Welcome to the Northern Ireland Assembly

Mr Speaker, I have a dilemma, and I would like you to rule on the matter. The Minister for Regional Development, Gregory Campbell, indicated in a statement and in a reply to me at Question Time that consultation had taken place between his Department and the Department of Agriculture on the ban on sheep grazing in the Mournes.

I have received from Ms Rodgers, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, a written reply saying that no such consultation has taken place. It is very clear indeed that had consultation taken place it would have been known that the men who have grazing on the Mournes would not be grazing animals from October until the spring. That would have been very clear if consultation had taken place, and that would have allowed the force majeure regulations to come into place for next year.

Mr Speaker:

Order. The Member will resume his seat.

This is not a matter for me. However, the point of order does indicate an apparent contradiction between two ministerial replies, and I will certainly look at that. Some of the potential implications to which the Member refers are really matters for the Executive, particularly the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Other potential implications may involve the Assembly. I will certainly look at the matter that the Member has raised and will, if it is appropriate, rule in the Chamber. If not, I will write to the Member in that regard.

Mr ONeill:

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise me how I, as a public representative, could represent those farmers properly if there were a misunderstanding or an attempt to mislead?

Mr Speaker:

First of all, we need to clarify whether the apparent contradiction to which the Member refers is an actual contradiction. Of course, it is open to the Member to put questions to and, indeed, request to meet with either or both of the Ministers to take the matter further. That is a normal matter of representation. What I wish to address is whether there is an actual contradiction. If so, we will see how it can be dealt with.

Mr P Robinson:

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you ascertain whether the Member gave notice to the Minister involved that he was going to raise this matter and accuse him of potentially misleading the House? I am sure you are aware of the requirement to do so before a Member is named in this way in the House.

Mr Speaker:

I am not making an assumption that either Minister -

Mr P Robinson

I make an assumption that he did not.

Mr Speaker:

Order. I am not making an assumption that either Minister is being accused of misleading -

Mr P Robinson:

Read Hansard.

Mr Speaker:

Order. There is an apparent contradiction between what two Ministers have said. That is a different matter, and that is how I will be approaching the question.

Mr Dallat:

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On the same issue, are you aware that a serious breach of normal democratic practice took place at the Agriculture Committee on Friday, when a vote to write to the Minister to establish what Mr ONeill has tried to established failed, and a second vote was ordered by the Chairperson? What is the correct procedure?

Mr Speaker:

I am not clear that that is a point of order for the Chamber. I will certainly explore the question, but I am not clear that anything out of order has necessarily taken place.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill: First Stage

TOP

The Minister for Social Development (Mr Morrow):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill (NIA1/00) to amend the law relating to child support; to amend the law relating to occupational and personal pensions; to amend the law relating to social security benefits and social security administration; to amend Part III of the Family Law Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 and Part V of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1989; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage.

Mr Speaker:

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage is determined. As there is on the Order Paper a motion for accelerated passage, I have arranged for copies of the Bill to be available from the Printed Paper Office immediately. The motion will be moved tomorrow, immediately before the Adjournment debate. I trust that that will give Members a reasonable opportunity to judge whether the Bill should be given accelerated passage.

Street Trading Bill: First Stage

TOP

The Minister for Social Development (Mr Morrow):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill (NIA2/00) to make provision for the regulation by district councils of street trading in their districts.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker:

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage is determined.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill: First Stage

TOP

The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún):

A Cheann Comhairle. Molaim go dtugtar an Bille um Shláinte agus Seirbhísí Sóisialta Pearsanta a Chéad Léamh. I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill (NIA 3/00) to establish a Northern Ireland Social Care Council and make provision for the registration, regulation and training of social care workers; to make provision about the recovery of charges in connection with the treatment of road traffic casualties in health services hospitals; to amend the law about the health and personal social services; to confer power to regulate the profession of pharmaceutical chemist; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker:

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Family Law Bill: First Stage

TOP

The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Durkan):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill (NIA 4/00) to make further provision for the acquisition of parental responsibility under article 7 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995; and to provide for certain presumptions of parentage and for tests to determine parentage.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker:

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Defective Premises (Landlord's Liability) Bill: First Stage

TOP

The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Durkan):

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill (NIA 5/00) to amend the law as to the liability of landlords for injury or damage caused to persons through defects in the state of premises let under certain tenancies.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker:

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Ground Rents Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

TOP

The Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee (Mr Molloy):

I beg to move

That the period referred to in Standing Order 31(4) be extended by 54 calendar days to Monday 27 November 2000 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Ground Rents Bill (NIA 6/99).

