minutes of each of its meetings to be placed in the Library. It is intended that this practice will be continued. When the Commission judges that there are substantive issues which ought to be brought before the Assembly, a statement will be made in the Chamber.
Following the terrible events in Omagh, the Secretary of State appointed Mr John McConnell to assist, on behalf of the Government, in the process of rebuilding lives and property so terribly damaged. The Assembly’s concerns demonstrated in the debate at its last sitting have been noted, and Mr McConnell has produced a brief note for the Assembly on progress to date. He has forwarded this to me, and I have placed a copy of it in the Library.
Assembly:
Committees on Standing Orders and on Devolution
Motion made:
That the composition of the Committee on Standing Orders and the Ad Hoc Committee on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution be amended to comply with the revised Initial Standing Orders issued by the Secretary of State by adding to each of their numbers one member of the United Unionist Assembly Party. — [The Initial Presiding Officer]
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I advised the Assembly that the Secretary of State had determined to amend paragraph 15(2) of the Initial Standing Orders by increasing the upper limit of membership from 18 to 19, and paragraph 16(2) by increasing the upper limit of membership of the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer from 16 to 17. Since the responsibility for decisions about the latter rests with the Initial Presiding Officer, I have decided to invite the United Unionist Assembly Party to nominate a member to that Committee. The motion, which is self-explanatory, permits the newly established United Unionist Assembly Party to be represented on the Committee of Standing Orders and the Ad Hoc Committee on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution. It seeks the Assembly’s agreement to this course of action and requires a simple majority.
Mr Maskey:
A Chathaoirligh, Sinn Fein will support the motion on the basis that this is a transitional arrangement which will not bind the Assembly proper to any particular course of action, and I have already discussed this with you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. While we will always support the principle of proportionality in all matters relating to the work of the Assembly, we will, nevertheless, want to ensure, because of the unique arrangements and procedures which apply here, that there is no scope, by default or otherwise, for abuse of the system here in terms of cross-community representation, parallel consensus, or, further down the line, the d’Hondt system. We support the motion only insofar as it applies to these Committees which will have a very short lifespan.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
The view of the Democratic Unionist Party is that this is natural justice — justice being seen to be done. If some Members are prepared to try to deny the rights of other Members to serve on Committees in accordance with party strengths, my party will contest that matter hotly with them. Every Member here should be duly represented on the Committees of the House.
Mr Haughey:
The composition of the Committees which will be set up after the Assembly moves from its shadow form will be based on a completely different procedure from that adopted here. The Committee on Standing Orders was aware of this when it made this proposal.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the composition of the Committee on Standing Orders and the Ad Hoc Committee on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution be amended to comply with the revised Initial Standing Orders issued by the Secretary of State by adding to each of their numbers one member of the United Unionist Assembly Party.
Procedural Consequences of Devolution
Mr McFarland:
I beg to move
That the Assembly takes note of the interim report prepared by the Committee on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution.
At the meeting on 14 September 1998, the Assembly agreed to the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution. The terms of reference of the Committee required it to
"consider the procedural consequences of devolution as they are likely to affect the relationship between, and working of, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament, and by Tuesday 6 October to submit a report to the Assembly which, if approved, will be forwarded to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons".
The Committee, in essence, was tasked to consider relationships between Westminster and the Assembly and, in particular, how procedures at Westminster may have to change to reflect the new arrangements here. The deadline of 6 October was set by the Assembly to comply with a request from the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons that we present a report to it by 9 October. The Committee has met on four occasions, on the first of which I was elected Chairman.
There are a number of issues upon which the Committee will seek to develop a view. These include the roles of the Northern Ireland Select Committee and the Northern Ireland Grand Committee. Under the arrangements for devolution, many matters which currently come before these Committees will come before the Assembly. This will have a knock-on effect on the workings and procedures of those Committees — clearly, something that this Committee will wish to consider.
Next, we must examine the procedures that relate to parliamentary questions.
2.15 pm
How many of you will be aware of the 1923 ruling by the Speaker at both Stormont and at Westminster which stated that matters devolved to the Stormont Parliament should no longer be addressed from the Floor of the House of Commons because the Ministers responsible for such matters were in the Stormont Parliament? Should this ruling continue under the new arrangements?
The question of the proper scrutiny of public expenditure in the Northern Ireland Departments is overseen, at the moment, by the Public Accounts Committee at the House of Commons. If such matters are devolved to Ministers and to this Assembly, there may be a case for having a separate Public Accounts Committee in Northern Ireland answerable to the Assembly. These are matters that are likely to have a knock-on effect on how Westminster does its business.
There are different views on how European legislation should be dealt with. Currently it comes forward to Parliament, which legislates on behalf of the United Kingdom. Should that continue or should the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly look at the European matters on their respective Floors?
There is also the question of the role and views of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. The famous West Lothian question has been raised by Tam Dalyell, the Member of Parliament for West Lothian, and asks whether Scottish Members of Parliament will have the right to consider and vote in the House of Commons on matters that pertain to England when English Members of Parliament will not be able, after devolution, to discuss matters devolved to Scotland. If that principle were extended to Northern Ireland, it would clearly have an effect on what happens at Westminster.
The question is how to delineate the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, who will retain responsibility at Westminster, and the authority of the Assembly, and again there are ramifications on how Westminster is likely to do its business.
The next stage is for the Procedures Committee to consider some complex oral evidence and seek guidance from the Standing Orders Committee, constitutional lawyers and the Procedures Committee at the House of Commons itself. Initial discussions with the Procedures Committee shows that it would accept comments received by early November. The Committee is therefore seeking to renegotiate the deadline because of the complexity of the issues involved and the amount that Members need to learn. Although we have Mr McGrady, Mr McCrea and Mr McCartney, who are either serving or former Members of Parliament, and although I spent three years as a parliamentary assistant at Westminster, there are many members of the Committee who are not familiar with how Westminster operates.
There is also uncertainty about the Bill. Many clauses in that Bill may be changed completely by the time it comes in to law, so there may be ramifications there and, indeed, for the inclusive nature of the Assembly’s Standing Orders. There are three parts to this question: first, what will the Bill eventually say; secondly, what will the Assembly’s Standing Orders say; and, thirdly, how the Committee will view changes to Westminster’s role.
There is also curiosity about how the proceedings in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will operate. They will be different and, most importantly of all, they have not yet been elected. I understand that various teams have been liaising with the Cabinet Office to produce outline Standing Orders for them so that when they come into being, they will have something on paper. Clearly, because of the knock-on effects, it is likely that all three devolved institutions will want to have similar relationships with Westminster.
There are major constitutional implications, and the Committee believes that it would be wrong to rush its conclusions. The Committee is, therefore, seeking the leave of the Assembly to continue its work for a further month and report to the House by 6 November. I hope that the interim report has given a flavour of the challenge faced by the Procedures Committee and that an extension will be permitted.
Mr P Robinson:
I want to make several comments as a preface to my remarks on this report. The first is that there are some bad habits creeping in to our procedures. I did not receive a copy of the report until this morning when I arrived in the building and made an effort to get it myself. Any report which is open to debate and amendable should be with Members well in advance of our session.
I appreciate that the Committee had a deadline to meet, but I am sure that its Members were not working over the weekend, and presumably they had completed their task — in as far as it went — before the end of business on Friday. It would have been helpful if some way had been found to have it with us on Saturday. It had still not arrived when I left home this morning, and I now find myself having to speak on a report of which I have been able to give only a cursory look. I make that point as, I hope, a helpful criticism.
Secondly, I note that this is the second time that the Assembly has delegated a task to individuals or to a Committee, and it has not been fulfilled. I understand that this is a complex subject and that some Members will have to read themselves into it and become more acquainted with the issue, but no matter how many Committee meetings it takes, there is a duty on the Committees and on the First Minister (Designate) and Deputy First Minister (Designate) to comply with the Assembly’s requirement and provide a report by the stipulated day. In saying that, I have no doubt made myself universally unpopular with colleagues in my party and in other parties who will, of course, indicate how much work has been done on that Committee.
Where a task has been set it must be fulfilled. Having said that, I support them in their desire to complete the job, and I hope that it will be fulfilled within the extended period. I want to encourage them. This is a part of the United Kingdom which has an elected body, and it is important that we play our full part. We should not — and I ask Members not to get to their feet on this one — become territorial on these matters whether we are in central government, regional government or local government.
We should not forget that our main purpose is to provide a service for people. If we say that we are not going to provide the information that people may need to do their job, then, ultimately, our constituents will suffer, and if Members of Parliament require information relating to devolved matters, we should not reasonably withhold it.
There is currently a procedure in the House of Commons whereby if I put down a Question, written or otherwise, for a Minister on a matter which might be the responsibility of, say, the Housing Executive, the Minister, although not immediately responsible, may, after speaking to the Chairman of the Housing Executive and obtaining the answer, place it in the library and thus make it available for all Members of Parliament.
Equally, a devolved Minister may feel that he is directly responsible to this Assembly — and so he or she would be — but if a Member of Parliament at Westminster wanted to have some information about a road scheme in Northern Ireland, it would be unreasonable for that Minister to refuse to tell him because he was not an Assembly Member. The answer should be provided through the Secretary of State, who can either reply directly to the Member or place the answer in the House of Commons’ library as a response from the Minister in Northern Ireland’s devolved Government.
We should remember that, ultimately, Ministers in this Assembly have a responsibility for whatever duties they carry out, and they should be answerable to the people. If somebody at Westminster feels that they have a pertinent question, they should have the right to ask it and get an answer.
I am sure that we in the United Kingdom family will want to strengthen our relationship with Westminster and with the United Kingdom as a whole, rather than try to put a wall around our procedures here and simply say, "We are answerable only to this Assembly and to no one else."
Mrs Nelis:
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. Part of the The Ad Hoc Committee’s terms of reference was to comment on the press notice that was issued by the Procedure Committee at Westminster. It is premature for the Ad Hoc Committee to try to address the Procedure Committee’s comments. The Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee has said that the task of trying to comment on the procedural consequence of devolution presented great difficulties for the majority of Members. The Ad Hoc Committee was not initially in possession of all the necessary information. At the outset it was not in possession of any information at all. There were also problems due to Standing Orders not being completed.
It is perfectly understandable that the Ad Hoc Committee has not completed a report on its comments. The Assembly will have to take note of the procedural consequences when the North/South bodies are set up and the Assembly is directly engaged in a relationship with Dáil Éireann at Leinster House.
Mr McCartney:
Mr Robinson spoke about "a report". In the words of Humpty-Dumpty, a report can be anything you want it to be. This report does nothing other than set out the problems that faced the Committee from day one.
The Committee could have reported by any date. It could have submitted a report stating "We have nothing to report". It could have said, "On the basis of the information that is currently available to us, it is impossible to make a report that would in any way be relevant to the consideration of the matters about which we are asked to inquire".
I was unable to attend the first two meetings of this Committee. Mr Cedric Wilson deputised for me. At the third meeting I discovered a peremptory order that a final report had to be delivered by today. I made it clear to the Committee that I would not in any circumstances lend my name to a final report that contained absolutely nothing of value. I do not criticise the members of the Committee because at this stage there is no reason why they should have any knowledge of the procedural esoterics of Select Committees and the like in the House of Commons. No member of the Committee, other than those with parliamentary experience, had, to use an Ulster expression, "a baldie" about what was going on. Such a situation came about because, in its press notice, the Westminster Procedure Committee said that it wanted our comments by a specific date. As a result there was minor hysteria in the Assembly about providing a report by that date.
A meaningful report could not be provided for the following reasons. First, the Northern Ireland legislation had not gone through all its stages in the Commons and the necessary substantial material was unavailable.
2.30 pm
Secondly, in order to liaise and relate the Standing Orders of this Assembly with the procedural Standing Orders for the House of Commons, it would be necessary for the Standing Orders of the Assembly to be complete. They are far from complete — the Standing Orders Committee is still in existence.
Thirdly, it would have been necessary to have at least the substance of the provisions that will pertain between the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and Westminster in order to make meaningful and sensible comparisons between what was going to happen between Westminster and those bodies in circumstances not largely different from our own.
The result was that the Committee on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution was not in a position to deliver anything of substance. Therefore the Committee agreed that it would produce an interim report which in essence says "We have nothing to tell you. Here, in layman’s language, is a list of the problems that we will address". However, in terms of addressing those problems or making recommendations, it says zilch. I doubt that there will be any significant improvement on the matter by November.
The Assembly should have responded to the House of Commons press notice by stating that it would be impossible to make any meaningful comments by the date suggested, and that when the Assembly is in a position to make comments, we will make them. Why was that not done? Why are we debating this issue today? In my submission this is filler. There is no reason why the Assembly’s time should be taken up with this motion, had it been properly addressed initially. The only reason it appears here is so that the public can see that the Assembly is doing something. The truth is that, on this item, it is doing virtually nothing.
The real issues to be addressed are the democratic foundations upon which this Assembly is supposed to operate. Will they be democratic or will they be controlled by the possession of weapons by a private army supporting one of the parties allegedly participating in the democratic process? That is what we should be talking about. We should be talking about the circumstances in which the North/South bodies are to be set up, if they are to be set up. We should be talking about the terms in which members of the Executive are entitled to be members of the Executive on the basis of any democratic principles. Instead we are talking about an issue that should not be considered at this stage. If anyone had addressed it with any logic and common sense, he would have replied that at this time, there is simply not available any of the most basic and relevant information that would enable us to make a meaningful report.
The interim report is largely a non-report. It is time this Assembly started addressing issues of substance, instead of manufacturing issues such as this.
Mr A Maginness:
I congratulate the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the production of the interim report. I do not share the views expressed by Assembly Member, Mr McCartney. The reality is that the Committee was faced with an instruction from the Assembly to prepare a report within a certain time. It became evident that that would not be possible, but we endeavoured to fulfil the instruction given by the Assembly.
Given the time available and the resources at our disposal, in terms of expert advice and assistance, I believe that we have produced a good and fair interim report.
The report flags up in a straightforward and common-sense way the problems that will exist with the procedural consequences of devolution. It was designed specifically to assist and advise Members.
We decided not to rush into a definitive document — it would clearly have been impossible to do that — but in the time available it was our desire to give as many people as possible the benefit of the Committee’s discussions.
I will not repeat Mr McFarland’s meticulous and fair comments, which reflected the standard of his Chairmanship and the co-operation that exists on the Committee. I regret Mr McCartney’s remarks and, indeed, those of Mr Robinson, whose criticisms were petty and churlish and reflected poorly on the Member.
This is the best interim report that could be produced in the time available. Members will be able to learn quite a lot from it and investigate further the issues that have been highlighted so ably by the Committee.
Furthermore, at that Committee meeting it was agreed — albeit in Mr McCartney’s absence — that there would be a self-denying ordinance and that the Committee’s Chairman would move the motion asking the Assembly to take note of the report.
Mr McCartney:
Does Mr Maginness accept that I was not present and that had I been, I would not have given my consent to any such self-denying ordinance? Furthermore, does the Member also agree that it was my suggestion that the report be an interim one and not a final one and that the relevant issues be set out in plain language?
