In rising to support my Chairman's motion, I believe that there is one guiding principle that must govern all Assembly decisions - no additional financial or regulatory burdens should be placed on farmers in Northern Ireland at this time. Farmers need breathing space to enable them to recover lost ground and loss of income. Following the problems of the devastating decade that they have endured - of which foot-and-mouth disease is only the latest manifestation - farmers need our help and support. They do not need additional Regulations and charges.

With so much concentration on livestock, the seed-potato growers are sometimes a forgotten part of the agriculture sector, but they are a very important part. In the middle of the day, everyone likes a potato. One of the principal reasons why we must actively help and support the seed-potato growers is the threat posed to them by the enlargement of the European Union. With new member states joining the European Union, the threat of price undercutting is very real, especially after the Nice Treaty.

We hear that land has cost a mere £200 an acre for over 50 years in Poland and that agricultural labourers are paid £20 a month - that is only one example. The implications of that are serious and far-reaching, because it will be decades before their salaries and land prices reach the western European minimum, let alone the western European average.

The threat to our seed-potato growers from that source is now real. We can help them by supporting the motion from the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, and I urge Members to do that.

The cost to farmers has been rising for various reasons. I urge the Department to cut its costs and be more efficient - as farmers must. I do not want to repeat everything that the Chairperson has said, but I ask Members for their support. Give our farmers a breathing space, and let them regroup and reorganise for the years ahead.

As politicians we are all inclined to form part of the "what I want" brigade - meaning that we want as much as possible for those whom we represent; and they are no different. They too are keen to benefit from the deliberations of their politicians. The common desire often depends on the money available. Members of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development are no different from those in other Committees. We too have a lot of soul-searching to do before making decisions, particularly if there are financial implications.

In the springtime I met, as requested, with seed producers in my South Down constituency. They recognise that recovering lost markets and finding new ones is essential if the seed business is to regain its viability. The Minister and her Department cannot embark on a market-seeking exercise if they do not have adequate funding, and that makes it easy for me to understand why the Department is seeking to increase its income - albeit very minimally in this instance - as it sets about establishing the necessary marketing structures.

This may not be the best time to make the necessary increases. The seed industry has reached an all-time low as far as prices and profit are concerned. The farmers do not have the cash to meet new demands, even if those demands are in their best interests. For example, in the past it was often the case that when the beef trade was good, the potato industry was bad or vice versa. The same could be said of the dairy industry, the pig industry, the grain trade, et cetera. Farmers could depend on at least one sector of their industry to offset the difficulties that arose out of a downward trend in the viability of another.

However, the entire industry has collapsed for a multitude of reasons in the last three years. At present there are no viable sectors on Northern Ireland farms. For that reason, it may be prudent to postpone the proposed increase for at least a year. In making this suggestion, I am tying the hands of the Minister in her efforts to find new markets for our seed producers. Nevertheless, a one-year waiver on the increase will serve the best short-term interests of the producers. I assure the Minister that if she applies a further one-year waiver, I shall - for 12 months at least - limit my questions on the marketing of seed potatoes.

We should be discussing assistance to the agriculture industry this afternoon, but instead we are defending one sector against inappropriate and unacceptable additional costs.

It is disturbing that despite the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development concluding that the Seed Potato Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 are inappropriate, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is persistent about implementing them, contrary to what has been said by some who wish those Regulations to become a party political matter. This is about a fair deal for seed-potato growers in the Province, and to turn it into anything else only demonstrates an ignorance of farmers' problems.

The implementation of Regulations that add to production costs, at a time when farmers are desperately seeking a chink of light at the end of a very long tunnel, flies in the face of common sense. This is especially so since the seed potato and the entire potato sector are not subsidised. Since the potato sector has not escaped the effects of low product values in recent years, the negative effect of increased fees on the producer is clear.