A Cheann Comhairle. The Ground Rents Bill has an impact on the conveyancing process and on the rights of rent payers and owners. It will allow owners to buy out residential property and, on the subject of annual ground rent, to enlarge their leasehold estate into a freehold title. The Bill aims to introduce a scheme of voluntary and compulsory redemption of ground rents on residential property. It is a complex and technical measure dealing with issues that have remained unresolved for decades.

The Committee Stage started on 27 June 2000 but was interrupted by the summer recess. Since then the Committee has taken evidence on the Bill, and a number of concerns have been raised about how it will operate if the Assembly approves it as it now stands. Therefore it is important that sufficient time be given for proper consideration, and the Committee believes that this will take several more weeks to complete.

I ask Members to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the period referred to in Standing Order 31(4) be extended by 54 calendar days to Monday 27 November 2000 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Ground Rents Bill (NIA 6/99).

Assembly: Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee

TOP

Resolved:

That Mr Jim Wells be appointed to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee. - [Mr Dodds]

Assembly: Finance and Personnel Committee

TOP

10.45 am

Resolved:

That Mr Nigel Dodds and Mr Peter Robinson MP shall replace Mr Gardiner Kane and Mr Oliver Gibson on the Committee for Finance and Personnel. - [Mr Wells]

Assembly: Business Committee

TOP

Resolved:

That Mr Ian Paisley Jnr shall replace Mrs Iris Robinson on the Business Committee.- [Mr Dodds]

Retail Outlets

TOP

Mr Dallat:

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls for credible independent impact assessments before planning approval is granted for major retail outlets and asks for a moratorium on such developments until such time as there is a policy in place which gives shoppers maximum choice but at the same time protects the legitimate rights and needs of the indigenous retail trade.

We have one of the most beautiful countries in the world, and I believe that it is worth preserving. I know everyone in the Assembly believes that as well. It is a country made up of a network of attractive small towns and villages, each with its own distinctive character and virtually all still boasting a convenience store. Most likely there will also be a post office, a butcher, a greengrocer, a florist, a newsagent, and perhaps some specialist shops. Northern Ireland's retail landscape supports diversity and local enterprise. It reflects the country's geography and rural infrastructure and the character of its economy and people. The rural agricultural economy of Northern Ireland, and the dispersed population pattern, is ideally suited to the smaller local business. The same can be said of the Republic.

It is therefore no accident that independent retailers hold a larger share of the retail food market, both North and South, than is the case in England. Surely that is worth preserving.

I accept that shoppers want out-of-town shopping schemes. It can be argued that they benefit the consumer in terms of convenience and price, and, in some instances, help to reduce congestion and parking problems in town centres. I do not have a problem with that, and this motion is in no way suggesting that the consumer should not have choice. On the contrary - and this is very important - this motion, if supported by the Assembly, will ensure that the consumer continues to have choice and is not held hostage by one or two large multinationals. It is critical to get that message across clearly and concisely.

Apart from the issues relating to the rural community, we must never allow a small number of multinationals to have total control of the retail market. In such circumstances the independent retail sector will be wiped out more quickly than many people realise.

Let us pause for a moment and examine what happened in Britain. In 1986 there were 432 superstores. This number increased by 250% in the last 10 years to 1,034. These huge out-of-town superstores develop and operate a whole variety of outlets around the "anchor" supermarket and the "DIY shed". The result is that one single massive retailer sucks the business out of a whole community and out of independent local outlets for a 30-mile radius or more. High streets are deserted, town centres are devastated and local communities are left without services.

At present 42% of villages in Britain are without a single shop. Who is most affected? The elderly and people without cars suffer the most. Similar experiences have occurred across Europe, but in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain and Greece - to name but some - action has been taken to address the problem.

In each country there are restrictions on the size of the new retail developments. There must also be independent assessments carried out to demonstrate that developments are needed and that they will not impact adversely on the infrastructure of communities. There is also a renewed focus on town centres, and this is very important. In the Republic, where planning laws were never as loose as they have been in Northern Ireland, the Government have moved to limit retail development to 3,000 square metres. These guidelines are in place, and at present there is a strong lobby to copper-fasten them into legislation. There is a strong case to be made for keeping shopping local so that we can maintain the traditional economic and social hearts of our urban areas, towns and villages.