Mr A Maginness:
I do not know whether Mr McCartney would or would not have consented to the Committee’s agreed line, but I do know that he did not remain for the full Committee meeting. The fact that he was absent is for Mr McCartney to explain to his party and to the Assembly. If the United Kingdom Unionist Party had wanted to ensure that the Committee’s position was not the one that it adopted, it should have been there to ensure that.
Mr McCartney did raise the issue of an interim report, and that was easily agreed with the rest of the Committee. It was a common-sense proposition, and there was no dissent on it. We did not have to rely on Mr McCartney’s learned skills to come to that conclusion.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
While a Committee is quite entitled to say that it is not going to discuss a matter when it comes to the Floor, it cannot bind any other Member. The Committee is reporting to this House, and if it wants the Chairman to deal with the matter while everyone else says nothing, it is quite entitled to do so, but it is not entitled to stifle debate on the Floor of the House.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I was taking this as a point of order, and I am not sure that points of information can be taken at this time.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I want to show how reconciled I am with the Member and he can say what he likes. I want to give him freedom.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
That may well be so. Was that a point of order, Dr Paisley?
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Yes.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I cannot take a point of information in a point of order.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I had not finished my point of order.
I ask you, Mr Presiding Officer, to make a ruling. Mr McCartney said there were certain matters that we should be debating – and I believe we should be debating them. If a motion in respect of those matters were to be put down, would you accept it, and could those matters be discussed at a future sitting?
The Initial Presiding Officer:
This is not a point of order as far as this debate is concerned. Mr McCartney took a degree of licence in regard to the breadth of his comments. As far as the specific question is concerned, any motion may be brought forward and discussed by the Committee to Advise the Presiding Officer which will look at the style of motions and their format. Up until now we have had what are called "take-note debates" — debates which are not amendable and for which the House will not divide.
That may not accommodate the concerns raised by Mr McCartney or Dr Paisley, but if motions are proposed, they will be considered.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I am entitled to put a point of order on something that you have allowed. You were lenient with the hon Gentleman, so I, too, am entitled to leniency. He must have been in order, and, therefore, I am entitled to put a point of order on what was in order.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
He was indeed in order; you have not gone out of order, and the next in the line of order is Mr Seamus Close.
Mr Close:
It would be fair to say, both literally and metaphorically, that this is ‘Much ado about Nothing’. The report caused difficulties for the entire Committee. Instead of sniping at Committee Members, people should recognise that if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. Committee Members should be applauded; they are saying that the task with which they were charged was impossible to complete in the allotted time for various reasons outlined by other Members — the Northern Ireland Bill has not yet been completed, the Standing Orders are not yet completed. We were charged with an impossible task, but we were big enough, bold enough and man enough to admit that.
Paragraph 11 of the interim report states
"The Committee is concerned about coming to hasty conclusions simply to meet the Procedures Committee’s deadline."
It would be a very foolish committee that accepted a deadline and said "To pot with the content; we will meet that deadline." This Committee is not going to fall into that trap; we need more time, we have asked for more time, and I expect that the House will give us more time in order to perform such an important task. We must all fully accept our responsibilities and not be slipshod in the face of a false and inoperable deadline.
2.45 pm
Mr P Robinson:
The deadline was set not by somebody out in the back streets but by the Assembly, and I cannot recall the Members saying that it was unachievable. Before he sets a new deadline, as recommended in the report, is he satisfied that this Committee will produce a good report by that deadline?
Mr Close:
I am hopeful that a full report, which will be educational for Members, will come to the House by the date set because it is wrong for any Committee to create an elitist little group which keeps to itself information that should be presented to all Members.
I disagree with the comments made by the Member for North Down, Mr McCartney. The Assembly should not be used, either now or in the future, to renegotiate the Good Friday Agreement.
Ms Morrice:
It has been said that the report is not complete and, perhaps, that we have not carried out our duties. It is important that the Assembly and the wider public know that I and other members of the Committee learned two very important lessons from our meetings. The first concerns Mr Robinson’s remark about not being territorial. This was vital to our work. We are not alone in Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom is going through an incredibly fascinating process of devolution, from which we must learn. We must also learn from these islands as a whole, from Europe and from the wider world. I am attempting to broaden the picture. We have examples of best practice in places like Spain, Belgium, Germany, America and Canada. We must learn from those examples and also from the mistakes which have been made.
The second lesson concerns education, the learning curve that was referred to. Mr Close suggested that we should not form an elite group which gathers information but does not disseminate it. Openness, transparency and speaking plainly in a language which is understood are vital, a language which is understood by, as we used to say in the BBC, "the man, the woman and the child on the Ormeau Road bus". We need to be understood by everyone, and that is very important. We do not want the report to be issued until it is complete because we want it to be an education for Members of the Assembly and everyone outside as well.
I commend the report to the Assembly.
Mr S Wilson:
One thing that we have learnt from this debate is that politicians are quite touchy, but the legal profession is equally so, and politicians who are also members of the legal profession are extremely touchy. Much of this debate has been taken up unnecessarily by people who are concerned about damaged egos.
The one thing which all the Committee members can genuinely say is that we have done our best to complete the task that we were set. We have not spent time unnecessarily contemplating the devolution label. Many of us, when we started, thought that the answers to some of the questions put to us by the Procedures Committee of the House of Commons could be easily and quickly answered.
As we took evidence we found that the issues were much more complex, and that there were more constraints than we had envisaged at the outset. The Committee cannot be faulted for not having done its work. As a teacher I had to make a distinction between people who did not do their homework and people who did not do their homework in the way that I thought it should have been done. The homework has been done, but perhaps some Members expected a different result. To date we have done the task we were required to do, and the report shows that.
We were constrained because the legislation is not yet complete. We were also constrained — as was pointed out by some of the people who gave evidence to us — by not having Standing Orders completed for the Assembly. That is not an excuse; it is a fact. As far as the Democratic Unionist Party is concerned — and this reflects the views of many other members of the Committee — the general principle is that the Assembly is an integral part of the governmental arrangements for the United Kingdom. We do not wish — it would not be possible anyway, as was pointed out to us by some of those who gave evidence — to make recommendations or push a line which would totally divorce this Assembly from the rest of government in the United Kingdom.
The House of Commons, which is the supreme authority on governmental arrangements within the United Kingdom, must equally have a say and responsibility, and its Members should be able to scrutinise and know what is going on in this part of the United Kingdom. To some extent we are guinea pigs, being the first regional Assembly to have the opportunity to make a submission on the matter; the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales are not yet up and running and therefore are not able to give evidence. That was a further constraint upon us — a kind of self-denying ordinance. There are things which may well be within the remit of the Assembly, but there must also be accountability at Westminster.
Another important factor which we contemplated at great length was the fact that, whether we like it or not, Westminster provides most of the funding for Northern Ireland and, therefore, it will require input and scrutiny on how those funds are spent, even though the matter may be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Mr Close perhaps sat on the fence, as is his wont, when the question was put to him by Mr Robinson. In the end, I believe we will produce a magnificent report; the input from the Committee will be of quality, and we will approach the task with professionalism and diligence. Of course, it is just possible that when the final report is presented to the Assembly, my party colleagues may point in derision at it, but I do not think that will be the case. The Committee has not rushed fences or produced superficial recommendations. The final report which this Assembly will receive will be one which will be of use to the Procedural Committee of the House of Commons and will ensure good governmental arrangements between this region and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr Paisley Jnr:
I support the comments made by my colleague, so I will be brief. Most people will agree that this is an inconsequential report. Indeed, some Members’ comments have also been inconsequential. We would love to have a serious debate on the real issues facing this country. We would love to be debating the issue of decommissioning, or whether terrorists should be in the Government of Northern Ireland. We would love to be debating those issues which concern every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland. However, the point is that we have been asked to deal with a technical matter, and we should not walk away from that, rather we should make the best go of it and ensure that the Committee brings forward a report.
Unfortunately the position outlined repeatedly in the Committee by Mr Wilson is not the one that his party appears to have adopted today, but I am sure that when we go back to the Committee we will find that the position is not as stark as it appears.
Turning to the content of the report, I think it is important that a principle is established. Indeed, many Unionist Members have already referred to it.
This is Westminster’s responsibility. We are an integral part of the United Kingdom, and it is up to the Government to determine our relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom.
However, it is fair that Westminster should say to the Assembly "Give us your advice. Tell us how you would like the procedures to operate." We have an opportunity to have an input into the Westminster Procedure Committee’s thinking about how devolution and the procedures of devolution should operate. I look forward to conventions and procedures being established which do not tie and restrict either this body or Westminster, which are durable and flexible and workable and which allow this Assembly, in terms of its relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, to function as best as is possible. It is important that we have the opportunity to scrutinise and, where Westminster deems us competent, to legislate. We must urgently establish a channel of communication with Westminster so that we have full access to information — for example, draft European legislation — and that we are able to give advice from a Northern Ireland perspective. I ask the Assembly to let us go back into Committee and prepare a more comprehensive report by 6 November which makes our views clear.
Mr McFarland:
I am reminded of the story of the tourist asking for directions who was told by a local "If I were going there, I would not start from here." The Committee has worked hard, but concern was expressed as to whether we would be able to report in time. As I understand it, the position of the legislation will be fairly clear by early November, which should give us time to reflect upon it.
3.00 pm
I am encouraged by the comments of the Democratic Unionist Party and by those of Mr Wilson, whom I thank for his support. The Committee was goodhumoured and, apart from some noises off, it has worked well. I also thank the Committee Clerk for producing all sorts of background material. He rarely got home before 8.00 pm. I urge Members to support the motion and the time extension.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Assembly takes note of the interim report prepared by the Committee on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution.
Pig Industry
Motion made:
To call attention to the unprecedented and ongoing crisis within the pig industry, and to call upon Her Majesty’s Government, in conjunction with the European Union, the banks and those involved in the processing sector, to take the necessary immediate steps to alleviate the present crisis and ensure the future viability of the pig industry within Northern Ireland; and to move for papers. — [Rev Dr Ian Paisley]
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Let me say something about how I shall, by leave of the Assembly, conduct the debate on this motion, which begins "To call attention to" and ends "and to move for papers." It is the practice elsewhere that such motions should not be contentious or amendable and are not pressed to a division. The mover of the motion is accorded the right of reply and will formally beg leave of the House to withdraw the motion.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
The motion was originally in the name of my deputy, Mr Robinson. As there are few farmers in East Belfast, I am taking it over for the farmers of North Antrim and elsewhere. I became uneasy when my colleague, Mr Sammy Wilson, also from East Belfast, spoke about guinea pigs. There are no guineas in the pig industry. It is in serious crisis, and it is right that public representatives should have this opportunity to express their views on the serious situation in farming.
The industry is important. It employs about 4,000 people, has 1,800 producers and 2,200 processors and is worth approximately £200 million to the Northern Ireland economy. Those who know the pig industry knows that its fortunes rise and fall, but this could be its final fall, and Northern Ireland could be left with no viable pig industry. When some Members of the Assembly met the Minister, Lord Dubs, they put just one question to him. They asked, "Do you want a viable pig industry in Northern Ireland or are you prepared to preside over its demise?" The pig industry is not on the road to recovery. We face its demise, and we had better wake up to that hard, terrifying fact.
The pig industry had the fire at the factory in Ballymoney, and that was a terrible blow. Forty per cent of the killing and curing power was taken out of the industry. Such a blow in any industry would have been seen as an emergency in any other part, not only of the United Kingdom but of the whole of Europe. Yet our Government, and those who sit farther down the road from us in this very estate, did not think it was an emergency. They did not go immediately to Europe and say that 40% of our industry had been destroyed. We expect them to do for us what has been done in Germany, in France, in Spain and in Italy in such situations. The Government have never acknowledged this to be an emergency situation. In fact, wearing the hat of a Member of the European Parliament, I approached the Government and asked what approaches they were making to Europe. They replied that they were making no approaches to Europe because there is no money in Europe for this.
I then went to Europe. I talked to Mr Fischler, the Commissioner, and he said that there is money in Europe. This is an emergency, but the United Kingdom Government have made no application for help. So I went back and they said they would consider the matter. After considering the matter they decided that they were not going to make an application. However, there will be a debate in the European Parliament this week on the pig industry and its tragedies, and I welcome that.
The United Kingdom Government, the Secretary of State and our Ministers should have been on the ball to get from Europe not charity but something that we have paid for. Northern Ireland, according to the Exchequer at Westminster, has never got out of Europe what we have paid in per head of our population while the United Kingdom has been a member. It is all right for the Irish Republic to get £6 million a day, but we have never got out what we have paid in. The Government have not been faithful stewards of the pig industry, and for that I castigate them.
Mr McCartney:
Dr Paisley has said that killing and processing have been reduced by 40% owing to the fire at Lovell & Christmas in Ballymoney. Is he aware that the remaining 60% capacity is increasingly being taken up by the processing of pigs imported from the Republic of Ireland?
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I was about to come to that. I am very glad that things from the South can be slain in Northern Ireland, but our pigs should have priority.
I come now to the very important matter of pricing. It is very important. In the basement cafeteria here I asked for a sausage and was told that it cost 35p. I then asked for a slice of bacon to go round the sausage, and that was another 30p — 65p for one sausage and one slice of bacon. Look at the prices the farmers are getting for their pigs. Why is it, with the drastic fall in the price to the farmer, that the housekeeper and the buyer in the shops are getting nothing? In fact, it seems that the prices of pork and bacon are rising, not falling.
During the week that commenced 20 June 1998, around the time of the fire, the price was 85p per kilo. During the next two weeks Maltons had no pigs taken in, but in the week that commenced 6 July 1998 it shipped its first pigs to England at 85p per kilo. During the next week it shipped again, and the price dropped to 78p per kilo. No pigs were moved during the next week, but in the week that commenced 27 July 1998, the price dropped to 60p per kilo. No pigs were moved during the week after that, and during the following week the price dropped to 50p per kilo. These are drastic cuts in price.
The farmers waited impatiently — and rightly so — for Maltons to make a decision. There were lots of negotiations, which I will not go into today, and I am aware of them all but the Industrial Development Board paid a large subsidy to buy Wilsons, the Unipork people, and make the deal with Maltons. I must pay tribute to Lord Dubs and the Industrial Development Board because a lot of money was paid for this. Wilsons changed hands and did very well out of the deal — Mr Wilson got all his debts paid, and £10 million into his hand as well. He nearly did as well as he has done out of mushrooms, but that is a story for another day.
We all thought that the first priority in Cookstown would be to kill Northern Ireland pigs. What has happened? Northern Ireland pigs have been killed, but more pigs from the South have been killed in Cookstown than ever before. A backlog of pigs is now rising. Somewhere in the region of 20,000 pigs are waiting to be slaughtered. If that figure rises to 40,000, where will the pig industry be? We, as public representatives, have a duty to make known our alarm about what is taking place. There are no two arguments to this.