We should be doing everything possible to encourage, not discourage, all sectors of the agriculture industry. The reasoning behind the implementation of these Regulations is unclear. It is no minor matter that the fees increase would be of minimal significance to the Department's budget. My party Colleagues and I believe that the damage of implementing these seed-potato Regulations far outweighs their gain. I support the annulment of these Regulations and ask that the Department and the Minister give appropriate consideration to the views of the Committee and of those affected by these damaging Regulations.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. I do not think that there is any need for further discussion of this issue. Our problem with the Regulations is that the Department simply forces them on farmers without taking into account the points that have been raised and, in particular, the year that is in it.

Almost all farmers, regardless of what area of production they are in, have suffered as a result of foot-and-mouth disease and the crisis in the industry over the past five years. Nevertheless, whatever the cost may be, the Department will simply impose a Regulation so that its budget will not be affected. I agree that someone must pay for the costs of assessment and so on, but this is not the best year to do it. The Agriculture Committee agreed that particular sensitivity was needed this year when farmers are obliged to pay up. That is why I support the motion.

One of the problems with these Regulations, and with others that filter down from Europe through the Department, is that their effect on producers here is not always adequately scrutinised. A recent example places liability on the original producer for the legal implications of food traceability and for the cost of medical difficulties when people are struck down by diseases such as BSE.

I have noted the comments and concerns expressed on this matter, but I must oppose this motion and ask the support of the Assembly in rejecting it. My Department, like all Departments, is required to recover the cost of the statutory services that it provides from the beneficiaries of those services.

The requirement that fees should cover the full cost of service delivery where a benefit accrues to an individual business has been a justified feature of Treasury, and in our case Department of Finance and Personnel, policy for some time. I have considered all the factors, and I am as aware of the difficulties faced by the farming community as anyone else. However, I was unable to accept that there was justification for not increasing the fee at this time on that basis.

In particular, I was conscious that a decision not to increase the fees and charges levied by my Department, of which this is but one, would mean my having to fund the additional costs from my Department's resources at a time when the industry made many competing and justified calls to me for help.

The main point that I want to make is that the increase in the fee is insignificant, amounting to no more than £5 over the year on average for each producer involved. The costs in Northern Ireland still compare very favourably with those levied in other parts of the UK. For example, even with the increase provided for in the Regulations, the crop fees here cost 34p per hectare. The comparative figure in Scotland is 58p and in England 81p.

The agreement with the Department of Finance and Personnel requires full cost recovery, which in this instance would have meant a 6·5% increase, but I decided to limit it to the inflationary indicator of 3%. No increases were applied from 1995-99 following a comprehensive review of our staffing and other costs, which enabled the fees to be maintained at a stable level for those years. However, it has been necessary to increase them since, as costs have increased; annulling this Regulation would widen the gap between cost and fees, which would have to be faced later. Conversely, annulment of these Regulations would have very significant precedent-setting implications for all increases of fees and charges proposed for other areas in my Department and for other Departments as well.

The need to increase these fees is not, as has been suggested, due to a lack of appreciation on my part of the sector's difficulties. My Department is very proactive in trying to arrest and reverse the decline in the seed-potato sector here. It is not a forgotten sector, as suggested by Mr Savage - certainly not by my Department.

Since 1999 key players have been involved in examining opportunities for a support and development strategy for this sector. Several action points are being progressed on the quality and image of Northern Ireland seed, supplemented by close liaison, best practice and exploring what can be done to improve the sector's competitiveness for the home and export markets.

I have also recently commissioned a policy review of our potato sector, the emphasis of which will be on the seed-potato sub-sector. This review will involve consultations with all parties concerned and will inform strategic decisions for the future. All factors influencing the situation will be considered, particularly the significance of international factors, including over-supply in most markets, the strength of sterling and increased competition in North African markets.

The review will also address alleged quality problems with Northern Ireland seed potatoes in respect of physical factors relating to storage, packaging and transportation as well as the effectiveness of promotional and marketing effort. This is the correct way to support the industry, and my decision to increase these fees should be supported despite the obvious populist appeal of not doing so.

There is also a rebate for some tuber inspection fees, whereby 75% of fees representing potatoes exported from Northern Ireland are rebated to producers. The average cost of the increases to the individual farmer drops proportionately when account is taken of the rebate. I am sure that Members will appreciate the significant impact of that.