I said at the start that we have one of the most beautiful countries in the world, and here in the North we are slowly but surely rebuilding what was destroyed or neglected. Perhaps we have some distance to go before we are in the same category as Austria, Switzerland and Sweden, but it is worth pointing out that these countries have planning restrictions which are much tighter than those here.

I understand that evidence will be given to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, which will identify what is necessary to improve planning regulations in relation to retail development. The Minister of the Environment, Sam Foster, is on record as saying that the planning document 'PPS5' is to be reviewed shortly, while the Deputy First Minister has announced that a Planning Amendment Bill will be introduced to the Assembly during this session. Given the likely timescales involved for a major review of planning policy, and the drafting, consultation and introduction of new planning legislation, it is essential that the recommendation of 'Strategy 2010' is introduced as a matter of urgency. The potential for further ongoing damage while these reviews take place is immense.

'Strategy 2010' suggests that one of the main challenges facing the country's food processing sector is the power of the multiples. It is argued that as the multiples increase their buying power they will be even more able to squeeze the profit margins of producers, and their strong franchise power may inhibit the opportunity for small suppliers to develop their own brands.

Similar evidence was gathered recently by the Agriculture Committee of this Assembly. That Committee in its report 'Retailing in Northern Ireland - A Fair Deal for the Farmer?' clearly identified the need to examine the planning policies in relation to large multinationals because of their immense power to monopolise and dictate prices. To date, three of the largest retail organisations control almost 50% of the entire retail market share. One of the largest stores in Ireland operated close to this building in August 1999 and is capable of supplying 2·5% of the market on its own, if it reaches its target. Where similar experiences took place in Britain, 50,000 retail businesses have disappeared. That includes grocers, butchers, bakers, fishmongers, greengrocers and florists. In 1987 the independents represented 16·1% of the market. Today in Britain they control less than 7%.

If this trend is mirrored in Northern Ireland there will be major casualties, and the damage done to the food retailing market will be irreversible. Over 1,000 family-owned and run businesses could close. In another eight or 10 years over 40% of our towns and villages could be without a store. The supply network - which generates many jobs - will be mortally wounded. The damage to the retail economics and to the general social fabric of Northern Ireland will be catastrophic.

I do not believe it is yet fully realised by the Government, or by the general public, that in such circumstances, where superstores put local operators out of business, the consumer faces a limited choice of where to shop. Higher prices will result because of the lack of competition in the market, and what started as a big shopping experience with big value for customers becomes a big profit opportunity for the developers. In essence, the customer becomes captive at a superstore, deprived of choice and competition and open to manipulation.

Finally, there is the job creation myth, and on this subject the public relations machines of the superstores constantly mislead the public into believing that new jobs are being created. Nothing could be further from the truth. From evidence gathered in Europe and Britain, we learn that jobs and services within a 15- to 20-mile radius of a new store are severely affected. For every superstore that opens, the average net loss in employment is in the order of 276 full-time equivalents - about 25% to 30%. Studies show that where new jobs are created, they are predominantly part-time and overwhelmingly female. These surveys, which are backed up by scientific research, must have important implications for planning proposals for further food superstore developments. There are major environmental issues relating to planning decisions for large superstores.

Superstores draw thousands of consumers using private transport from up to a 50-mile radius, thus causing congestion on all major national routes. There is also the issue of greenfield sites, as each development takes up to 15 to 20 acres of land. Add to this the dereliction of towns and villages and the withdrawal of services because they are no longer viable, and you have at least some of the reasons why there should be an independent impact assessment. There are, of course, other reasons.

Some would argue that the saturation point is approaching, as these stores have successfully picked off their smaller rivals. It is no accident that they are now moving into non-food retailing where the profit is about twice the gross profit on food. As diversification continues, the demand for floor space will increase. Given the present weakness of the planning system, the applications will be granted. The onslaught will continue. There is the potential for every shop in the retail sector to be under threat, the consumer left with no choice and the country left with towns and villages with no heart and soul.