These are facts, and facts are stubborn things. I cannot give names, but I have studied these figures very carefully. Producer A, since the fire, has been able to ship just 28% of his pigs. All Members, even those who have no experience of farming, will know that pigs have to be fed. And, of course, if the pigs get too fat, the farmer will not benefit from all the meal that he has bought. In fact, the pigs become a liability. That is the tragedy. Producer B has shipped 39% of his pigs, while producer C has shipped only 30%.
It is important to remember that the farmers have to wait 12 days before getting a penny in payment. There is no cash flow in the pig industry today. These people have their backs against the wall. Indeed, some of them have contemplated suicide. That is a fact. They have had to be counselled. Why? Because people in the pig industry always had a cash flow and worked hard to make their industry viable. Now they cannot meet the feed bills. I understand that around £40 million is owed to the millers at present.
3.15 pm
What have public representatives done? Assembly Members have met all the bankers, together with the Secretary of the Northern Ireland Banks Association. We have talked to them. We have pleaded with them to ease their pressure on farmers.
They told us that they had difficulties, but we said that banks did not go bankrupt. They are all in the money. They boast of making millions of pounds every year but farmers are going bankrupt. The banking sector has a responsibility.
We have also talked to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. Last weekend, we put pressure on it again about the slaughtering of pigs that had been raised in the Republic of Ireland. I was at a meeting at which the Social Democratic and Labour Party Member for Mid Ulster, Mr Haughey, proposed that pigs be sent to a factory across the border to be slaughtered. Instead of that, pigs from the South are being brought up to Cookstown to be slaughtered, thus preventing the slaughter of pigs that have been reared in Northern Ireland.
The Government must face their responsibilities. This is an ongoing crisis. The backlog that is starting in the pig industry will increase and, as it increases, farmers and pig men will go to the wall.
I know that I speak for all those who have the interests of agriculture at heart when I say that the Government must not allow this industry to go to the wall. How can the Industrial Development Board justify using taxpayers’ money to finance Maltons without first purchasing all Northern Ireland pigs, before topping up with Southern pigs? Is it for financial reasons? Are their commercial requirements more important than the preservation of a viable industry in Northern Ireland? It is annoying that Southern pigs are being killed in Cookstown, and it is totally unacceptable that the price paid for Southern pigs is approximately 10p per kilo more than for Northern Ireland pigs. That averages out at £7 per pig. That means that our farmers are losing £7 per pig in a factory that is financed by Northern Ireland taxpayers, and that should not be. The House needs to make its presence felt on this matter.
Mr Leslie:
Most North Antrim Members are here today, and the House will hear a great deal from us on the subject of pigs because the Agivey bacon factory is an important employer in our constituency. It was with some relief that we heard of the acquisition of Unipork by Unigate although, as Dr Paisley has ably pointed out, there seems to be a little more to it than meets the eye. By investing £27 million in the takeover, that firm is showing confidence in the future of the pig industry in the area. It remains to be seen whose pigs it will put through the factory.
We have to focus on the conduct of the Government and their attitude towards the structure of the pig industry: the unilateral legislation that forced our pig producers to get rid of the stall-and-tether method of keeping sows; the range of health and hygiene requirements placed on the rearing, slaughter and processing of pigs, which added considerably to the cost of producing pork products.
I stress the word "unilaterally" because the same measures have not been applied elsewhere in Europe. In the future that may mean that United Kingdom pork produced to the standards required by regulation will set the benchmark price.
At the moment pork producers elsewhere in Europe are not applying the same standards and are supplying pork to the pig-meat industry in the United Kingdom. This is yet another area where the United Kingdom, by assiduously applying regulation, has disadvantaged its own producers to the benefit of those in the rest of Europe.
This has coincided with a period when both the pound and the green pound, which sets our prices, are particularly strong. It has coincided with a period when pig production has risen by 10% over the previous year and, worse still, with a drop in the demand for pig products due to the financial crisis in Russia and parts of South-East Asia.
This is the situation that industry dreads. It has increased production; its production costs have gone up; and its market has been reduced by factors beyond its control and which it could not have foreseen.
These problems apply equally on the mainland. The difference in Northern Ireland is that we have come face-to-face with the problem sooner. Due to the loss of the Agivey bacon factory the build-up of pigs on Northern Ireland farms was much more rapid.
It is almost inconceivable that the Government can be so lacklustre in their approach to this problem. Any of these factors, if applied to some other industry, would have caused an equally serious problem.
The problem of a strong pound is universal. The whole of British industry is complaining about it. Other industries have lost part of their market due to financial problems elsewhere in the world. However, the pig industry has to face every one of these problems and in its case the only person who is losing money is the farmer. The loss is not being shared the whole way up the production chain. I feel that the Assembly should give careful consideration to the profit margins of the retailers.
One of the most unfair aspects of the pig crisis is that the best producers are the ones who are being burdened with the greatest debts. They were the producers who acted most promptly to take on board the new regulations, who accumulated debts to produce a better pig which would comply with the regulations due to take effect by the end of the year. They have invested in a pig industry which now has a distinctly reduced market.
This is not the first time that there has been difficulty in the pig industry. From time to time in the farming industry, there are periods of overproduction, lost markets and reduced profit margins.
This is the first time that so many parts of the agriculture industry are suffering from variations on the same problem. It is also peculiar how, just as only the pig farmer is losing money in this crisis, only the beef farmer is suffering from BSE. The meat processors are not having any difficulty at all. The Department, therefore, has an immediate responsibility to address this issue and, furthermore, being the custodian of the industry, it must look to the future. It would be daft to address this problem only for it to recur in a short time. We must be sure that we have a viable and sustainable industry for the future.
Since it invested so heavily in Northern Ireland, Unigate clearly believes that we have the highest standards of health, hygiene, pig production and pig processing available. These are essential to the future of the food business and, in due course, pork produced in the United Kingdom will set the benchmark and be the premium product. If we cannot get immediate action to address the acute financial problems of the pig producers or solve the problem of disposing of live pigs, that future — which may well be right, may well be rosy — will never come for many of our pig farmers.
We have a long history of successful pig production in Northern Ireland, and pig producers have coped with tight margins, with loss-making situations, with blue ear disease and with swine vesicular disease and have come through them all. We have a very high standard of pig husbandry in Northern Ireland. It would be an absolute disgrace if all that were to be thrown away by a lack of action now.
Mr Haughey:
I support the motion. Although I cannot always support what Dr Ian Paisley says, I am very glad to do so on this occasion.
I regret that the motion is not more inclusive, for the entire agriculture industry is in crisis - the worst crisis in recent times. A two-hour debate is not sufficient to deal with the problems of the pig industry, and is certainly not sufficient to deal with the problems of agriculture as a whole. The Assembly has a duty to look at that whole matter and to look at it very urgently.
We need at least one full day to debate the crisis in agriculture which is affecting our economy so drastically. Mr Initial Presiding Officer, can you advise us on how we might best make arrangements for such a full day's debate? Can you also advise on how we could arrange for the House to hear evidence from the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association and other relevant bodies? The crisis is one of monumental proportions, and the Assembly has a duty to deal with its effects and the impact of it on the community as a whole.
I further propose - this could be dealt with through the usual channels - that, having had a full day's debate on the agriculture industry and having taken evidence from the farmers' representative bodies and others, we take an all-party delegation to meet the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to try to impress upon him the size of the disaster facing the industry and the serious implications which that will have for the whole of our economy and for rural society in particular.
Mr McCartney:
I apologise for interrupting Mr Haughey's flow and endorse everything he has said. Does the Member agree that the appropriate Committee to take such evidence would be the Committee to be set up to scrutinise the work of the Department of Agriculture and that that highlights the necessity of assigning the Committee portfolios even while the Assembly is in shadow mode? If the Assembly is going to get into full gear, these portfolios should be assigned as soon as possible.
3.30 pm
Mr Haughey:
I take the Member's point entirely; he is right. However, I do not wish to overlay the discussion of this extremely serious matter with a political distraction which we will have to settle at another time and in another way. There are urgent issues facing us as a community -issues which need to be addressed in a structured way - and the sooner we get on with doing that the better.
I accept that the pig industry is a special and an extremely urgent case. There is a crisis - not just here but all over Europe. There is a glut of pigmeat in the European Union, but I will not go into how that came to be now.
A glut of pig meat means a serious problem for pig-meat producers because prices fall. That, in turn, is exacerbated by the current absurdly high value of sterling which makes it extremely difficult to clear that glut of pig meat by exporting it outside the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. That crisis, exacerbated by the sterling problem, has been turned into a disaster for the pig industry following the fire at Agivey. The situation is urgent, and special measures are needed to deal with it.
I have pointed out to the Minister and to others responsible that agri-monetary compensation is available from the European Union at the request of the relevant Minister. That funding could be used to alleviate the crisis facing the pig industry, but it has not been requested. And the reason it has not been requested is the operation of the so-called Fontainebleau Agreement - a mechanism under which the former Prime Minister, Madam Thatcher, secured a rebate on the United Kingdom's net input into the European budget.
I disagree with Dr Paisley on one matter. The United Kingdom's so-called net input into the European Union does not come out of British taxpayers' pockets. It comes about by virtue of the fact that the United Kingdom, unlike other European Union member states, continues to convert a disproportionate element of its trade outside the European Union, therefore the Customs and Excise duties collected on goods coming into the United Kingdom - many of them in transit to other European Union member states - go into the European Union budget as its own resources. So when Madam Thatcher thumped the table and demanded the return of her money, it was not her money and it was not coming out of European taxpayers' pockets.
Agro-monetary compensation is available, but the British Government have not asked for it, because under the Fontainebleau Agreement, it would not make financial sense to do so. But it makes good financial sense and this is a matter that the Assembly should press with the British Government and with the Secretary of State for Agriculture.
We need to concentrate on the immediate need to increase the slaughter capacity available. Dr Paisley referred to a suggestion that I made in a previous meeting that there was spare slaughter capacity available just south of the Border. I have been in touch with the proprietor of the plant in question, and he is prepared to talk to Maltons, and I have also been in touch with Maltons to urge them to have discussions with him. I hope that they have already contacted each other and that there may be action on that front.
I have also been in touch with the Department of Agriculture in Kildare Street, and I have discovered that the plant in question was inspected recently and was passed for immediate production, so all that is required is a business understanding between Maltons and the proprietor. I intend to continue to pursue that matter.
If there is not an increase in slaughter capacity within a couple of weeks, as Dr Paisley has correctly said, there will be an unmanageable amount of pig meat on farms with the consequent pressure on farmers. That must be cleared because, for three to four months, it will not be possible for Maltons to expand slaughter capacity at the Cookstown plant that it has taken over. One obvious way to provide for that three- to four-month period would be for Maltons to take a short-term lease on the plant that is available just south of the border. That would meet the immediate need.
The European Union has a duty to address the crisis in the pig industry throughout Europe. It is not good enough for Commissioner Fischler to say that the problems must be resolved by market forces. As other Members have said, if market forces are allowed to reign, there will be bankruptcies by the hundred. Our pig-meat industry will collapse. Not bringing production into balance with consumption, but rather losing capacity, will almost certainly mean a shortfall in pig-meat production in the foreseeable future, with consequent imports from outside the European Union. We cannot and should not contemplate such a future.
Pig-meat production has to be reduced rationally in a way that preserves our capacity to provide the quantity that we need. I have written to Commissioner Fischler within the last few weeks with a proposal along those lines. However, I understand that the Commission is not willing to commit huge sums to support the pig industry because that might lead to difficulties with other product sectors. Pig-meat production can be managed downwards by the imposition of weight limits at slaughter and by quotas; that will not require huge sums. I have written to the Commissioner urging him to adopt those suggestions, but I have had no reply.
I respect what was said at the start of the debate, that we need at least one full day to debate the crisis in agriculture. We need to be able to take evidence from the relevant bodies to equip a delegation to meet the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to impress upon him the seriousness of the crisis in agriculture in Northern Ireland and the consequences for our whole economy.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Three specific questions were put to me in terms of a ruling. There is no technical reason why we should not have a full day's debate on agriculture. That is a matter for discussion through the usual channels, and I shall certainly ensure that the matter is raised and discussed.
Secondly, I was asked about holding a hearing. As Mr McCartney correctly said, the proper forum would be one of the scrutiny Committees. We do not currently have such a Committee and the tenor of the remarks suggested some urgency, which may mean that the matter ought not to be left to that. However, that leaves us with a technical dilemma as to how it can properly be achieved. I shall explore the various possibilities to see whether agreement can be reached through the usual channels, on how the matter might be addressed.
The third question was about an all-party delegation. That is entirely a matter for the parties. It is not a matter for me, and it should be taken up between the parties at whatever level is deemed to be appropriate.
Mr McCartney:
Is there any reason why the Assembly cannot at this stage convene an Ad Hoc Committee of all parties to deal with that matter?
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Surely the House has the power to become a Grand Committee itself to examine such a matter?
Mr Haughey:
A way of getting around this might be for the House to appoint an all-party delegation and give it authority to take evidence.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
We can see that three rather experienced politicians have come up with three very reasonable ways of proceeding, and there may indeed be other ways. This demonstrates how, if the will is there, the means can be found.
I will ensure that the matter is discussed through the usual channels and hope that an agreement can be reached. It is clear from the remarks made by Members across the Chamber that the matter must be attended to.
Mr McGrady:
In view of the remarks that have been made across the Floor about the urgency and importance of this subject to the farming community and their financial plight, may I suggest that the party Whips get together. They should be able to orchestrate the appropriate action without there being any problem about the Assembly's rules and regulations.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
It is clear what the will of the Assembly is on this matter.
Mr Molloy:
A Chathaoirligh, may I thank Dr Paisley, the Member for North Antrim, for providing us with the opportunity to raise this matter. There is a crisis not only in the pig industry but in agriculture generally throughout the Six Counties.
Farmers are wondering whether this is a deliberate policy by the British Government and the European Union simply to wind up the agriculture industry here. We seem to go from one crisis to another, and no attempt is made by either the British Government or the European Union to resolve them.
We have had the BSE crisis and the attempts to resolve that crisis involved isolating beef produced here from that of British beef. Remember this is different - it is reared and looked after in this country. As Dr Paisley has said, the strip of water between us is all that separates the two standards. We need to recognise that the beef and pork produced here have probably been of a higher standard than that in the rest of Europe.
Now we have the decline of the pig industry, which is a major crisis for pig producers, and for the small farmers in particular. For years they have survived on mixed farming, producing beef cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry. Every part of this industry has been affected by scares of different kinds. Why do we have these scares? Sometimes there is little fact to support or substantiate the claims that are made.
A lot of blame has been attached to the fire at the Ballymoney plant, and that did reduce the killing and curing capacity. But that in itself has not created the crisis. There have been many different reasons, but I would like to concentrate on the packaging of bacon and pork products in the Six Counties. Time and again we see pig products on the shelves labelled "Processed in Northern Ireland", but that does not tell us the source of those products. Many of them come from Denmark and other Scandinavian countries.
3.45 pm
There is confusion with regard to packaging. Source needs to be clearly identified so that customers may be assured that they are supporting the local industry.
The crisis is a result of the absence of an overall agriculture policy. The Six Counties has been linked to Britain industrially but has lost out on the agricultural side, as Dr Paisley has said, whereas for years the South of Ireland has benefited from European funding.