In conclusion, I hope that my explanation has demonstrated that it was not possible for me to follow the easy course of keeping fees at their current level. For the reasons that I have explained, it would not have been right. I accordingly ask for Members' support in rejecting the motion. If Members vote in favour of the motion, I shall reluctantly accept their decision. However, they will need to note the implications of such a decision on approving, or not, other increases in fees and charges which will come before them.

I have not ignored the Committee; I have listened to the Committee and made my decision on the basis of the need - this is a matter of public accountability that I could not ignore. The additional costs incurred from not securing these and other future increases will have further implications which the Assembly must address.

I bitterly regret that the Minister has not accepted the appeals made to her. I do not understand that, because for the past five years the Department was able to make no increase in these fees. As farmers are now in a worse position than ever, why could the Department not still do that? The Minister knows that farm incomes have been slashed by almost 75%.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development could well take in the amount of money that the Minister has argued is not a big sum. If it is not a big sum, why does the Department not bear the burden? Why does it give the industry another straw that will break the camel's back?

I appeal to the House to support the Agriculture Committee in the prayer of annulment.

Seed Potato Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001

I beg to move

On the face of it most of the Regulations are merely updating the Seeds Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 and improving the methods by which seed potatoes can be marketed in Northern Ireland - something that nobody can object to. However, I am particularly concerned with two of the measures contained in the Regulations.

Regulation 22 will prevent the planting of seed potatoes in Northern Ireland other than fully certified seed potatoes or "once saved seed" from 31 December 2001.

I understand the issues that the Minister referred to in the previous debate. I understand the need to protect Northern Ireland's commercial markets, particularly with regard to seed crops and the need to ensure that the highest standards are applied to ensure that Northern Ireland producers can exploit overseas markets. However, that is not the issue that really matters here. High standards may be essential in some cases, but will the Minister tell the House if Regulation 22 is intended to stop individuals growing potatoes for their own consumption several years in succession? There is no justification for that.

There might be concerns if we were talking about something that grows by seed production - possible seed hybridisation between one individual's plants and properly certified seeds in an adjacent field. However, we are talking about potatoes grown by vegetative reproduction. There is no question of hybridisation or detriment to other growers. It is simply a question of whether individuals growing a small quantity of potatoes for themselves should be required to buy seed and pay a fee which up to now they have not been required to do if they have saved seed on their farm for many generations. Is it proposed that people who continue to do that after 1 January 2002 be made criminals? It appears to me that the Regulations are saying that this will be the case.

For me, the bigger issue is contained in Regulation 11, "Genetically Modified Seed Potatoes". I object - and the Assembly should object - to any measure appearing to put genetically modified material into the Northern Ireland environment without a full and proper debate in the Chamber. That was done when similar measures were proposed in Wales - and the National Assembly for Wales has fewer powers than we do when it comes to agriculture matters.

Undoubtedly, the Minister will tell the Assembly that Regulation 11 is merely concerned with the marketing and proper labelling of genetically modified material; it is not permitting it. If that is so, why does the Regulation appear? It is putting the cart before the horse.

There may be an EU Directive involved. However, I am speaking as one who is probably more pro-European than other members of the Agriculture Committee. There is an issue that we must take serious note of, and we have already experienced it in relation to animal diseases. A free market in living organisms should not be something that Northern Ireland rolls over and implements just because a Directive comes from Brussels. We must think about what the Directive means and what the appropriate creative thinking may mean.

To pass these Regulations with their reference to genetically modified potatoes would be to send out the wrong message at this time of crisis in agriculture.

In the previous debate Members highlighted the difficulties in the agriculture industry. I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments made by Dr Paisley and by other members of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. They have been aired often in the Chamber.

The one great advantage we have in Northern Ireland is our clean, green image; this applies to the whole of the island, not just Northern Ireland. It is a major marketing bonus, and it is something that we must develop to its utmost. If discerning consumers in Europe are looking for such a market, then we should be seeking to maximise our benefits. Anything that would suggest that we are acting detrimentally to the clean, green image in Ireland will create difficulties for us in the long term. Any question of introducing genetically modified organisms would damage that image irrevocably. That is my opinion; Members need not agree with it.