In conclusion, it is accepted that change will come, but the price does not have to be as devastating. It is the Government's job to manage change effectively. The recommendations of 'Strategy 2010' must be implemented immediately. The promise of a future review will amount to no more than closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. We will have failed to learn from the worst practices of others, and our unique rural countryside will be destroyed unnecessarily. Our cities and towns will be left with blighted town centres, and the most vulnerable people in our society will be left without essential services. That is the reality facing us if action is not effected.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

I love my country as you do; we owe it to our people and to the future generations to ensure that proper planning regulations are in force now so that our countryside, towns and villages and our heritage are protected from the ravages of big business which is here today and, perhaps, gone tomorrow.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

I studied closely the motion on the Order Paper in the hope that it would have some sense and bring about consensus in this debate, but I fail to see any logic or sense in it. It has been badly worded, explained and presented. My party and I will not be supporting this motion as it currently stands. It is one of the most hare-brained schemes I have every heard. It is hare-brained, ill-advised and ill-informed. If this House were to give it any credibility or any sort of fair wind to enable it to be put on the statute book, it would be hampering development in Northern Ireland for ever. We would be curtailing shopper choice for ever and doing Northern Ireland a great disservice.

11.00 am

I can only imagine that the Member has been ill-advised. His party would be ill-advised to support this motion. It would have a devastating effect across Northern Ireland. The motion is an attempt to interfere in the natural course of market forces, in consumer rights and in the law of supply and demand. If John Dallat had his way, this House would legislate for the sun shining and the rain falling. This motion goes beyond what the House should be contemplating.

The Member has made no attempt to explain to the House the impact this motion would have on employment in particular. It would have a devastating impact, and he should realise that. Neither has he explained to the House the cost both economically and in development terms, for Northern Ireland. Has he really considered what he is asking this House to approve?

There are four parts of the motion that I would like to speak on. The first is the independent impact assessments. If this motion were taken seriously by the House, self-appointed consultants would spring up to provide these so-called impact assessment studies. A cottage industry of self-appointed, do-gooding bureaucrats would have a major say in shaping the face of Northern Ireland. Development would not be a strategic, planned matter. It would rest upon an assessment of what is here and now, as opposed to what could be in the future. The supposed presumption to allow development, especially on brownfield sites and in town centres, would be thrown to the wind, and investment in Northern Ireland would virtually cease.

Ms Morrice:

Does the Member agree that at the moment consultants are not paid unless they come up with an impact assessment that suits the developer? What does he think about that?

Mr Paisley Jnr:

That forces the impact assessment to be inaccurate and incredible, and plays into the hands of certain lobbies. Impact assessments are already in legislation for certain developments. It is not as if Mr Dallat is proposing something that does not already take place. There is a criterion for impact assessment. From the way it was explained to the House, you would think that impact assessment does not take place, but there is already an impact assessment. [Interruption]

The Member had his chance, but he did not explain it very well. Let me try and explain it to him.

The motion calls for impact assessments to be a prerequisite for what the Member calls "major retail outlets". No thought has been given to the meaning or interpretation of what a major retail outlet is, and that of course is critical. The Member has not adequately explained what his statement means because he does not know what he is talking about.

Is a major retail outlet to be defined by the name of the retailer - J Sainsbury is a major retail outlet, but Moores of Coleraine is not - or is it physical size? Is a major retail outlet to be defined, not by who the retailer is, but by the physical size of the retail unit in comparison to others in the locality? Would that, in turn, mean that in different parts of Northern Ireland we would have different interpretations of unit size? For example, could Belfast, Lisburn and Londonderry expect to get away with developments over a certain size because of the size of their location, while towns such as Ballymoney, Strabane and Craigavon could not because of their size and population density?

Mr Dallat made reference to the way in which these assessments and moratoriums are carried out in the Irish Republic where the magic figure is 30,000 sq feet. Is he suggesting that 30,000 sq feet is, by definition, a major retail outlet and should be treated the same way as a development of 75,000 sq feet? If so, nine times out of 10 the developer will go for the larger development rather than the one at the bottom of the scale. Or is Mr Dallat suggesting that 30,000 square feet is major by definition? What would happen to developments which were just under this size? Could we expect a rash of applications for developments of 29,500 square feet, which would not have to face the same rigorous examination as those that are over 30,000 square feet? There are many people who would be able to get away that that, but we would be foolish to allow them to do so. Mr Dallat's independent assessment and his criteria for major retail outlets do not quite add up.

The Member then went on to argue for what he called a moratorium on development. That should be examined very carefully. The word "moratorium" means prohibition, a suspension, a stopping order. A moratorium is not defined by a specific period and, for that reason, is usually proposed by people who have nothing to put in the place of what they are trying to stop. They just want to stop something from happening. If Mr Dallat had come to the House with a more creditable suggestion, it would have received closer attention. Rather he just wants to stop consumers and shoppers from having choice, and that contradicts what he claims he is aiming to achieve in the last sentence of this motion - the provision of maximum choice for shoppers. How he can say that he wants this while proposing a prohibition on the development of retail outlets is beyond me.