We need a co-ordinated agriculture policy in Ireland. It is important that we speedily move to set up appropriate Departments, the scrutiny Committees and, most important of all, a North/South body to bring about an all-Ireland agriculture policy.
What is the point in blaming Ministers who have other responsibilities? We need to move speedily to the appointment of a Minister who can demonstrate to the Assembly that he is doing all in his power to ensure that, for example, the pig industry prospers.
Undoubtedly we need support from the European Union.
We have heard today how all aspects of the pig industry in the North and in the South are linked. I welcome the news that throughout Ireland there is growing co-operation in all aspects of farming - not excluding the unions. We have an opportunity to help. We should not sidestep the issue but should set up appropriate Ad Hoc Committees with power to scrutinise and to plan for the future. Let us stop moving from one crisis to another.
We should move speedily to set up an Executive that is responsible for a Ministry of Agriculture and will lead to the establishment of a North/South body. It is important that this Assembly have powers of control and scrutiny.
We have an opportunity today to speak with a united voice in support of the pig industry and to show that we are concerned. Meetings are all very fine, but we need to move speedily to practical issues. We must use practical means to deal with the crisis.
Mr Ford:
Like Mr Haughey, I welcome this debate, but not the motion's exclusion of certain matters. There is a crisis in the pig industry, but this is not the only sector of agriculture which is suffering. For example, lamb producers in Great Britain are getting even worse prices than those in Northern Ireland. In the case of beef, there is no doubt that flagged suckler herds in Northern Ireland had their chances in the certified herd scheme sacrificed so that others could make progress, albeit slowly. Producers are still waiting for their 1997 compensation while we discuss problems that have arisen in 1998.
There are many problems throughout agriculture, but we have a major crisis in the pig industry, which requires not just a debate but action.
A number of factors have been highlighted by Members. The strength of sterling is a fundamental problem for all of British industry, whether agricultural or manufacturing.
There are economic problems in Russia and the Far East which are beyond the capacity of this House to solve. There is over-production across Europe, and action is required at European level. The fire did not help the situation.
The Government must take action. We need to move on to the point where we take responsibility, but all we can do at this stage is put pressure on others. The pressure which is being applied by farmers' representatives, with the support of people from every part of the House, has helped to make a difference. It has put pressure on Lord Dubs in particular, but it has also shown how difficult the problems are to resolve.
We met Lord Dubs just after the initial proposal for the welfare scheme - it was proposed that under the scheme pigs would be removed from the food chain at nil compensation - and forced him to produce a fairly minimal amount of compensation. At the meeting Mr Small, the Permanent Secretary for the Department of Agriculture, said that he would have to satisfy the Government and the European Commission to get them to agree and then find the money from somewhere.
We all hope that in a few months we will have the power to decide on agriculture here. I do not know how much we will be able to do in co-operation with our neighbours down the road. We will still have to go through the British Government when we go to Europe.
However, having power solves only the first problem. We will still have to satisfy Europe and come up with the money from somewhere. The short-term aid provided by the Government was a minimal financial payment which was dressed up as a welfare scheme to ensure that it met the European criteria. Unfortunately, it was a one-off scheme and the difficulties continue. We need to press for the reintroduction of that scheme to take away the surplus pigs that we still have.
Mr Haughey highlighted the issue of the green pound. One of the reasons for every part of agriculture suffering is that the Government have refused to make any application for agri-monetary compensation. We, as a united Assembly, should be putting pressure on them, because that is something which would benefit every sector.
It was pleasant to see the direct action taken by many of the producers to highlight issues such as sourcing of meat, the way in which retailers have been buying elsewhere and the prices which consumers have had to face. Many customers are going into shops - and it is not just the farmers' wives - and looking at the labels to see where food is coming from. This, and our standards, are to be welcomed.
We should also be asking why the consumer is paying as much as he was paying three months ago while the farmers are receiving virtually nothing. It is a long time since I studied economics, but that does not sound like a free market to me.
In Northern Ireland we have high standards, the highest in Europe - quite possibly the highest in the world in a number of areas - in food quality, health and animal welfare. We should not be seeking to reduce those standards, but to maintain them, and we should be ensuring that people are aware of them. During the next century this is what the consumer is going to demand. It will not be a matter of cheap food but of quality food. If we take this crisis as an opportunity to publicise our standards it may help us; if we take it as a reason for reducing our standards we may destroy our long-term viability. There are signs at Westminster that the creation of a Food Standards Agency for the United Kingdom has been put on the back burner. That is something that the Assembly, when it gets its full power, should take up for the benefit of our consumers and producers.
It is vital that consumers get the information to make an informed, fair choice from what is available. If we are going to work to alleviate this crisis, we must also prepare for the future to ensure that there is long-term viability for every sector of agriculture.
Mr R Hutchinson:
All Members agree that farmers in general and pig farmers in particular are in a state of crisis.
As we consider their plight it is worth remembering that we are speaking of people who have worked hard to set up their businesses and who, over the years, have provided not only employment but also a service to the people of Northern Ireland. An industry that employs approximately 4,000 people and is worth around £200 million to the economy of Northern Ireland deserves immediate help from the Government.
There are some 65,000 sows in the Province, producing some 25,000 pigs for slaughter each week. On 28 August 1998 the Government provided some help with the announcement of the pig welfare slaughter scheme to cull overweight pigs. Compensation of £30 per pig was payable and applications for some 27,000 pigs were made, of which 15,000 were presented for slaughtering. That is now complete and most of the payments have been made. To its credit, the Ulster Pork and Bacon Forum provided a top-up payment of £3 per pig to encourage people to enter pigs under this scheme.
We have all heard about Maltons which recently took over the Unipork processing plant at Cookstown. Many farmers had hoped that this would result in slaughtering increasing a little more quickly. However, because the plant has limited chill facilities it cannot increase slaughtering numbers until new facilities can be built. In the meantime Maltons continued to ship pigs to England, agreeing to take some 4,000 pigs per week, but the number actually shipped is considerably less. Farmers are very unhappy with the way they have been treated by Maltons and unless something is done there will be a second backlog of pigs building up when it was hoped that the slaughter scheme and Unipork takeover would help to stabilise the market.
Pig prices have shown no sign of improvement and farmers continue to make a large loss on every pig. For example, in September 1997 the loss was £7·08, but by August 1998 it was £17·03. No producer can sustain that level of loss without it having a severe effect on his business. Aids to private storage were introduced on 28 September. Farmers welcomed this but its effect will be limited as the meat must be exported outside the European Union when it comes out of storage. In addition to the strength of sterling, oversupply problems and the ever increasing specifications required by supermarkets, pig farmers in the Province are disadvantaged for other reasons.
First, the rigid implementation of welfare regulations such as the stall and tether ban. The ban will come into effect in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1999 and will require pigs to be kept in loose housing systems. Many farmers have not yet been able to build new loose-house systems because they cannot afford to do so; the money is not there for them to convert facilities.
4.00 pm
By contrast, the European Union - including the Republic of Ireland - banned only tethers and no mention has been made of stalls.
Secondly, feed costs are approximately £10 per tonne higher here than in England, due largely to transport costs. This is roughly equivalent to £2·50 per pig. There is no subsidy on that at all, and no cheap long-term loans as in France or Germany. No grant aid is available for modernising, as it would be in the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland has poor Aujesky's disease status, but any eradication programme would have to be for the whole island of Ireland: the Republic of Ireland has not reciprocated.
Meat-and-bone meal cannot be fed to pigs in Northern Ireland. It is not suggested that MBM should be legal in Northern Ireland, but imported pork from animals that have been fed on MBM, and therefore produced at reduced cost, is becoming increasingly common in our supermarkets. That needs to be looked into.
There are ways in which our industry can be helped. Pressure should be put on Maltons to ensure that there is no further backlog. That can be done by rapidly increasing exports to England. That company is responsible for the majority of the slaughter capacity in Northern Ireland. As my party leader has said, sourcing policies at Cookstown need to be examined. Maltons should be encouraged to take more pigs from Northern Ireland in preference to pigs from the Irish Republic. Co-operation within the industry should be encouraged, possibly with financial assistance. A recent report by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the competitiveness of the United Kingdom pig industry pointed to the lack of co-operative producers' groups as a major weakness.
Processors must pay a realistic price that covers the cost of production. There should be grant aid for modernising and a common-sense approach to the implementation of legislation. Producers should be able to average their returns over a five-year period for tax purposes. Long-term low interest rates would help, as would better access to education and training. There is currently a shortage of skilled labour. Transport assistance for grain from the United Kingdom is another option. Unless drastic action is taken on the pig industry, many homes in the Province will be in danger of falling apart; I would urge the Government to take the steps that are necessary to help our pig farmers.
Mr Douglas:
Farming in Northern Ireland is in decline, mainly because of the strength of the pound and the BSE crisis. The situation has been exacerbated by the failure of the British Government to take up the monetary compensation that has been made available in eight other European Union countries. Although much reference has been made to the European Union, it falls to the United Kingdom Government to obtain that money for our farmers.
The pig industry is part of an industry that is in oversupply not only in Europe but in the world, to the tune of 10%. While that continues, many difficulties lie ahead for Northern Ireland producers. The fire in mid-June at the Lovell & Christmas factory could not have happened at a more difficult time for pig producers. Before the fire, Maltons had been processing up to 15,000 pigs a week. After the fire, that fell to 2,200, and although it had promised that a further 4,500 pigs per week would be transported to England, that never transpired.
After much lobbying from the Ulster Farmers' Union, political leaders and devastated farmers, the Government helped to alleviate the desperate oversupply on farms. This was mainly because of the welfare issue - there was little consideration for the welfare of the farmers themselves. The buy-out scheme - at approximately £30 per pig - still left farmers losing in the region of £30 as it takes approximately £60 to cover all production costs, including overheads.
Because of the very serious crisis during the last months, the Government, through the IDB, have helped facilitate Maltons to purchase the factory in Cookstown in the hope that a new factory can be built within two years to cater for pig processing in Northern Ireland. At the present time Maltons is paying only £31 per pig at slaughter in Northern Ireland, while in Great Britain the price is in the region of £45 per pig. This payment is to pig producers who are applying the same code of practice as their counterparts across the water, hardly what one would call a level playing field. Maltons is currently processing a substantial number of pigs from south of the border, when we are still in oversupply. As a substantial amount of taxpayers' money has been used through the IDB, pressure should be brought to bear by the Government on Maltons to pay producers at least on a par with their counterparts in the remainder of the United Kingdom and to source all their pigs in Northern Ireland while we have this oversupply.
The other two processing plants in Northern Ireland are paying a higher price per pig at present, and surely this disparity needs to be addressed. At Cookstown on Saturday, weaned pigs were being sold for £2 each. Before this crisis these pigs were making between £18 and £20. At this level, each sow will lose about £100 per litter. If the depressed situation continues - and there is no better outlook in the near future - many producers will be selling their pigs to cut their losses. Surely this cannot be allowed to continue. If some further steps are not taken to help producers through the next few years, most of our 1,800 producers will not survive - certainly not at an economic level.
I urge the Government to take further steps to help farmers, especially in the pig sector, to set up structures to ensure that our producers, in future, have an organised market to enable them to compete on a level playing field. Unless immediate steps are taken to stop the decline of the pig industry, there will be further depletion of the rural population, which will have serious implications for the country as a whole.
I support this motion.
Ms McWilliams:
Rural development, as much as urban development, is the concern of every Member in the Chamber, and we have heard today about the serious crisis in the pig industry. We have heard from other Members what the problems are and so I will be brief in making some suggestions for action.
Mr Douglas described the problems facing those who are rearing pigs and told us that producers are getting £2 for each weaned pig at the Cookstown market. That really does signify a total collapse in that market.
We have also heard about the problems facing the pig processing industry. It seems from recent articles in the 'Farm Trader' that the industry has had a pre-tax loss every year since 1991, ranging between £4 million and £7·6 million a year - there is not much profit to be made in processing either - and we have a crisis on both sides of the industry. I heard Robert Overend on Radio Ulster this morning saying that he is a farmer and asking where the trading margins are for pig producers. He also asked "What happens when the little pig goes to market?" We really need to know the answers to those questions to enable us to find long-term solutions to the problems as well as short-term ones, and I am thinking about the surplus that exists at present and the call for action on it. Bob McCartney is right: the sooner we get the Executive and the scrutiny Committee for agriculture in place, the sooner we can look at both the short-term and long-term problems.
Something must be done about the fact that these pigs are still on the farms. There is a huge surplus and this is a major crisis, not just for animal welfare, but for farmers' incomes. As Dr Paisley pointed out, many of these farmers are in such a psychological state that some have recently committed suicide - and the number is rising.
I also take Mr Ford's point that there is no contradiction between having good food safety and good food production. The debate has often been between the producers and the consumers, and many of the regulations that have been introduced have somehow been pointed to as being part of the problem. I do not see it like that. The suggestion I am making is one that John Simpson made recently in 'Farm Trader'. It points to the European Union and, as the United Kingdom Unionist Party Member pointed out earlier, to some assistance in relation to the materials that are being transported. The European Union has a provision that could allow some assistance towards the transportation of surplus pigs to other outlets. Several Members referred to the fact that the outlets in Northern Ireland are not dealing with them - either because of the Republic of Ireland's pigs or because they do not currently have the capacity.
After the fire, pigs were transported to England, but the shipments were not large enough, and because the farmers were not getting enough assistance, they stopped, as there was nothing in it for them. Within the European Union there is a provision that allows assistance, particularly for transport aid, to trade from peripheral regions. This has been accepted elsewhere, and it seems to me that Northern Ireland is a peripheral region and should be making use of some of this transport aid to deal with the current surplus. If aid were made available, we might be able to deal with some of the short-term problems, so incentive schemes must be put in place urgently. Processors should be invited to tender, and those with the lowest bids should be considered for that aid.
In common with all Members I have been lobbied by the Farmers' Union on this issue, and I am only too glad to offer my support.
Those of us who attended the transition seminar last week were invited to take up some of the suggestions made by the chairmen of the Farmers' Union and the Agricultural Producers'Association. When they addressed Members they said "Gentlemen of the Assembly, we ask for your support". On behalf of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, may I say to both Leslie Craig and Will Taylor that the women in this Assembly take agriculture every bit as seriously as the Gentlemen.
Mrs Carson:
Most of the problems have already been considered today.
I am concerned that the pig producers are currently facing heavy losses and severe financial difficulties, and as a housewife and an Assembly Member with many concerned constituents who depend totally on pig farming for their livelihood, I want to make two points.
The Government's reaction has been tardy, and pig farmers and their families have suffered greatly. I have seen this with my own eyes in my constituency. The financial aid offered was too little and much too late. The reorganisation of the pig processing industry in Northern Ireland and the restoration of facilities to replace the loss of Lovell & Christmas may bring better times, but it will be an uphill struggle for some time. For some pig producers and their families it may be too late.
My second point concerns point-of-sale marketing. I am very basic and down-to-earth. I appeal to all Ulster housewives to show their loyalty and demand home-produced pork products in their local shops and supermarkets. That would be worthwhile. I know that is pretty basic, but it would demonstrate their concern.