Any decision on whether to permit genetically modified crops in Northern Ireland should be taken after a full and proper debate in the Assembly and not after a Regulation is slipped through in a 15-minute debate at the end of the day. This is effectively what is being proposed by these Regulations. If the Assembly chooses to disagree with me and permits the growing of genetically modified crops, then so be it. It may be a majority decision, but I shall know that I am right and that you are wrong.

At least let us ensure that we have a properly structured debate and that we do not slide things in through the back door. Although the majority of the Regulations are perfectly acceptable, the Assembly, in this case, should reject the Regulations as they stand and ask the Minister to bring them back to us omitting these two unacceptable items.

Go raibh maith agat. I support Mr Ford's position on Regulations 11 and 22. Genetically modified food has been a particular bone of contention for me for several years. Consumers and politicians have been musing over the issue, asking who is to blame; if there is anything really risky about it; and whether they should allow it to go ahead.

The driving force behind genetically modified food is often big business and people with no interest in the image of locally produced food. They have a global perspective. They believe that the lowest possible price is the most important factor, and that is what drives them down the road of genetically modified food. It has nothing to do with trying to make food cheaper in poorer countries or getting round the problems of famines - one of their main arguments.

The opposite has been proven to be the case when more damage is done to the environment, to the long-term future of the industry and to small businesses. Many small businesses will get into serious difficulties if we move away from a level playing field. In the United States large companies rule, and they move everyone else out. That is what genetically modified foods have to offer us.

In the case of potatoes, the issue also puts local farmers' options at risk. They will have to import genetically modified potatoes, and they will not be able to produce food locally that has a clean, green image.

This issue should be addressed through consultation and debate with the consumer and the producer; it should not be addressed through Regulations. We are dealing with major forces, and the debate today does not give us any opportunity to examine the issues properly. The Minister must see to it that local knowledge is taken into account. Consumers want clean products on the shelves that they can be sure of and that are traceable. The Regulations should be rejected. Go raibh maith agat.

I have noted what Mr Ford and Mr McHugh said, but I must oppose the motion. Annulment of the Regulations would not achieve the objective sought by those Members but would, conversely, create major difficulties for our seed-potato growers and exporters, as it would remove from the Department all its statutory powers to inspect and regulate the marketing of seed potatoes. That would create a significant problem in the production of certified seed in Northern Ireland this year and would probably lead to losses for the industry in the domestic and export markets.

To put it bluntly, seed potatoes could not be sold in the absence of the Regulations. Furthermore, the anticipated benefits to the industry from the modernising measures in the Regulations would not be delivered. Concern about one area of regulation could end up removing all regulation of the sector: we should not contemplate creating such a situation. My Department would also be liable for damages for any losses suffered by the industry as a result of the non-implementation of Directive requirements. There have already been several such cases in Northern Ireland.

Mr Ford's first objection was that the certification would relate to private growers: it will not. He also objected to the introduction of Regulations for cases in which we do not have discretion. Mr Ford and Mr McHugh are rightly concerned about the control mechanisms regulating GM production. If time permits, I shall explain those in more detail, but I must emphasise that annulling the Regulations would be of no benefit as they do not change in any way the existing statutory control measures on GM foods in Northern Ireland. The Regulations simply prescribe the conditions under which GM varieties of seed potato might be marketed in future. Any other aspects of GM control would, rightly, be a matter for the whole Executive.

I shall explain why I am asking the Assembly to reject the motion and offer Members some reassurance. The concerns that have been expressed are already fully appreciated. We are all aware of the problems that have beset the seed-potato sector over the past few years. The Regulations are a partial contribution to a process that will, I hope, begin to reverse the decline in the sector's fortunes.