John Dallat is crying out to the likes of John Lewis Partnership saying "Don't come to Belfast and invest in the next couple of years." He is saying to Homebase and B&Q in Coleraine "Shut up shop; don't come and develop in Coleraine." He is saying to Tesco in Ballymoney "You are not getting your major extension; you are not coming to Ballymoney." He is saying to Debenhams "You are not moving outside Belfast so that other consumers across Northern Ireland can choose your products." He is also saying to existing retailers, such as Moores in Coleraine, that they are not going to be able to expand because there is to be a moratorium on them also.

This motion does not protect existing retailers in Northern Ireland. It prohibits them. The existing retailers are best at providing choice, providing something different that the big multiples cannot provide. This motion would curtail them just as much as it would curtail the big developers. Instead of saying "Business as usual" for Northern Ireland, Mr Dallat is telling shopkeepers across Northern Ireland to erect signs which will say "No business is the usual". That would be the effect of this motion. A stopping order would have a dramatic impact on development in Northern Ireland, and Mr Dallat should recognise that.

He then went on to argue for maximum choice, yet to suggest that this stopping order would in any way provide choice is sheer stupidity. Minimum choice for a successful business would be Mr Dallat's contribution to choice for the shoppers whose champion he claims to be. He would not be giving them maximum choice - he would be giving them minimum choice. The legitimate rights of the indigenous retail trade can only be protected if sound business practice is in place. Sound business practice is in place, and the reason existing businesses have done so well is that they provide choice, quality goods and items which the larger retailers cannot provide.

This House would be ill-advised to support a motion which is phrased in such a poor and rudimentary fashion, a motion that does not say what it means or mean what it says. If the Member is opposed to out-of-town retail developments, why did he not say so rather than propose a motion which is confused and, by its very nature, confusing. This House would do itself and planning a great disservice if it gave any creditability to this motion, which I therefore oppose.

Mrs E Bell:

I support the spirit of the motion. I think that Mr Dallat does not, as Mr Paisley said he did, want fair trading and customer choice to be denied. I think what he is saying is that he is concerned, as we all are, about the expansion of major retail trade outlets. Coming from north Down I have a very partial interest in this; I am very concerned about the impact that major retail outlets will have on my area. We have one at the moment - Tesco in Tillysburn - and if D5 is allowed to go through, we will have another even bigger one. This would effectively kill off Holywood, if not the rest of north Down.

Mr P Robinson:

Tillysburn is not in north Down; it is in east Belfast.

Mrs E Bell:

I thank the former Minister for his remark.

I would support the motion if it took a number of things into account. Rather than have a moratorium on developments as the motion seeks, we should have a look at two reports, one of which is the EDAW Report, which was sponsored by the Department for Social Development. One of its recommendations is that a review of policy on rural shop support and market-town development be undertaken as part of a wider study. A common moratorium and evaluation system would help to compare and contrast performance in individual Northern Ireland centres, and town centre management should be considered as an element of town-centre invigoration for Northern Ireland. It has been shown by Lisburn that if there is good partnership between town centre management and the retail outlets, there can be success and maximum choice for the customers.

Mr D Hussey:

Mrs Bell is beginning to enter the realm of the advantages of critical mass. Does she not agree that when created by larger stores, critical mass can benefit local retailers if they use their entrepreneurial skills to tap into the numbers brought into an area via these large stores? Further to that, the rights and needs of the indigenous retail trade might be better met by a review of the rates system. Rates could be related to business profitability, rather than to the commercial properties. This already happens in other areas in the retail sector.

Mrs E Bell:

I support the last point, but we need to look at the relationship between existing indigenous retail trade outlets and major retail outlets. If it will affect them, they will have to look at what those effects will be before they can decide what to do.

The other report to which I referred was in 'The Observer' yesterday, and I was very concerned when I read it. Everyone has been looking at the effects of out-of-town retail outlets on the mainland. The report was commissioned by the Office of Fair Trading and includes quite a number of findings on what is happening with "the big five", as they are called on the mainland. It has come up with a number of recommendations which I urge the Government to examine before we go any further, and it is for this reason that I do not support a moratorium. We need to look closely at this issue.

It was shown clearly in this report that "the big five" put rock-bottom prices on basic, staple items like butter, and obviously people flock to that. Once they get a hold on an area, and people are coming in, the prices go up. This has been proven, and I would not like to think that that would happen here.