4.15 pm
At our seminar last week, Mrs Joan Whiteside from the Consumers' Council said that it had conducted a survey which showed that Northern Ireland people were not supporting local products. Some supermarkets have responded to the pressure from pig producers and their families to stock local products. Now the public can see products clearly marked "Produce of Northern Ireland". However, in local supermarkets some sausages are marked "Irish produce", but a closer inspection shows that they have been made in England. Shoppers can play their part by reading the print - which, admittedly, can sometimes be quite small - and ensure that they buy local products.
There has been an expansion of multiple supermarkets here, and that has led to the dropping of local suppliers, not only of pork but of vegetables and dairy products. Even milk has been found to be packaged in Manchester.
I appreciate that we all depend on others accepting Ulster products, and it is important that we increase our exports, but charity begins at home. A good home market will ensure a sound foundation for future development. I appeal to Ulster housewives to support the pig farmers by buying locally-produced pork.
Mr Dallat:
I support the motion, and I was pleased that Dr Paisley stopped short of calling for passports for Southern pigs so that the Assembly can be united on this major issue.
The crisis, of course, is not confined to the pig industry; it affects agriculture as a whole. Whether one owns a picturesque farm in Fermanagh or a window box in Cullybackey it does not matter - everyone will be affected by this crisis if it is not dealt with. I support Mr Haughey's suggestion to widen the whole debate about the crisis in agriculture.
In 1996, farm output in Northern Ireland was £942 million; in 1997 it dropped to £803 million; and estimates for this year put output at £756 million. That is an overall drop of 20%. In terms of income, the situation is even more serious. In 1996, total income was estimated at £319 million; last year it dropped to £203 million; and this year the figure is no more than £156 million. That is a drop of over 50%. We must seriously consider Mr Haughey's comments because the drop in income is not confined to pig producers. Income from pigs is down 24%; sheep income is down 25%; cattle income is down 12%; and income from broilers is down 8%. However, I am happy to report that potato growers are making some money - but only potato growers.
Dr Paisley referred to debts. I think he said that £40 million was owed to the manufacturers of feeding stuffs. I would add to that the £500 million that is owed to banks and the £80 million that is owed to hire-purchase companies. That shows the seriousness of the matter.
The reasons for the crisis in agriculture have been well documented here, and I do not propose to go over them again. The solutions, of course, are also well known. Some reference has been made to the Ulster Farmers' Union and the Northern Ireland Agriculture Producers' Association. Let us take forward the suggestions that have been made in the debate, and fully involve those organisations in solving the problems.
A whopping 62,000 people are employed in agriculture in Northern Ireland on 32,000 farms. The market is valued at £2·28 billion, which is 8% of gross national product. The crisis has implications for the wider community. I do not own a farm, but I live in a rural area and am wise enough to know the effect that this crisis will have if it is not dealt with.
I am involved in rural regeneration programmes vital to the future stability of Northern Ireland. They are part of the peace process, and they could be put in jeopardy if this problem is not dealt with. Members have asked questions about who is getting the profit. We have been told that retailers may be creaming it off, but I do not think so. There is a chain of middlemen which needs to be uncovered.
Sometimes we can look to the Republic of Ireland for inspiration. The Government there recognised the problems that large multinational supermarkets would create and put appropriate controls in place. Only last week, one of the largest, Tesco, announced plans to import huge quantities of potatoes. The Government of the Republic stopped this, so there at least, the potato growers can breathe freely for another while.
There are many difficulties facing the agriculture industry. Some of the solutions are long term; the industry needs reinvestment and financial support. Above all, it needs a level playing field. The Assembly should take on board the excellent and very positive suggestions that have been made here today.
Sometimes I wonder why two thirds of the world is starving, while the other third cannot find a market for its foodstuffs. It leaves me bewildered. In supporting the motion, I also ask that the suggestions that the debate be widened and that the Assembly give its support to the agriculture industry as a whole be taken up immediately.
Rev William McCrea:
No one can overstate the tragedy that is facing Northern Ireland's pig farmers. If this matter is not dealt with, where is the pig industry going? Will we have a pig industry after this crisis? I have no problem with the suggestion that we should have a wider debate on agriculture - I know that there are problems in the lamb and sheep sectors of the industry as well, such as BSE and other related matters. But if we wait to consider and debate the full range of problems in the farming industry, there will be no pig farmers in the Province at all - they will all have gone bankrupt. We cannot allow this to be lost in a general debate on agriculture; the present crisis must be dealt with urgently.
Mr Haughey:
I did not intend to suggest that consideration of urgent action on the pig crisis should be delayed until we have a general debate on the agriculture industry. In the course of my remarks, I called several times for immediate action.
Rev William McCrea:
I accept that, but I feel it is important to make clear that we are dealing with a very serious crisis. There are people in the province who are about to "go over the top" mentally, who are about to commit suicide because of this situation.
The Government, the European Union and the banks must do something now. This is not something that can be dealt with further down the line. They must do something now to help this industry out of this crisis.
The pig industry problem is not a problem the pig farmers created for themselves. It is true that there is overproduction and a glut of pigs throughout Europe. But in Northern Ireland, at the very time when there was overproduction across Europe, the Government and the Department of Agriculture were aiding another processing factory to expand its kill in the Province.
Let us get the facts absolutely clear. The pig industry was encouraged to increase its production here. The Industrial Development Board encouraged many of the pig farmers to take out bank loans so they could put up bigger houses and increase their production. The farmers are innocent of any part in this crisis and should be helped to face it.
The second part of the problem was the fire at the Agivey processing plant which, tragically, took place at a time when the industry was going through problems across Europe. One night 40% of our kill capacity was wiped out. From that moment on, there was a dramatic change in pig prices. On 20 June, when the fire took place, Northern Ireland pig farmers were being paid about 85p per kilogram, a reasonable payback for their hard work. But from that time onwards there was a decrease in the amount that pig farmers were paid.
After the fire at the Agivey processing plant, there was a total lack of communication between Maltons and the pig farmers facing a processing crisis. Any blame ought to rest with those who should have been consulting and assisting the farmers - many of them faithful Maltons producers. But very few pigs - sometimes no pigs - were removed from their farms despite Maltons promise to take 4,000 pigs across the water each week.
Let us look at the facts. There were weeks when not one pig was sent across the water to England. On most weeks it averaged 2,000 pigs - not the promised 4,000. At the time of the fire the pig price was 85p per kilogram. Then it dropped to 78p, then to 60p, and last week to 50p. What else has happened during this time? A grading system was introduced as another way of lowering the price to the producer. One pig producer averaged 46·3p per kilogram, yet pigs, sent to other factories in the province, fetched 63·52p per kilogram. The difference between what has been paid at Maltons processing plant at Cookstown and what has been paid by other factories in the province is 17·22p. This difference of £12 per pig is a disgrace. While farmers are going bankrupt, someone is making a fat kill. The housewife is not paying less for her bacon, yet the farmers are getting a pittance. They are losing £20 per pig. No farmer can sustain such a loss. The Assembly must identify who is making the profit, and that is why this issue is before us today.
It is interesting that the pig producers in the Irish Republic are paid approximately 10p - £7 per pig - more than the Northern Ireland producers. They are coming from the Irish Republic to the Malton factory in Cookstown and getting £7 per pig more than producers here. Surely there is something wrong with such a situation, even allowing for other fluctuations such as the 2p per kilogram VAT refund. Northern Ireland farmers were getting 50p and under for their pigs while pigs coming from the Irish Republic were worth 59·4p. That surely is wrong at a time of crisis.
The Industrial Development Board is paying money from our Exchequer to ensure that the producers from the Irish Republic get more than the producers in Northern Ireland. In fact 1,000 more pigs were taken in Cookstown from the South of Ireland, thus depressing the market further for pigs produced by Northern Ireland farmers.
To add insult to injury, at the weekend the 'Mid-Ulster Mail' and the 'News Letter' reported Maltons as saying that it was paying over the odds and that Northern Ireland farmers were getting more for pigs. This came out of a meeting between the Ulster Unionists and Maltons, and the public relations exercise by Maltons was bought hook, line and sinker by someone. Maltons is not paying over the odds. In fact they are undercutting the farmers in my constituency and paying more to those coming from the Irish Republic. I resent that. Also, while farmers here are getting 50p for their pigs, those across the water are getting 70p. This is wrong. We demand equal treatment for our farmers from this company. They should get a just reward for all the hard work that they have put in. It is about time this firm faced the reality that the farmers are having to face.
The Government have done precious little to help the farmers. The French Government in similar circumstances brought in an initial measure for farmers in difficulty and other financial aids, yet our farmers got nothing.
We need to research this issue. The farmer gets a miserable pittance for his pig, the housewife pays exorbitant prices and in between are the processors and the supermarkets. Where is the fat cat? Who is getting the money? It is about time the housewife and the farmer got their share.
4.30 pm
Mr McElduff:
A Chathaoirligh, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, ba mhaith liom mo thacaíocht a chur in iúl do na feirmeoirí uilig atá faoi bhrú mar gheall ar easpa straitéise ó thaobh na hÚdaráisí, mar a thugtar orthu, agus mar gheall ar dheacrachtaí áirithe a thit amach ar na mallaibh.
I want to support the motion. Aontaím go ginearálta leis an rún atá idir chaibidil againn. I endorse the comments of other Members who have spoken in this debate. All of us have been well lobbied through our daily contacts with farmers in our constituencies and through extensive correspondence from the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association and the Ulster Farmers' Union. Farmers are in despair and under tremendous strain. In the past they earned a reputation for complaining, but on this occasion the complaints should be listened to.
The crisis extends across the whole agriculture sector. Cattle and sheep prices have plummeted to record lows, but the pig industry is a special case. The agriculture industry has suffered a succession of body blows and neither the British Government nor the European Union have responded appropriately to the crisis.
Immediate, radical action is needed to arrest the general decline.
There is a tendency towards rural depopulation, a drift from the land. A comprehensive, integrated, rural strategy with agriculture at its core and supported by the EU is needed. That strategy should consider sympathetically the plight of small farmers. It should aim at making small farms viable and try to keep farmers on the land. To make farming viable, it could consider agri-tourism and diversification.
Many farmers are under severe pressure. They wonder whether they have made a wise choice in travelling the road less travelled. Agriculture is obviously one key area where all-Ireland development would be beneficial to everyone, North and South, cross-border, all-island. It suits my party to make that point politically, but it is also common sense. The same could be said of the delivery of the Health Service and on other issues. It is navel-gazing for us to restrict ourselves to the Six Counties in considering the delivery of services or the development of industry. Farmers will not thank us for being myopic in that regard.
Can the relevant agencies increase kill and cure space and slaughter capacity? Is there any scope for the adaptation of meat plants which are presently on low production? My point about all-Ireland development is pertinent when one considers what happened at Ballymoney. Was it not prudent, from a cost-saving perspective alone, to look south for spare slaughter capacity when there was no readily available spare capacity in the Six County state?
We should stop navel-gazing and look towards all-Ireland development of the agricultural economy. Our farmers will thank us for doing that.
Go raibh míle maith agaibh.
Mr Kennedy:
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important topic, which requires urgent attention. I am conscious of the fact that many of the points that I shall make have already been made, but it does no harm to reinforce them. I am concerned not just about the pig industry, but about agriculture as a whole in Northern Ireland. That is because I come from the largely rural constituency of Newry and Armagh. Many of my constituents who are involved in agriculture as a whole, and specifically in pigs, are near the bottom line in terms of livelihoods and in terms of their own lives. We are aware of the worries that they and their families share. It is crucial that the Assembly give urgent attention to their plight. The state of the agricultural economy gives rise to grave concern. Everyone in Northern Ireland ought to be concerned about that because what affects the farmer affects everybody, although I am not sure whether everybody realises that at this time.
The reasons for the crisis have been outlined. The current economic situation has been managed, or perhaps mismanaged, by the Government in terms of high interest rates and so on. There is overproduction of pigs in other European Union member states, and there is no sign of that lessening.
As a result of other crises within agriculture, particularly beef, many farmers went into pigs to try to survive. Unfortunately, they are now in even more dire straits as a consequence. There was the unfortunate fire at the Lovell & Christmas factory and the closure a couple of years ago of the local Ulster Farmers' Bacon Company plant at Newry in my own constituency.
Many of us warned then that it would have dire consequences, resulting not only in the loss of jobs, but in the availability of the local plant that was working well. The plant had worked for over 25 years and, with the exception of one year, had never lost money. Yet it was closed without rhyme or reason. We also had the closure of the plant at Enniskillen. So the unfortunate fire at Lovell & Christmas compounded the crisis that we found ourselves in.
I have grave concerns about the agriculture policy of the present Labour Government. They have proved that they are no friend of the farmer or of agriculture. I am concerned that this will continue, as there is no sign of any improvement.
We have had a beef crisis; we have had a poultry crisis; and every now and again we get a mad scientist who publicly warns us of another new crisis - potentially in sheep. I wish that Government spokesmen, even if they are academics and scientists, would act sensibly and speak carefully so as not to raise consumers' fears when no real fear exists.
I welcome the limited scheme that was put in place after a lot of toing and froing by the Government, even though it is clearly insufficient to deal with the overall problem. Therefore, I endorse the calls on the Government to bring forward a new more equitable scheme urgently that will address the needs of local pig producers. Other European countries can deal effectively with crises in agriculture and bring forward proper schemes to give real assistance to their people.
I wish that our Government, Her Majesty's Government, would initiate the same arrangements. There is mounting concern that pigs are dying and leaving the farmers in debt to the tune of over £20 per animal, yet there is no decrease in costs to the consumers. We urgently need to find out who is making the money, where it is going and the reasons for that.
We need to address all these issues urgently, and I look forward to the Assembly's playing its part in that. Many in the agriculture industry will be looking to see what leadership the Assembly can give and how it acts on behalf of the industry and in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr ONeill:
I support this vital motion. When a topic has been well aired by other Members, one wonders if anything more can be said. One issue that does need to be addressed is the role of the Department of Agriculture, our local Department in all of this, referred to by Dr Paisley as the people down the road in the same campus as ourselves.
It worries me to think that the large number of civil servants, on secure, handsome salaries, have not been able, in spite of all their endeavours, to provide crisis plans for an industry that has already had a considerable number of crises.
What is wrong with having a crisis plan so that European Union funds can be accessed quickly when an industry is affected? Why can imaginative ideas not be introduced to prevent the worst kinds of suffering?
There is a very serious crisis in the sheep industry and, as a representative for South Down and the Mourne sheep farmers, it is incumbent on me to comment on it. This crisis is rapidly becoming as serious as that in the pig industry. I am calling for action - sheep farmers need an emergency deal now.
Mr Kennedy referred to the Government's misinformation about BSE in the sheep industry. Consequently there is alarm in that industry. There is almost the development of a food-scare cult, and some people think it is fashionable to make alarmist statements without realising their disastrous consequences.