Time does not permit me to go into the background in detail, but I shall give the Assembly some explanation of the purpose of the Regulations. Their purpose is threefold. First, they will consolidate the 1981 Regulations, which have been amended on seven occasions, and make the Regulations more user-friendly. Secondly, we are implementing new EU obligations and complying with Directives 98/94/EC and 98/96/EC, which amended the various seed market Directives. Thirdly and most importantly, from the industry's point of view, we are modernising the Seed Potato Regulations with a view to developing the competitiveness of the seed-potato sector here and making Northern Ireland seed potatoes as appealing as possible to potential customers.

Leaving aside consolidation, it is the implementation of the Directive requirements in respect of GM seed potatoes that has prompted the motion. The Directive acknowledges that, in the light of scientific and technical developments, it is now possible to breed seed-potato varieties through genetic modification. It requires member states to introduce a legal basis for the conditions under which such GM varieties may be marketed. The Regulations introduce that legal basis for Northern Ireland and have no other implications whatsoever. They are not a green light for the growing or marketing of GM seed potatoes here. I have already said that that would be a matter for the Executive to consider before putting its decision to the House.

The Regulations do not change in any way the existing statutory control measures for GM products in Northern Ireland. Directive 2001/18/EC requires a comprehensive and transparent legislative framework to ensure that the public is consulted by either the Commission or the member state during the preparation of measures relating to the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms.

It is my understanding that the Department of the Environment would lead such a consultative process and bring its proposals to the Committee for the Environment. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's Regulations therefore introduce a definition of "genetically modified" in line with that provided in an earlier, related European Community Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. They also implement two provisions of Directive 98/95/EC concerned with the labelling and marketing of genetically modified seed potatoes. However, such labelling and marketing would be subject to pre-existing and stringent conditions imposed by the Department of the Environment.

I hope that I have made it clear to the Assembly that the concerns expressed about genetically modified foods are not what these Regulations are about. These Regulations have no implications for the introduction of genetically modified foods into Northern Ireland, but they have serious implications for the good of the potato sector. If the Assembly votes for this motion, I shall not be able to prevent brown rot from coming in, for example, or do whatever is necessary to support the industry, which is in a difficult position at present.

I shall be brief. I confess that I am confused. On two occasions the Minister said that these Regulations referred to how genetically modified crops might be marketed. However, in her final remarks she said that they have no implications for the introduction of genetically modified material. I do not understand that. Either they do or they do not. As far as I can see, a section that is headed "Genetically modified seed potatoes" has something to do with seed potatoes.

I acknowledged that many aspects of the legislation are beneficial, but I made it clear that I resented the way in which genetically modified produce marketing Regulations had been slipped into a Bill without proper debate. The Minister has not assuaged those concerns at all. I remain concerned about the regulations as they stand. I made it clear, and Mr McHugh also made it clear, that there is concern about a section of these Regulations and not about the Regulations in their entirety. I asked the Minister to withdraw and reissue the Regulations. That should be done, but if the Minister is unwilling to withdraw them, the prayer of annulment should be said.

TOP

Lagan Valley Hospital

Order. Members should resume their seats so that we can move on to the next item of business.

I beg to move

It is a matter of regret that this motion must be brought before the House. Hospitals require funding. Capitation formulae are worked out for those hospitals. In the case of the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust - and the Lagan Valley Hospital in particular - those formulae are not being adhered to. Thus this motion must be brought with the support of the Members for Lagan Valley to highlight this inequity. Discrimination has taken place against the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust and the Lagan Valley Hospital.

In the current year, under the new capitation formula, the trust is underfunded by £2·75 million. In the coming year, it is believed that the trust will be underfunded by between £4 and £4·5 million. The trust has already had to take action to meet the requirement of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that the trust does not run up a deficit.

In the past the Lagan Valley Hospital, overseen by Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust, has lived within its means and has not run up deficits, unlike other hospitals. I believe that Craigavon Hospital's deficit was about £7 million. The Royal Victoria Hospital has run up deficits year after year. Those deficits have been paid for, while a trust that has sought to live within its means is denied the funding that it should receive.

The trust has had to close ward 7, which was an acute medical ward functioning mainly as a pre-discharge unit. Many of the patients were transferred to ward 1B, which was opened only last year to deal with winter pressures. Anyone who was in Lagan Valley Hospital in 1999-2000 would understand why that ward was so necessary. Patients lay for days on trolleys in corridors. Required hygiene standards were not met. Steps had to be taken to open ward 1B so that those patients would not have to endure such conditions again.