One of its recommendations - and I am very concerned that we look at this especially with regard to my area - is that a major retailer should not have another branch within a 15-mile radius.

11.15 am

In Holywood there is one small and one large Tesco supermarket. Tonight there is a public meeting in Holywood about the effect one is having on the other and the possible effect of D5. We have a large - [Interruption] Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak without being interrupted from the back. It does tend to put one off.

Mr P Robinson:

There is no one behind the Member.

Mrs E Bell:

Mr Robinson is certainly not behind me, and he is not in front of me, but I would like him to desist from making comments. I am sure that I will listen to Peter Robinson, if he speaks in this debate, and hear if he has learned anything from what I have said.

Mr P Robinson:

Not a lot.

Mrs E Bell:

I am sure not.

I believe that local outlets must be considered. It is essential; it is vital; it is absolutely important that, before making any plans for any retail outlet, we look at what is happening in the existing indigenous retail trade in nearby towns. That is what I would like to see arising from this debate today. I hope these two reports will be looked at and that our Department will closely consider them. We should look at what has happened on the mainland and see that as a reason for making restrictions not just for the benefit of the big five, the customers, farmers and local traders, but for everyone. There has been an effect on local suppliers when these large companies move in.

I am neither against competition nor people getting the best deal. I am against people taking over from others who have worked and who have had families depending on a trade. I shop in Tesco and Sainsbury's and know how good they are, but we must look at this issue closely and carefully.

I will have great difficulty deciding how I will vote on this motion, but I will go along with what Mr Dallat said - and I will be listening to him during his summing up. While I would not like a moratorium, we need to look at impact assessments within planning approval in order that we can ensure that everyone gets a fair crack.

Mr Benson:

While I have some sympathy with the content of this motion I cannot support it. If it had referred only to out-of-town shopping centres then I could have offered my support, since I believe that these outlets help destroy town centre shopping. Large retail outlets in town centres can be advantageous and can improve town centre trade. I cannot support this motion as it presently stands.

Mr Byrne:

I support the motion because there is great concern among the Northern Ireland retail community. This comes largely from independent business owners who have kept their businesses open during the past 30 years. They provided choice and services for people. They also provided full-time jobs for many of their workers. There is grave concern, however, that we are now going through such change in the retail sector, and could have such a plethora of large retail stores throughout Northern Ireland, that we are going to do great damage to the fabric of our local business community.

Mr Dallat asks for credible independent impact assessments. Surely nobody would be against those. At the moment, impact assessments are being done at the behest of the very large property development companies. As Mrs Bell said, surely the consultants who carry out those assessments are largely working from the perspective of being in favour of the proposed development by the large property development company.

I am not against large retail stores either out of towns or in the middle of towns, but we must have balance.

Some provincial towns - indeed, some district towns - are suffering a gross distortion of normal retailing patterns. If a very large store is built on the edge of a provincial town, its centre is devastated.

There is also a serious question about the rates income base of some developments. If there are 50 small shops in a provincial town, they all pay rates, yet the rates bill for certain large developments does not always add up to the total existing rates income from the small independent retailers.

The debate comes down to the absolute positions of being for or against this. I am a great believer in balance in such situations, and it would be terrible if we allowed the current situation to continue. There will be very few independent retailers left, and the sector will feel badly let down by us in the Assembly. Independent retailers are part of the community and do not close up shop when the going gets tough. They have a stake in their community, for they have invested in their shop or premises. When profit margins are squeezed, they do not close up shop and leave.

Such large retail stores are very often built by property development companies, and I have nothing against them. However, they charge exorbitant rents, which people wishing to run a small independent business cannot afford, resulting in our only getting multinational or national retail stores, something which is changing the whole fabric of our retail base. I support the motion.

Mr S Wilson:

There is general concern throughout Northern Ireland, on the part of both councils and retailers, about the way the present planning policy operates and some of the adverse effects it can have. It is a pity that the Minister of the Environment, Mr Sam Foster, is not here today, for Eileen Bell's speech - although I think she is trying to take over part of Belfast - made reference to a particular application where, on two occasions, the court ruled against the Department. However, in the House some weeks ago, the Minister said his Department would pursue the application once again, despite having being rebuffed in a judicial review on more than one occasion. It is significant that he is continuing the policy of the old direct-rule Administration. Minister Richard Caborn said

"Let me make it clear that our policy is to focus new food store floor space in existing centres."