The Department of Agriculture could develop a proactive plan - for example, a very practical measure would be the early payment of the sheep annual premium. Indeed, moneys that are currently outstanding should be paid over now.
The Assembly's Agriculture Committee and the cross-border committees will have to scrutinise the Department's lack of imagination. Plans will have to be scrutinised so that they can deal with tragedies such as that faced by the sheep industry.
Hill farmers are also alarmed that Agenda 2000 proposals may lead to the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance being removed. Again, the Department needs to provide clarification and assure farmers that that will not be the case.
An average small farmer in my area may have only 100 ewes and 10 cows from which he receives an income of £675 and £1600 respectively - a total income of only £2275 for a marginal hill farmer. There would be disastrous consequences were that allowance to be removed, considering all the other things that farmers have had to suffer in recent times.
I support the motion.
4.45 pm
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
We have had a good debate.
There is a reason why we have highlighted the crisis in the pig industry, although I am fully aware, as is every informed Member, that there is a crisis right across the board in agriculture.
There have been times in the Province when individual sectors of agriculture have been under intense pressure. The whole of agriculture is under intense pressure but the most intense pressure, at the moment, is on the pig industry. We have heard in this debate, and rightly so, that there are worldwide pressures. There is a strong pound. We will not be able to do anything about that in time to save the pig industry. These are the facts. The Prime Minister is saying that he is keeping the pound strong, and the Chancellor is backing him up, yet this policy is utter folly - it will destroy the economy and especially the manufacturing industry. But that is the policy and if we wait for a change of heart, we will have no pig industry. That is the sad fact that we have to face. Of course, there are ramifications from Russia and Europe. But if we wait until they are solved, we will not have a pig industry. We need immediate and effective action.
I have my qualms about Europe as everybody knows. But we are in Europe, and Europe controls agriculture. Have we never heard of the Common Agricultural Policy? The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not make decisions; down the road does not make the decisions - the decisions are made in Brussels. Let us remember that.
If we are going to do anything by way of an Agriculture Committee or an inquiry, we need to go to Brussels to put the pressure on. If we are going across the water, let us go to the Prime Minister. He seems to have little bags of money here and there, and when he gets into difficulty, he throws a few million out.
There is no use in going to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food - the hardest and cruellest civil servants ever brought out of the womb of the Civil service sit in that Ministry, and I do not know whether the good Lord can convert them to a reasonable point of view, though, of course, I believe in the majesty and sovereignty of grace, being a Presbyterian. However, we must take this matter to the Prime Minister and to Europe as soon as possible, because every day men are facing ruin.
A beef producer whom I know now owes £45,000, and he is terrified. He never owed money like that in his life. Another producer in the pig industry owes £25,000 as a result of the last three months. These men cannot live with this. It is terrifying because they always had a viable industry and a cash flow. There is no cash flow now, so some things need to be done immediately and pressure must be exerted to ease the financial worries of farmers.
I believe that this can be done in two ways. One way is to give money direct to the pig producers. There is no use in giving money to the factories. There is no use in giving money to the meal men. We need to alleviate and lift the strain. We must bring hope amidst despair; we must work; we must make demands because if we do not, there will not be a viable pig industry remaining. If the pig industry goes, more parts of farming will be sacrificed. If we allow the British Government or any power to let the pig sector of agriculture disappear, all sectors will be destroyed. We need to go to the authorities and put pressure on them.
We must also talk to the bankers - and I would like the Assembly to do the talking. The bankers were very good at going around the farmers, encouraging them and saying "You know you should do this, that and the other thing - there is money here for you."
The evil day comes when the bank manager sends for you. We have all had the experience. He looks over his glasses and says, "Your credit is too much - you must reduce it each month". The man has no way of reducing it. He is at wit's end corner. We need to make immediate decisions on those two levels because financial pressure will kill the industry.
This is a serious business and many factors are involved. Some of the pig merchants have been in the industry for generations and they are broken-hearted. At breakfast time there is a shadow over them and at teatime the shadow is still there. We must think of them. If this part of agriculture is torn out of our country where will those people find employment? Where will the pig men and their families go? They will be for ever unemployed.
We can make progress. It will not be easy because the Government always say, "You want more money". We do want money. We want money to bail out this industry and to keep it going. Slaughtering must be speeded up by those who have got money from the Government to keep the industry going. I have a good personal relationship with the management of Maltons, but I am greatly disappointed by what has happened, and I am making representations direct to the company. We must have action. Some of the people who are suffering were good Malton customers. They were not Wilson customers, and they are feeling the burden and heat of the day. We must push them for action.
Mr Poots:
Is the Member aware that the supermarkets are marking up pork cuts by as much as 900% and that promotions have been running on imported pork which has not been adequately labelled? Does he agree that if the multinational supermarkets will not back our industry properly, we should not support their major planning applications?
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I agree with my Friend 100%. He asked a strong question at the seminar I attended a few days ago. He said, "Show me the bankers, the producers and the feed men who have gone bust. You cannot show them, but I will show you the farmers who are going bust every day." He was not liked for that, and I understand that his invitation to a great dinner was withdrawn. So he did not feast at that table.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion because of the procedural difficulty. I do so reluctantly, but that is the way it has to be.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On a point of order, which may guide us for future events.
I understand that for a balloted Adjournment debate the ballot is conducted on a Friday. It would be helpful for Members to know that they had been unsuccessful in the ballot. Some Members arrived here not knowing whether they would be called in the Adjournment debate although they had prepared for it. It would also be useful if the names and subjects that are to be debated in the Adjournment debate were known by Friday lunchtime by means of an amended Order Paper or a circulated list of the speakers and subjects that are to be raised on the Adjournment.
5.00 pm
The Initial Presiding Officer:
This matter is resolved on a Thursday evening. There were some 24 applications for this first occasion, and I expect a much larger number in future. The amount of time required to contact everyone on a Friday in order to let them know the outcome will be considerable and if we were to continue in this manner, we would require some additional staff. The information that should have been given was that those Members who were to be called would be contacted on Friday, and if they were not, it was because they would not be there. We could, of course, adopt the mechanism that Mr Weir suggests, but that would have practical implications in terms of contacting everyone, particularly in view of the fact that not everyone is able to be contacted.
Mr Weir:
I am not suggesting that we go to great expense or hire additional staff, but if the outcome is known on a Thursday evening, a letter could be sent out to members by first-class post on Friday morning, and they would receive it on Saturday morning. That would not cause too much trouble. Alternatively, on Thursday evening could a circular be put in the pigeon-holes of those who have been selected? That would resolve the situation without inordinate expense.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
It is probably unwise for us to use our time here to discuss administrative matters, save to say that the practicalities of the apparently simple processes have proved to be quite difficult - Members have not been here, they have not been available to collect papers from their pigeon-holes and sometimes they have even been out of the country. However, I take the point; we will look into it. As I said earlier, if there is something unsatisfactory, I would like to hear about it, and I will take it seriously. Please bear with us as we try to be responsive.
Mr Morrow:
A number of Members are disappointed that they were not drawn in today's ballot, and I accept that not everybody could have been drawn out. Can you confirm, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, that those who have been drawn out will not be able to enter the next ballot?
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Yes. Whatever goes into the ballot is destroyed at the end of that ballot. If a Member wishes to re-enter a matter, then he needs to do so. He must contact us, give us the signed slip of paper, and it will then be re-entered.
Mr Morrow:
I would like further clarification. I am referring to those who will speak today. Can they be included in the next ballot?
The Initial Presiding Officer:
They can. The usual channels have indicated to me that they hope that those who have had less chance to speak might be more fortunate in the ballot. This is a very difficult matter to deal with, as I am sure Members will understand.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
One thing worries me. Is this ballot run the way the Speaker of the House of Commons runs hers? Or is it a pure ballot - if there is such a thing as a pure ballot?
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I was somewhat surprised at your terminology of a pure ballot. I have spent some time with the Speaker of the House of Commons discussing some of these matters and have been educated significantly by her in them, but I would not for a moment suggest that there was anything impure about the way she conducts matters in the House of Commons.
Mr McCartney:
The mockery of a ballot is not something which appeals to me or to my party. Surely there is a better way of ensuring a degree of parity in the opportunities for the Members from the various parties to speak. One accepts immediately that the larger parties should have more opportunity - there is no quarrel with that - but a system which allows, as in this case, one Member from the Ulster Unionist Party, which is the largest party, two from the Social Democratic and Labour Party, two from the Democratic Unionist Party, one from the Alliance Party and none from the other parties to speak is not something that we should recommend.
This is supposed to be an Assembly where reason, equality and fairness prevail, and that certainly cannot be achieved by a common lottery. There are better methods. We are not tied to the House of Commons in this; it may have established a ballot for all sorts of other reasons. In any case, this Assembly is not operating on the same basis as the House of Commons, with a Government and a major opposition party. This is supposed to be a consensual Assembly, and that ought to be reflected by something other than a lottery.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
It is true that Members are from parties of differing sizes, but the size of the parties bears no relation to the number of applications to speak. There are some parties with many Members and almost no applications, and other parties with fewer Members but with a considerable interest in the matter. That is one of the reasons for the apparent skew that you describe, and that has to be taken into account.
Mr Molloy:
My understanding was that those who were selected today would not be selected the next time. Secondly, Sinn Fein is not happy with the allocation today or with the method that has been used. As Mr McCartney has said, we must approach this in a way that will ensure representation from all the parties.
Some parties may have made a number of applications judging that in a ballot they would have a better chance of getting some out, but we put forward two on the basis that we had two Members who wanted to speak. We might have been better putting in 20 applications - that would have increased our chances of getting two out, but that would just tarnish the system. We must look again at this method of balloting and find some means of getting representation from across the Chamber.
Mr Morrow:
Mr McCartney may or may not be aware that he will not be included in the ballot by virtue of the fact that he is the Leader of a party. It will not be a ballot in the true sense of the word, because not every Member will have a chance to take part.
Mr McCartney:
What Mr Morrow says has no relevance whatsoever to the arguments that I made. In my party we have other Members, such as Mr Hutchinson, whom we heard today, who are quite capable of delivering a relevant and powerful speech. It has nothing to do with whether my name is in the ballot or not.
It is to do with each party having proper representation and a proper pro rata opportunity. After all, if we have imported the d'Hondt system to ensure equality in the selection of Ministers and in the selection of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen, surely we can devise a better system than a lottery for allowing Members, other than party Leaders, to represent the views of their party.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Members must understand that if we do start to operate this on the entirely proportionate basis that is being referred to, Members from quite a number of the parties will not get an opportunity to speak at all in some of the debates. In the debate this afternoon the parties are not being represented on the basis of their size. All parties will get a chance to speak and then subsequently we will try to parcel out the time on a proportionate basis. That means that the smaller parties will get an opportunity to speak at a much earlier stage and more regularly than would otherwise be the case.
I am entirely the servant of the Assembly and will accept whatever system the House chooses. However, it is important to understand that if one chooses another system it may not have precisely the outcome one wants. Let us not forget that this is the very first day we have used this mechanism, which your representatives decided to use on this occasion, and these things usually work out more reasonably when taken over a period of a few months. Taken over only one day, clearly there will be a skew. If we change it so that in all debates an entirely proportionate basis is used, then it will be rather difficult for me - and part of my responsibility is to try to make sure that smaller parties, independents and dissidents get a chance to speak - to ensure that this happens.
Mr Dodds:
I am tempted to say that since everything else about this process has been well and truly rigged, it would not be too hard to rig the ballot to suit particular outcomes. The underlying principle should be that everybody gets his fair share and his fair say.
With regard to this fundamental issue about the rights of speakers and how often parties should be represented in Adjournment debates, and also with regard to the point that Mr Weir made about communication with Members, those are matters which should be considered by the Standing Orders Committee. It can look at all these issues and try to come up with a system that is fair to everybody and has a degree of consensus across the parties. This is the best way of handling this issue rather than entering into a long involved debate which will end with the result that a lot of people who have asked to speak will not get to speak. I have no vested interest in this.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I appeal to Members to take heed of what Mr Dodds has said. I do feel it is incumbent upon us to ensure that those who are expecting to speak, get a chance to speak, even if that means going a shade over six o'clock.
Mr McCartney:
This suggestion from the Chair that if you have a lottery it may in some way balance out over time is akin to the argument that if a monkey were let loose on a typewriter and given infinity it would produce all the plays of Shakespeare. The idea that we should be committed to a lottery is something which I find fundamentally offensive. Nor need the rules in relation to Adjournment debates be those that govern the manner in which we deal with general debates, where the practice of giving one Member from each of the parties an opportunity to speak before introducing any proportional methods for the rest of the speakers is working and is generally accepted to be fine. I still make the point that we ought as rational beings to be able to produce a fairer system than that which is produced by random lottery.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I want to bring this debate to a close. It has had a fair degree of airing. It should not be assumed that the system which we have had up until now whereby all of the parties have a first bit of the cherry before consideration is given to other Members is universally accepted and welcomed. Such an assumption would be unwise.
Mr McCartney:
Maybe some of us should get out of the Assembly in those circumstances, if we are not going to be heard, Mr Initial Presiding Officer.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
It is not a question of people not being heard. I am simply trying to ensure that everyone is fully informed of the reality, which is that it is not entirely accepted all round.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
Item six on the Order Paper is described as an Adjournment debate. Of course it is not an Adjournment debate as that term is understood in other places. However, we are structuring it in this way, particularly in the absence of Ministers. Twenty-four Members submitted applications to speak and were included in the ballot. Six Members have been selected and will speak for up to ten minutes on a subject of their choice.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. - [The Initial Presiding Officer]
City of Belfast: Development
5.15 pm
Dr McDonnell:
The issue I want to address is the development of the city of Belfast in the widest possible context. Most of us are aware that in the last century Belfast was a tremendous industrial powerhouse, and some of us would like to see it being a powerhouse again - perhaps in the technological sense of the twenty-first century. The one thing militating against that is a tremendous lack of co-ordination across all the Government Departments. I raise the suggestion in passing that when the Assembly gets organised perhaps we should have a Junior Minister for Belfast to co-ordinate work across the Departments, but I will leave that for the moment.
The whole community in Belfast has made tremendous strides in redeveloping and rebuilding the city, in both physical and human fabric terms. I have serious concerns, about the opportunities missed and squandered, just as I am pleased about the opportunities used. I would like to draw attention to some of those concerns, and I hope I will have a chance to debate this at greater length at a later stage.
While there are piecemeal plans, there is an almost total absence of any overview, co-ordination or integrated plan for the development of the city, and that is my overriding concern. There are a number of component parts to any worthwhile development strategy: constructing the physical attributes; developing a transport system; connecting the education system to the strategy; the economic aspect that involves people rather than bland structures; and generally ensuring that the health and social services underpin the whole thing so that when things go wrong, or when people are either ill or at a disadvantage, they are supported.