Last year was a completely different story. Lagan Valley Hospital was full but was capable of meeting the needs of the people. I dread to think of what will happen in the winter of 2001-02. There will not be a place for some patients, who will have to be shifted to other hospitals. Those hospitals will be unable to take them, and they will again be lying on trolleys in corridors.

There is a proposal for the immediate closure of ward 14. Management and staff have met this afternoon to discuss that. I have not heard the outcome, but staff are very concerned. The closure will lead to the loss of 26 beds that had been taken up mostly by elderly patients requiring nursing hospital care. The trust intends to take action that is in one sense evasive, but that action will not meet the needs of patients. There is speculation that some patients may be sent to Drumlough House, which is full. It will therefore be necessary to put people who are in Drumlough House out into the community. Those people are not ready for that, but they will still be put out to make way for patients from ward 14, which is being closed because there is not enough funding.

Ward 1B is also under pressure and may have to close. In total, 56 or 57 beds in the Lagan Valley Hospital will be lost this year. In fairness, I must say that that includes 13 beds that were made available because of winter pressures, but the situation is unsatisfactory and must be dealt with.

The trust will also have to run down its community programmes. Anyone who understands community care will realise that that has an impact not only on the community but on hospitals, because it leads to bed- blocking. Residential and nursing homes will have beds available but will be unable to take patients because there will be no money in the community care budget. People often stay in hospital for longer than is necessary.

New service developments will be delayed because of the financial pressure on the trust. There are several reasons for that pressure. Pay awards are 3·7%, but the available funding covers only 3·5%. There have been price increases of £250,000 for heat, light and power. Foster care services demand more funding. There is reduced income from GP fundholders as fundholding is phased out. Winter pressures will not be funded this year.

Then there is the cost of maintaining winter pressures to mid-May. There are also pressures in acute services such as nursing, staffing, family planning fees, accident and emergency security and medical record storage. These things must be paid for, but the funding has not been put in place. That leads to a situation where other aspects of health care are cut.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I could take you to the Lagan Valley Hospital tonight and show you patients lying there who need medical care. Beds will not be available in Lagan Valley to meet those needs. Many of those people have relatives who visit them in hospital. People regularly travel from Lisburn, Dromore, Dromara, Glenavy and outlying towns in Lagan Valley to regularly visit their family members - perhaps their mothers and fathers - to see them and to help meet their needs. Transferring such patients to more distant hospitals will limit a family's ability to visit its relatives.

I have a question for the Minister. Are elderly people in Lagan Valley of lesser standing than elderly people elsewhere in Northern Ireland? Is it right that the most vulnerable people in society - older people who need medical care - are treated in such a way? Is it right to deny them the services that they require because the Department and the Eastern Health and Social Services Board do not supply the hospital with the funding that it is entitled to? What we are seeing here is most unfair and discriminatory. It must be dealt with.

The Hayes Report says that the Lagan Valley Hospital will have a greater role to play in the care of the elderly. The current process of bed closures flies in the face of that report. I do not accept most of its recommendations on the Lagan Valley Hospital, but that is not an issue for today. I believe that that issue will be debated at another time. Why the short-sightedness if the health boards believe what Hayes is saying? Why are they implementing a programme that is contrary to his recommendations?

I will not accept that the people of Lagan Valley are second-class citizens. Very often in the Assembly we hear of people in inner-city Belfast and people west of the Bann being treated as second-class citizens. In this instance, the people in Lagan Valley are being treated as second-class citizens. Perhaps it is not as fashionable to say that people in Lagan Valley are treated as second-class citizens as it is in the case of other areas, but it is a fact. It must be dealt with.

I implore the Minister, the Department of Health and the Eastern Health and Social Services Board to find the money that the Lagan Valley Hospital and the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust should be receiving. I implore them to ensure that the people in my constituency - particularly the elderly and the vulnerable - receive the care that they are entitled to.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>