He goes on to give good reasons why major retail food-store developments in town centres can be a good thing for them, yet as soon as this Assembly was suspended, the Minister gave the Labour party supporter, Sainsbury's, permission at D5. Only the courts, through a judicial review, were able to overcome that.

There is general concern that, in arterial routes in town centres, the vitality of town centres is affected by some major retail outlets. We must have a proper look at planning policy to see how we can respect consumer choice while maintaining the vitality of our town centres and supporting those small independent retailers who lend them variety.

As indicated by Mr Paisley Jnr, we will not be supporting this motion. Mrs Bell summed up the opposition to it better than anything else said so far: "I think what he is saying is that .". Any motion that comes before this House in which somebody has to try and imagine what the proposer is getting at is really not worthy of support. This is regardless of our concerns about the impact of present planning policy and planning decisions on the retail sector.

Ian Paisley Jnr outlined some of the difficulties. What is a major retail outlet? Are we talking about all major retail outlets? What length of time should this moratorium take? How on earth is it to be implemented? How does it protect the existing retailers? You can rest assured of one thing, neither the planning order nor 'PPS5' entitles the Department to impose a moratorium and refuse a planning application. There are people here who are better qualified to judge this, but that is my understanding of judicial reviews. That would immediately give a developer the opportunity to say that the process has not been adhered to, and the application would finish up in court. Or, if the application went in and was not determined by the Department, he would immediately go to the Planning Appeals Commission for non-determination, so taking the application out of the public domain. Given some of the decisions of the Planning Appeals Commission I am not so sure that benefits anybody.

The most woolly part of the motion is that which states

"there is a policy in place which gives shoppers maximum choice but at the same time protects legitimate rights and needs of the indigenous retail trade."

I imagine that the people who wrote the 'PPS5' document, which is ambiguity epitomised, would have been proud of the wording of this motion. It gives the opportunity for a coach and horses to be driven through.

The present legislation and policy really addresses many issues that we all have concerns about. If you look at the present policy - and I am not going to bore you with all the details - there are a number of issues covered in it. In paragraph 6, the Department talks about the need to protect the vitality of town centres and the importance of town centres, and yet we can still get edge-of-town and out-of-town major retail developments through. Paragraph 7 talks about the need to, where possible, reduce the need for travel and encourage alternative transport to the private car. We still get shopping centres that require the use of a car and which are not to the advantage of the 40% of the population who do not have access to private transport. Paragraph 17 talks about the way in which small towns are vulnerable, because of their size, to the impact of out-of-town retail development, but again we still get them. The only situation where anything is banned is in paragraph 35 where it talks about

"no justifiable need for a regional new out of town shopping centre in Northern Ireland."

This is why definition is so important, and John Dallat should learn from this. Despite that prohibition in 'PPS5' we had the direct rule Ministers on two occasions, despite court judgements, authorise what can only be described as a regional shopping centre at D5. We have the current Minister seeking to justify the decisions of his Department pursuing it yet again.

11.30 am

That is why we need a motion which clearly defines what we mean otherwise things would be left open to interpretation. Moreover, impact assessment is catered for in paragraph 58 of the document. The Department will require that. I do not want to go through all that impact assessment is meant to do. The present planning policy covers many of the issues raised in the motion, but it too is ambiguous and open to interpretation and simply enables the planners to go ahead and keep on doing what they have done in the past.

The credibility of the Assembly is at stake if we ask Ministers to review policy because it happens to look good or it is something we are concerned about or it is something that constituents have drawn to our attention. We can not support any old thing regardless of how clear or how useful it may be. I do not want to be negative. I have been negative about the motion, but that is not my fault. That is the fault of the person who proposed it. I do not want to see what I have said being interpreted as a lack of concern for planning policy and the way it is treated in Northern Ireland at present, or for what happens in arterial routes and town centres.

There are a number of things which can be done. First, the Assembly can reject this motion. Then perhaps the Chairman of the Environment Committee will take up the issue, ask the Committee to consider the points raised during this debate and come forward with a credible policy.

Secondly, there are a number of things the planners could do. They could look more clearly and vigorously at the requirement for the sequential test, where developers must show that there are no alternatives to the site they have chosen, even if that means parcelling up parts of the development into bits and pieces of ground to show it is possible, or that it has not been possible, to facilitate the development either on one or a number of other sites in more suitable locations. Also, rather than saying the developer has to pay for an assessment, whatever the cost, the planning application should include a cost for an assessment, which will be carried out independently on behalf of the Department. We all know that if you pay for consultation you will get the result you want. It should not be an open-ended thing. That would be unfair on developers. We must strike a balance.