I could further subdivide the components, but it is not essential to do so at this stage to make my point. In our system, as I see it, all these parts function independently, and there is little linkage between them. Much, but not all, of the potential synergy is lost at a considerable cost to the city in both financial and human terms. Some five or six years ago, those of us who were on Belfast City Council were permitted to raise a small amount of money from the rates to promote the economic development of the city. We raised £1 million and we used that to unlock a further £1 million of EC funding. Tremendous strides have taken place, with many of the targets achieved across a whole range of programmes, unlocking some of the bottlenecks and providing opportunities for the people. I pay tribute to my colleague Mr Empey, sitting fornenst, to use the Ulster-Scots word. He has done an outstanding job in providing leadership, strength and drive.
In the city council we have built our whole agenda around three themes: community economic development; the development of existing businesses; and promoting inward investment where possible. I must emphasise that in most cases we have surpassed our own expectations, and successes range right across the whole spectrum including community projects, those which strengthen our retail sector, those working to build confidence and capacity in small business and those helping to build a formidable network of friends and allies across Europe and North America with a view to supporting the work of the Industrial Development Board.
We have mobilised and encouraged people and empowered them to believe in themselves and achieve their full potential.
I am seriously concerned that the efforts of the council and its staff are often frustrated by what can only be described as a distinct lack of enthusiasm. I have heard others put it much more strongly, using terms such as "lack of co-operation" or "petty rivalry". In that context I refer to some of the Government's organs and agencies.
One of the issues that concerns me is European funding. It is great at the moment with structural and social funds. We even had the peace and reconciliation fund. But Objective 1 status is at risk, and the question that must be answered is what happens when the funds run out. Who will organise the exit strategy and who will be left holding the baby?
I am particularly concerned about land availability and the structured land-use strategy that we need. Land use is fundamental to any development plan, but we do not have a strategy, and I am not sure whether we even have a complete list of land availability in Belfast.
In addition, we have tremendous problems with the Planning Service of the Department of the Environment. For all sorts of petty bureaucratic reasons, it exerts a stranglehold and obstructs much necessary and desirable development.
There is poor co-ordination between the various subsections of the Department of Economic Development. They all do their own thing, sometimes communicating with each other but often acting like strangers. We desperately need a united, co-ordinated approach. Another concern is the total lack of any transport strategy for the city. We have Translink, Citybus and Northern Ireland Railways, and we all have a lot to learn.
The gasworks development has been left idle for the last two years because of petty obstruction by the planners. First, they said that Belfast City Council had to spend £500,000 on widening the Ormeau Road some 600 to 700 yards from the gasworks site. That project was needed in any case, but they saw the opportunity to lumber the city council with the burden for it. Now that that matter has been resolved, they have blocked the developments because they have decided not to allow any cars on the gasworks site. I am at a loss as to why they insisted on widening the road for cars supposedly coming in and out of the gasworks when it now transpires that there is not to be any adequate car park for those who are there. There are some 1,000 to 1,200 jobs hanging on that bit of petty bureaucracy, and that situation cannot be allowed to continue much longer.
The north foreshore is another issue. Some 330 acres of European prime site would be ideal for a bio-technology park, where the universities could co-operate and we could create a massive web of twenty-first century jobs. The city council has spent over 40 years reclaiming land from the sea and recently spent £20 million on cleaning it up. Some 120 acres of it are now ready for development. It is ideal for the science and technology park that this city and country badly needs. The Department of the Environment has fobbed us off for the past three or four years, saying that the Harbour Commissioners wanted it. We now know that they do not want it; but still we cannot have it. Thousands of pounds worth of methane gas, which could have been used to make electricity, has been blown off that site.
I will briefly mention the D5 and hypermarket developments. Sainsbury's at Forestside has devastated the Ormeau Road, as will the D5 development the city centre. There has been much indecision in relation to the city's southern road approaches and the inner-city distributor box. That box will cut a swathe through the southern centre of the city, from the Grosvenor Road, through Durham Street, Hope Street, Bankmore Street and across through the gasworks, seven acres of which has been blocked because of that.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of the privatisation of the port of Belfast. Will that privatisation be like the airport one, where millions were made? Who will be the beneficiary of the port's privatisation? Some 2,000 acres of the best development land in Europe are attached to the port of Belfast - 600 acres on the Antrim shore and 1,400 on the County Down shore.
This offers the potential for jobs to a much wider community than those ratepayers in Belfast.
Many opportunities have been squandered due to muddle and confusion. I would like to have the opportunity to raise this issue in a more general debate, but I emphasise the urgent need for a co-ordinated strategy here, and I believe it falls to the Assembly to take the lead in this. We should discuss how we can co-ordinate development in this region, and it may be that, in due course, we will need a junior Minister for Belfast.
Equality Commission
Mrs E Bell:
I would like to make a few comments concerning the establishment of the Equality Commission.
I agree with some of the comments that were made about the ballot; we do need to think about this again.
Equality is defined as "the condition of being equal with more than two persons in quality or in having strength, ability et cetera". Equity is "fairness" and also recourse to "principles of justice to correct or supplement the law". I start with these definitions because the term "equality" - like many other words, such as "inclusiveness", "identity" and even "peace" - are not always used in the correct way, but rather to support a certain slant to suit other perspectives. In every society, every citizen is different, there are different incomes and living situations, but that should not mean that those who do not enjoy full employment, good health or sound minds should not be equal to, or at least feel equal to, others as regards basic rights and a proper quality of life.
We in this Assembly have a chance to ensure that all our citizens, whatever their circumstances, have the right to realise their full potential and to have their place in the sun. However, our hands are being tied by what I believe is the premature setting up of the Equality Commission. The Belfast Agreement stated that decisions on the establishment of this new Commission would be "subject to the outcome of public consultation". The consultation process produced only 18 replies in favour of the merger out of a total of 123, yet it is still being debated and will become law before the new Assembly is even finalised. It will be cut and dried before the proposed Department of Equality can start its work.
A number of points are still unclear. It has been suggested that the Northern Ireland Office is to allocate a budget of £4·8 million to the Equality Commission. The current budget for the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fair Employment Commission is £5·5 million. Who will be supervising the allocation of this smaller budget to the different departments of the new Commission? Will that be done by Westminster or by the new Assembly? How will it be administered and how will that affect the staff of the existing equality bodies?
These are important points. But I would like to go on to what I consider are more important points. Emphasis is being put on eliminating religious and political discrimination, but there seems to be no clear process proposed for reducing other types of discrimination such as that based on gender, disability and race. The political imperative to focus on equality issues in respect of the two major groups in our community may undermine those of smaller, less vocal groups. For instance, the members of the minority ethnic groups are only now finding a voice through the Commission for Racial Equality and are in danger, along with others who feel that they have a need for recourse to the other equality bodies, of losing out on the attention of the new Commission, which will be remitted to attend to all the different interests.
It is essential that the Assembly is empowered to ensure that this Equality Commission is seen to be fair and to work for all who need it. Rights must not only be protected, they must be promoted. Any downgrading of gender, disability or racial rights should be challenged as patently discriminatory.
Another point of concern is that the legislation, as it stands, could lead to some problems with affirmative action programmes. For instance, certain measures are currently taking place to increase Catholic representation in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Bill does not allow for this, but I think it should, as there is a precedent laid down in the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights, for example.
5.30 pm
Sex discrimination is another crucial area that needs specific attention. Women, as with those with disabilities, face the reality of inequality in all areas of economic and social life. The Equal Opportunities Commission has demonstrated that there is still work to be done in the area of equal pay for work of equal value, and it has recently encouraged Government Departments, agencies and local councils responsible for economic development to include a gender dimension in their policy development.
Female Members in the Assembly will agree that the Assembly must adopt such a stance in its own legislative practices. I am glad to note that the shadow Commission is already looking into the possibility of childcare provision for Members and staff.
To conclude, I should restate my concern and the Alliance party's concern at the timing of this proposal to set the Commission up, especially when it is clear that so many organisations and groups have expressed similar concerns. The amalgamation of the existing equality commissions can only suggest a certain lack of confidence on the Government's part that the Assembly will deal with equality issues in a proper fashion. No one is disputing that there should be a review, but it should have been delayed until the Assembly was fully set up, and we also want to think about the new Human Rights Commission.
I am sure that we all want to create a Northern Ireland where citizens can live, work and play in a fair and equitable society without fear or discrimination. The Assembly will play its part and be committed to that goal. The Government should have shown more faith in the devolved Administration's ability to achieve this.
Mid-Ulster Hospital (Acute Services)
Rev William McCrea:
I should like to raise the retention of acute services at the Mid-Ulster Hospital. Some weeks ago, the Northern Health and Social Services Board decided to follow the Government's line on the Golden Six acute hospitals. In the review, and in response to the Government's request, the board decided to remove the acute services from the Mid-Ulster Hospital.
It was interesting to note that no sooner had the proposal been put by the chief executive of the board - an official of the board - than the meeting concluded. The proposal was accepted and a press release on behalf of the chairman and the chief executive was released immediately. It seems that the decision had been made before the meeting took place. This is not a proper way of dealing with the Health Service and the future health of our people.
On that occasion Mr Baker, an SDLP Councillor from Cookstown, and I made representations to the board. The members listened courteously but were quick to go ahead with their own proposals.
The present review ought to be stopped because its findings will in time prove to be nugatory. Given where the Golden Six hospitals are situated, the principle and the design of that policy is fundamentally flawed and out of date.
The review was commenced under the Tory Government and, when the Tories went out, the new Labour Government permitted it to continue. It may be that the decision about acute services will not be taken by the Labour Government. It may become a responsibility of the Assembly and of a Minister of Health in Northern Ireland. For that reason we should be looking for support for the Mid-Ulster Hospital from within the Assembly.
There are many headings, and one could consider why acute services should be retained as they are. Because of time constraints I can deal with only some of them. The first issue is accessibility. The time that is taken to reach skilled medical attention is critical in all emergencies, and it involves consideration not only of distance but of the condition of the roads and the route to be followed in getting patients to that point of assistance. It is generally accepted that the roads in the two council areas that are covered by the Mid-Ulster Hospital - Magherafelt and Cookstown - are some of the poorest in the Province. Journey times to the hospital, especially from the western half of the district, would increase significantly if acute services were to be placed in Antrim rather than in Magherafelt. The Automobile Association states that it would take 52 minutes to travel from Pomeroy to Antrim as opposed to 22 minutes to Magherafelt, and 50 minutes from Stewartstown to Antrim as opposed to 24 minutes to Magherafelt.
In 1994, the Northern Health and Social Services Board produced a report on the development of hospital services in its area. The report stated that an acceptable journey time was considered to be 40 minutes. The board's 'Customers' Charter' states that, in an emergency, an ambulance should arrive within 14 minutes in an urban area, 18 minutes in a rural area and 21 minutes in a remote area. Obviously, those times could not be complied with if the services were moved from the Mid-Ulster Hospital and placed in Antrim. The life expectancy of the person requiring immediate medical attention is put at risk.
The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service is currently undertaking a study into response times for calls if the rationalisation of acute services proceeds. Under a new system that is currently being piloted in Great Britain, the service will be expected to meet 75% of category A calls - immediate life-threatening calls - within eight minutes. This is highly unlikely to be the case if the Mid-Ulster Hospital loses its accident and emergency department.
There are travel delays in Toomebridge and although a new bypass is agreed and proposed, it will be several years before that is completed.
We have to consider equity. Cookstown and Magherafelt have fairly high levels of deprivation, and more difficult access to acute hospital services would result in the transfer of costs to those who are least able to pay, thereby reducing access to acute services. That also contradicts the Department's guidelines. Its aims, which are set out in 'Targeting Health and Social Needs', are to reduce inequalities and to ensure that the changes do not increase variations in availability or access to health care. Reduction in services would cause job losses, resulting in a further negative impact on an already deprived area. The transfer of acute services can only increase inequalities and reduce accessibility. That contradicts in practice the Department's statement that
"the effectiveness of targeted resources, programmes and services must be assessed to ensure that they are succeeding in reducing and not inadvertently perpetuating or increasing variation in health and social well-being or in the availability of or access to health and social care".
The Government have stated their vision for the Health Service. It is to provide
"a comprehensive Health Service, publicly funded, publicly operated, free at the point of use and available to all on the basis of need, not on the ability to pay".
If the policy dictated by the review were to be followed then the only safe place to be sick in this Province would be east of the Bann. Your chances of survival, west of the Bann - an area of the greatest deprivation and disadvantage - would be greatly diminished. The situation is totally unacceptable. All you have to do is look at a map of the Province to see that five of the six golden hospitals are going to be east of the Bann. That is not apportioning health services relevant to need or social deprivation.
On behalf of all the people of the mid-Ulster area, from whatever side of the political spectrum they come, I wish to make it clear that existing acute services at the Mid-Ulster Hospital ought to be retained. Failure to do so will result in an increase of inequality as regards access to acute services in the Cookstown and Magherafelt District Council areas. That is unacceptable. There will be longer response times in emergency situations with ambulances arriving outside the stated response times. Journey times will increase by 30 minutes, with some well above the acceptable journey time of 40 minutes, as stated by the Northern Health and Social Services Board. There is likely to be an increase in mortality rates on journeys to Antrim Hospital. There could be a possible reduction in self-referrals for acute hospital services, further reduction in the significant underprovision of services to the people living in the west of the Province and a negative economic impact on an already deprived area.
God forbid that what happened in Omagh had happened in Magherafelt, had the services been removed. I remember the fight to keep acute services in Omagh. There would have been a vast number of fatalities, and they would certainly have been significantly higher. I want to see our community getting the same acute services as the rest of the Province. In health terms that would be justice for all our people.
Parades
Ms Rodgers:
Thirty years ago a group of people, mostly though not all from the Nationalist community, proposed to parade peacefully into the city of Derry to protest about a system of widespread discrimination based on religious belief and political persuasion. On this day, exactly 30 years ago, that parade was banned. Why? It was after all a peaceful protest, a parade into a city with a Nationalist majority ruled by a Unionist minority.
It was banned because of a mindset which held that Nationalist rights were limited by the extent to which they were acceptable to Unionists. It was banned because of a tradition based on an inequality of power between Nationalists and Unionists, a tradition whereby it was taken for granted that marches by the Loyal Orders and associated with the Unionist tradition had the absolute right to march in town centres, Nationalist areas and Unionist areas. At the same time parades associated with the Nationalist community had to be confined to Nationalist areas.
The Civil Rights march, exactly 30 years ago today, challenged that supposition, and what ensued exposed to the world the system of deep discrimination and injustice which lay at the root of that mindset. It is ironic that 30 years later, at a time when political leaders, many of them coming to terms with the need for change, with the need for equality and for a mutual acceptance and respect for each other's traditions, that the parade's issue is still here to haunt us, so to speak. Indeed, it has the potential to inhibit and to damage the difficult process in which we are engaged. However, it is not surprising because the parades issue symbolises the very inequality that has lain at the heart of Northern Ireland's troubled history.
5.45 pm
Drumcree is not about a 15-minute march down the Garvaghy Road; it is about a demand for change and equality on the one hand and the fear of change and the resistance to that change on the other.
The 5 October march in Derry was a protest about real grievances as the Cameron Commission subsequently confirmed. It was not part of a plot to subvert the state. In the same way, the conflict in Portadown arises from a real sense of grievance born out of the experiences of a small Nationalist community in a large Unionist town, a community to which it has been clear over the years that their rights must be restricted and not equal to those of the majority.
The Portadown District of the Orange Order failed to recognise that there is no such thing as an absolute right, that all rights must be exercised with due regard for the rights of others and that all rights carry responsibilities. It is in a situation such as that at Drumcree that a conflict of rights can only be resolved through dialogue and accommodation.
I have no doubt that the sense of grievance felt by sections of the Unionist community about the Drumcree situation is real and strongly felt. Undoubtedly the changes to the status quo proposed by the Good Friday Agreement are seen by some as threatening. It is a pity that an agreement which represents a balanced approach to the rights of both Unionists and Nationalists, an agreement at the core of which lies the principle of consent, continues to be represented by some as a threat and a sell-out.
To portray the re-routing of parades, as has been carried out this summer, as an attack on the cultural heritage of Unionism is a gross distortion of the reality. Of the 3,242 parades that were notified this year - I repeat: 3,242 - only 2% were restricted, and those restrictions were imposed in areas where dialogue had either failed or had not even been attempted.
The emphasis this year has been on the Drumcree situation and the running sore of Portadown. On a more positive note, and there have been positive notes, I have no doubt that the courageous voice of the Rev William Bingham speaks for many in the Orange Order who have been appalled at the events surrounding Drumcree. The small turnout at recent demonstrations sends a clear message as well.
Mr Berry:
Will the Member give way?
Ms Rodgers:
I will not as I have not got much time left.
I read in today's 'Irish News' that a Church of Ireland Archbishop and Bishop and 150 clergymen have publicly voiced concern and deep unease about the events surrounding the Drumcree church service in recent years. That is a welcome development as well.
Over the summer potential flashpoints have been defused from Derry to the Ormeau Road and Dunloy where common sense prevailed, where both residents and Loyal Orders, to their credit, reluctantly accepted unpalatable decisions in the interests of the common good. And that was true of both sides in those areas.
Another positive note to have been struck recently was the decision by the Ballynafeigh Orange Lodge to hold a seminar at which Nationalist, Unionist and Loyal Order views were expressed. I would encourage that. And a further step forward would be to engage in dialogue with the local residents.
However, I will return briefly to the situation in Portadown and to the fact that the Orange Order still refuses to enter into dialogue. Stand-offs, demonstrations and confrontations continue. We saw the consequences of that in 1996 and 1997, consequences with which we are all too familiar. This year we witnessed the surreal spectacle of Army reinforcements being helicoptered into a field at Drumcree in support of the RUC.
The relatively small Nationalist area of Portadown was surrounded by steel barriers and protected by troops and police. A visitor from Mars might have concluded that the third world war had begun. The stand-off and vicious nightly attacks on the security forces went on for over a week, all because a group of men persisted on returning from church through an area where they were not welcome rather than along the alternative route from which they had come. Where was the sense of proportion?
Mr Boyd:
On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. There is an implication that the Orangemen were responsible for attacking the police, which is absolute nonsense.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
That is not a point of order.
Ms Rodgers:
Regrettably, it has not ended there. For three months now the Nationalist community in Portadown has suffered intimidation and harassment. It has even been suggested by a representative of the Orange Order that the harassment could stop if they were allowed down the Garvaghy Road. The implication of that is clear.
Three Catholic-owned businesses in Portadown have been burnt down and others have been threatened; all of the town's traders have had their trade seriously affected; and a young policeman lies in hospital with serious brain damage. He has a young wife and three children, and he is fighting for his life.
Who gains from such a situation? Not the Nationalist nor Unionist communities; not the traders; not even those who continue to protest and demonstrate; and certainly not Frank O'Reilly - the young policeman - or his wife and baby and two other children.
Surely it is time to stand back and apply common sense. It is time for the local leaders of Unionism to support publicly the need for dialogue. Surely the experience of the previous three decades is enough to prove to us all that violence and confrontation compounds our differences and ensures that everyone pays the price.
We are together here today, but our differences have not gone away. I hope that during the talks some of us have come to a better understanding of each other. We have agreed to disagree in some areas, but we have committed ourselves to working together to resolve our remaining differences. None of us is less true to himself for doing that. Entering into dialogue is not giving way on fundamental principles; it is a recognition of the reality that conflict cannot be resolved any other way.
The failure to break the deadlock over Drumcree must be addressed. It is unacceptable and intolerable that a small, unelected group of men in Portadown should continue to hold both communities to ransom simply because they will not enter into dialogue.
Mr Dodds:
I wish that I had the time to deal with that subject. Is it not ironic that it was wrong to use the full force of the state to stop a parade in 1968, but it is right to use it now in 1998? That was an interesting commentary on how things have moved forward for Ms Rodgers.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
I am intrigued by the connection between this and the subject on which you have chosen to speak.
Whiteabbey Hospital
Mr Dodds:
I want to speak about the future of Whiteabbey Hospital, although Rev William McCrea has already dealt with some of the broad issues, because the hospital to which he referred falls under the same health and social services board as Whiteabbey Hospital.
One of the issues for many people in the North Belfast, Newtownabbey and south-east Antrim areas is that while more than 50,000 people signed a petition at the start of the year outlining their opposition to some of the board's proposals, there does not seem to have been as much attention paid to that as to other hospitals. That is why I am taking the opportunity to raise this matter.
I want to appeal to the Minister. It has been assumed that the Assembly will have the final say on some of these issues, and I hope that that will be the case. However, that is not absolutely certain, and the message from the Assembly must be that the elected representative should take the decisions that will affect the provision of health care.
It should certainly not be made by the Minister in advance of a full debate and consideration of all the issues by the relevant Committees and the House itself.
It is easy to say this hospital is special, that it is a local hospital providing essential services. Everybody can make a case for a local hospital or a local school, so it is important to look at the issues as objectively as possible. I would therefore seek to measure the decision that has been taken by the Northern Health and Social Services Board against the criteria which it has adopted.
This is a reasonable approach and better than adopting criteria of our own choosing. There were five key criteria used by the Northern Health and Social Services Board in relation to the future of acute and emergency services and medical and surgical in-patient services in hospitals in its area. There were initially three options and option three has proved successful. All options involved severe downgrading of services available in the Mid-Ulster and Whiteabbey Hospitals. Accident and emergency services and medical and surgical in-patient services were to be removed under all options.
But let us turn to the five key criteria: ensuring high quality care, access to appropriate local services, efficient delivery of care to meet patients' needs, equity of access to care and patient-centred care services. These are sensible, reasonable criteria. But how were they applied in the case of Whiteabbey Hospital? Now with high quality care, every hospital authority throughout the United Kingdom is looking at the question of centralisation. What is the best way to provide high-tech services, acute services and accident and emergency services?
Mr Hilditch:
I agree with what has been said by Mr Dodds. Whiteabbey Hospital's catchment area straddles three Assembly constituencies: North Belfast, South Antrim and East Antrim. The recent decision by the board about services comes as a great surprise. There is disappointment and grave concern in Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey that the whole Assembly constituency of East Antrim will be left without adequate medical or emergency services.
The Initial Presiding Officer:
May I interrupt on two counts. It is quite proper for Members to ask to intervene, but we are in danger of allowing Members to take the opportunity of their Colleagues speaking to speak by intervention. It is a little unfair to the Member who is speaking as well as to other Members.
It was intended that this sitting would end at 6.00 pm, but a short extension would enable Mr Dodds to finish his speech and Mr Wilson, the last Member on my list, to make his. Do Members agree to that course?
Members indicated assent.
Mr Dodds:
The points that my Colleague made about Carrickfergus, Larne and Newtownabbey were well made, and the people in those areas will be grateful to hear that the Member made them on their behalf. I hope, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, that you took care that my time will not be reduced.
In relation to the point that I was making about high quality care and so on, this sort of process has been happening throughout the United Kingdom for some time.
Many people who are dealing with the Whiteabbey Hospital situation are annoyed because it seems that the decisions were taken some time ago. There has been much investment in the Causeway Hospital, and in the new Antrim Hospital and, as a result, there has been no investment in the Whiteabbey Hospital. There is a feeling that the process is under way and that there can be only one possible outcome.
There is a parallel with the Tower Block in Belfast. As soon as such a building is in place, many other decisions inevitably and consequentially flow from it and there are financial consequences. The guiding principles should be need and what best serves the communities in those areas. That is the approach that we should adopt to all these issues. I hope that the Assembly will have an opportunity to adopt that approach, and that we will not be presented with a fait accompli.
Another matter is that of ensuring access to appropriate local services. Rev McCrea has already dealt with some of the issues in relation to transport and so on. The Northern Health Board proposes that local services will be provided under option 3, but it makes no attempt to define the range of investigations, procedures and treatments that could be provided within key settings, such as minor casualty services. It deals with that in a broad-brush way, and many people will want to see detailed recommendations before they are prepared to give their assent.
The third criterion is to ensure effective delivery of care in keeping with patients' needs. We know about travel time in relation to rural hospitals. It applies equally to Whiteabbey Hospital because its catchment area contains some of the largest and most deprived housing estates in Northern Ireland. Some people do not have access to a car or other transport, some depend on public transport, in which there are many deficiencies and difficulties.
The Ambulance Service has not been improved in line with proposals and suggested changes. It is essential that improvements to the Ambulance Service are made before there is any relocation or centralisation of accident and emergency services. There should be a review of the impact of any relocation or change in services to find out how people would get to hospitals.
Public transport should be looked at. The policy appraisal and fair treatment review reported that travelling time for more than 70% of people would be significantly increased, yet about 40% of all patients of Whiteabbey Hospital have no car or access to one. All issues must be considered before decisions are made.
Do patient centres and care services offer value for money? It is disturbing that we will be asked to approve more than £40 million to bring about changes. Nobody has been able to demonstrate to the Whiteabbey Hospital action committee or to me the economic advantages. I should like to know how much extra it will cost.
6.00 pm
The final issue is implementation. The board's document refers to consultation with local people, although it seems that the board is not listening to local people at all. It has brushed their concerns to one side. It also makes it clear that the local GPs will be consulted. I have spoken to some of the local doctors, and they say that their contribution will be essential if this alternative of a community-style hospital is to work. So far, they have not been consulted. Before anything more is done, they should be consulted.
I am concerned about the historical investment pattern that has led to major investment in Antrim and Coleraine. In saying that, I do not disparage those two fine hospitals. There should be necessary improvements to ambulance services and public transport, and the board should clarify to everybody's satisfaction the advantages and disadvantages of transferring services to other hospitals.
Pollution
Mr J Wilson:
I am the last to speak, but since my name begins with W for Wilson, that is not unusual except, of course, when I top the poll.
Before commenting on the desirability of restructuring the Department of the Environment, I should declare a personal interest. My long-standing involvement with the angling fraternity has brought me face to face with numerous pollution incidents in the Province's river systems. Some of these have been relatively minor, but others have proved totally destructive.
Even those Members who might not list fish kills following pollution incidents as being items at the top of their daily political agendas cannot, in recent times, have escaped hearing the news of disasters which have hit the River Bush, the Upper Bann, the Blackwater and the Sixmilewater, which is in my constituency. There was also another incident elsewhere, just a couple of weeks ago. I could go on - the killing is endless.
My close association with the Ulster angling scene and the condition of our waterways could, of course, be seen as a narrow and specific interest, but I feel that it heightens one's appreciation of the whole spectrum of environmental degradation and highlights the concerns of other environmental interests about matters such as planning, industrial infrastructure, the impact on tourism, the marine environment, wildlife, farming practices, and so on.
In recounting a little story I want to make a serious point. An individual who wished to make contact with the Friends of the Earth organisation telephoned the Department of the Environment to enquire about telephone numbers and received the testy reply "Look, this is the Department of the Environment, we are no friends of the earth".
The widespread popular cynicism concerning the sincerity of numerous governmental assertions about protection of the environment is, I believe, well founded. Many issues are facing this Assembly, but I feel that a concerted drive to protect, and be seen to be protecting the environment, properly and effectively, would receive enthusiastic support from all parties and the majority of the electorate.
The Ulster Unionist Party has long argued that the poacher and gamekeeper structure, which was highlighted in the Rossi Report, should end, and let me say that I am not satisfied that yet another executive agency should be the model to be considered.
If Members have not read a Northern Ireland Audit Office report published in April this year on the control of river pollution, they should obtain a copy; it makes very interesting reading. I am not interested in engaging in some form of Department-of-theEnvironment-bashing contest. I want to see efficiency in all areas of Government but that efficiency must not be achieved at the expense of accountability.
Here is what the Ulster Angling Federation said about the Comptroller and Auditor General's report earlier this year:
"This scathing report comes as no surprise. It confirms what anglers have known for years. Raw sewage periodically enters most of our rivers from treatment works and storm overflows. Consented discharges to our rivers from industry often fail to meet conditions imposed and are often ignored by the agency which is supposed to protect the rivers - the Department of the Environment.
On the rare occasions when prosecutions are taken, the courts impose derisory penalties when the maximum fine is £20,000. The poacher/gamekeeper situation whereby the Department of the Environment's Water Service is policed by the Environment and Heritage Service - another Department of the Environment agency - must change.
England, Wales and Scotland have environmental protection agencies independent of Government. We suspect that if Northern Ireland had an independent agency, it would expose the disgraceful state of most of our sewage and water treatment plants and would be a major embarrassment to Government.
Lord Dubs recently announced that much of Northern Ireland's sewerage system was close to collapsing and that an extra £50 million per annum was required to bring the system up to standard. This is a welcome recognition by the Government of the problem, and a change from a succession of Ministers who could only talk about a clean and a pleasant land where sewage treatment plants smelt like roses."
I am reluctant to argue for a simple division of the existing Department, and while I favour the concept of a powerful watchdog body, I most certainly have no intention of creating a new quango. My point is that we do need a vehicle empowered to be the effective guardian of the natural environment.
We need to get this right, and we should be prepared to take a little time to do it. There are subject areas within the existing Department which are properly the remit of local government. If these were to revert to local government -and that begs a further question regarding the possible changes to the existing local government structure - then self-evidently such areas would not need to be covered by branches of the Department of the Environment, nor for that matter by executive agencies.
It seems obvious to me that there are existing branches and agencies in the Department of the Environment which could be transferred to other Departments. One might cite for example the Public Record Office and Land Registry, which could be returned to their traditional home in the Department of Finance.
Maybe we should focus on maintaining an environmental Department centred around an existing branch to deal specifically with environmental conservation, protection and preservation. Such a department would have an environmental impact assessment role in respect of all other Departments, but this role could not be permitted to become a process of bureaucratic strangulation of the function of the other Departments.
Herein is the nub of the issue. I recognise that there are many possible permutations, and I do not want to run headlong into change for the sake of change. I want, through consultation, to arrive at a situation whereby environmental protection in Northern Ireland becomes an example to the world of how things should be done. While sharing the impatience of others to get on with the job, I would caution against undue haste in respect of any piecemeal revamp or interim or temporary change.
The people of Northern Ireland deserve value for money, given that they have had some 30 years of an ever expanding public-service sector which fails my test of efficiency and value for money.
Adjourned at 6.13 pm.