Thirdly, the sooner we have local plans in place - and many are outstanding or have been out of date for a long time - the sooner there will be an input for public and local representatives and local concerns in the planning policy.

Those are the kind of things the Environment Committee and the Minister ought to be looking at. The crazy notions - and I do not mean that in a derogatory way - in this motion are something that would damage our credibility, if we were to support them.

Mr Molloy:

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I support Mr Dallat's motion. It is an important motion at the present time. It will go forward to the Minister and the Department, and they will develop a policy that will change the criteria that executives have to face at present.

Unfortunately we have found that planners are using the criteria set by previous British Ministers to implement their new area plans. They have done this without any weight or assessment of the impact on local interests in the areas concerned. This applies particularly to the major developers, and a number of towns do need and require major developers to come in.

It is important that we concentrate on what is being asked for - a credible independent impact assessment. That does not pose a threat to anyone. Several Members have said that impact assessments undertaken so far were not credible. They involved developers making proposals - consultation exercises - which delivered only what they wanted. The more they paid the more they got, and things were approved in that way.

The Department has to create the need for a credible independent impact assessment on all major developments. Criteria defining what constitutes a major development need to be set. At present when impact assessments are used, the Department of the Environment planners can, for example, call for a traffic impact assessment. However, credible impact assessments need to be developed across all areas.

The differences between various projects are very noticeable. In some cases where a major developer is involved an impact assessment will be called for, while in other cases it is not requested. People often feel that assessments are being used to block opposition, to help other developers, and that different approaches are taken in each area.

Today, it is important to work from the basis that a standard needs to be set across the North, so that planners will ask for a credible independent impact assessment on all major retail outlets. If we do not do that then the town centres we are currently trying to develop will just disappear. Many town centres are under pressure. Rates are one issue, and not being able to attract business because of opposition to development is another.

We need to maintain the credible town-centre development that has occurred in several areas. I ask the Members to support this motion, and to ask the Minister to undertake a reassessment.

Mr Roche:

This motion reflects a mindset that is entirely opposed to practically everything that is required to lay the foundations for economic well-being in Northern Ireland. There is a closed and parochial mindset reflecting a type of economic thinking that brought the United Kingdom to ruin in the late 1970s. It has ruined nearly every other country in which it was applied.

In this motion we have total opposition to the two things required for a successful economy: consumer choice, and competition through the market mechanism. What has been proposed is a moratorium on both. There are some problems that have to be recognised, such as the impact of large retail outlets on inner cities. However, to deal with these problems effectively we need to devise policies that will assist competition in the inner city regions. It is not appropriate to put a moratorium on the market mechanism. We spoke recently to some business leaders in Belfast. They expressed concern about the problems of transport and access to Belfast city centre, and made some very imaginative proposals for dealing with these problems. They were also concerned about the tolerance of criminality. Sometimes when goods have been displayed on the pavement, they have disappeared within 30 minutes.

They were also concerned about the lighting problem; Belfast is a very dark city at night. Tourism and the cultural development of Belfast city centre is an issue too. Our response was that some of these matters are the responsibility of the Assembly and local government but that an enormous number of them were matters for themselves, as businessmen, to address. They should be prepared to address these as long-term investments in their own businesses' prosperity. We took the opportunity to tell them that over the next two or three years they should put as much effort into making a real contribution through their businesses - for example, to ensure that Belfast city centre is competitive in relation to supermarkets developed outside the city - as they did in the case of some completely daft proposals about a single Irish economy and a Dublin/Belfast corridor. If they did that, they would be laying the basis of their future success, and not their own ruin as in the case of the corridor and all that nonsense.

The idea that the Northern Ireland economy will be assisted, or that any problems will be solved, by stifling and placing a moratorium on the market mechanism is absolute nonsense. Equally, there are occasions when the Assembly and local government, in conjunction with business, can take measures to assist competition in areas that are now relatively uncompetitive. That needs to be addressed, but it is certainly not addressed in this motion. This motion needs to be rejected out of hand.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Mr Dallat indicated that the Agriculture Committee had brought forward a report which suggested that they were opposed to retail developments. The report said no such thing. It did say that retailers ought to treat producers fairly. I do not believe that any farmer in Northern Ireland is calling for shops to close down; they want their produce in the shops. The issue for the farmer is the price that the shops are paying him for his produce.

TOP

Next >>