Agriculture and Rural Development

1.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what proportion of her departmental budget is used for administrative costs, most notably Civil Service salaries, and what proportion is used for direct support to farmers in the form of direct grants, subsidies and incentive packages.

(AQO 443/01)

Next year, expenditure on the administration of the Department and policy development work is expected to be approximately £27 million, or 6·9% of the total budget. Direct expenditure to farmers, in the form of grants, subsidies, and incentives, should amount to some £187 million, or 47·4% of the total budget. It should be borne in mind, when analysing departmental expenditure, that the budget includes provision for the Rivers Agency, the Forest Service, sea fisheries, meat hygiene enforcement on behalf of the Food Standards Agency and rural development.

It is clear from its annual report that the Department acts merely as an agent of the European Union, paying approximately £160 million of EU grants in rural areas while paying only £16 million of grants in its own right out of a budget of £200 million. Does the Minister accept that it is a disgrace that only 8% of her Department's spending goes to farmers and others in rural areas?

The Member needs to remember that the bulk of my Department's spending goes towards areas that benefit farmers, including the service to farmers through colleges, the advisory services and the veterinary services. While this is not money that goes directly into farmers' pockets, without those services those farming communities would be at a great disadvantage. What does not go directly into farmers' pockets goes indirectly or, indeed, directly to their benefit.

In the light of last week's announcement, and given the resources that are allocated either to subsidies or to staffing in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, will the Minister tell the House how much money will be allocated to bring about the successful prosecution of fraudsters? Will the Minister make a statement to the House on that travesty at the next opportunity?

The Member is somewhat confused. The fraud that he refers to comes to a total of £17,000. There is an annual fraud bill of £58 million in another Department that is the responsibility of a Minister with whom the Member is very familiar. I am surprised that he is not making a bigger issue of that. There is quite a difference between £17,000 and £58 million.

After a review of fraud, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development brought forward a strategy that was put before the Committee last Friday. It deals with areas where the Department must tighten up. With regard to the specific issue that the Member refers to - the south Armagh cull - the Department has always prosecuted farmers who are found to be in default or are attempting to defraud the system. Last year there were five successful prosecutions. There was also a successful prosecution in August 2001. However, the legislation on which that prosecution was based was challenged, and an appeal was launched. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who was in possession of the facts about the south Armagh cull that I had made available to the House and to the public in July 2001, had arranged dates for seven cases to be heard. The view was that the prosecutions could go ahead.

On the day of the appeal to the August case, however, the DPP decided that it should not go ahead because there was a point of law on which the legislation was weak. He subsequently decided not to go ahead with the cases in south Armagh. Therefore, until recently the Department had been able to prosecute on the basis of that law. It has moved to address the situation. The law is being changed to ensure that that does not happen again.

What proportion of modulation money, taken from direct production subsidies to farmers and paid to them under agrienvironment schemes, is retained by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development - in the Forest Service, for example?

I do not have those details to hand. I will write to the Member.

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

3.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline any progress made in developing a common approach to the reform of the common agricultural policy; and to make a statement.

(AQO 437/01)

Under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council I have agreed with Joe Walsh a set of common concerns and priorities for the development of the common agricultural policy (CAP), and the related issues of EU enlargement and World Trade Organisation negotiations. We have agreed to continue to review developments on those matters. I have regular discussions with my ministerial counterparts in Great Britain on a broad range of agriculture issues, including the future of the CAP. They are aware of my views.

What is the Minister's view of the reformist position of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, which seeks to end farm subsidies?

Margaret Beckett's position on CAP reform reflects the stance that was adopted by successive UK Agriculture Ministers and Governments. I recognise the pressures on CAP and appreciate that further reform is inevitable, but I have grave concerns about the agriculture industry's ability to embrace radical change at present.

It is crucial that we avoid adding to the difficulties and the genuine fears that exist in rural communities. Any reform of the CAP should take place at a sustainable pace, and we must be prepared to help the industry through the significant difficulties that change will bring. There will be change as a result of the World Trade Organisation negotiations and the need to reform the CAP, but the industry and our farming community must be supported so that they can remain viable.

I listened intently to the Minister's answer to the original question and the supplementary. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware of the difficulties that will result from the CAP reforms and the enlargement of the European Union. Everyone in the House is aware that agriculture has suffered 10 years of reversal and that it has since been further blighted with the foot-and- mouth disease.

Does the Minister agree that the new dimension adds urgency to the arguments in favour of an early retirement scheme and a loan scheme for farmers? Those would create a legislative framework around which the agriculture industry could be restructured to meet the new threats that will result from the accession of eastern European states to the European Union.

I accept the Member's point about the early retirement scheme; I know that there is a demand for it in many areas. I received the vision report on the subject some time ago, and I am consulting all interested parties on that. I am examining the possibility of an early retirement scheme, but I have not yet reached a conclusion. A desk study was carried out, but a definitive conclusion was not possible because there was an absence of proper research. I have therefore initiated research to be carried out by University College Dublin and Queen's University into the impact of early retirement schemes in other parts of the EU. The vision group favours the introduction of a new entrants scheme, but it is not in favour of an early retirement scheme.

I am aware of the need for restructuring, but I cannot come to a conclusion on the matter until I have seen the results of the research into its impact on the industry and its cost-effectiveness. An early retirement scheme might eat up the entire budget, but it would accommodate just a small number of farmers, leaving the vast majority without resources. I am open-minded, and I am examining every angle.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the drive by the World Trade Organisation and statements on world prices by Margaret Beckett and others, will farming be able to survive without agripayments? The pressure created by large-scale production in the USA, Argentina and Brazil means that we will never be able to deal on a level playing field.

It is for that reason that I set up the vision group last year. I am aware that change is imminent and that we will not be able to stop it - we cannot stop the world.

There will be changes. Pressure is being brought to bear on the common agricultural policy because of enlargement and the pressures under the World Trade Organisation for liberalisation in the market. It is not a question of what my opinion is. It is a case of having to face the reality that change is inevitable in the world situation.

It is most important for us to face those changes, to look at the challenges that change will bring and to be ready to meet those challenges. We must ensure that our industry is in a position to meet those challenges. That is why I am concerned about a headlong rush or a quick move to remove subsidies. Change will impact on the level of subsidies, but I want it to be at a pace that will allow us to ensure that our rural communities and farming industry remain viable.

4.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress has been made on the implementation of the new European Union regulations on beef labelling which come into force on 1 January 2002.

(AQO 444/01)

The EU legislation on beef labelling introduced in July 2000 provided for a two-stage approach to compulsory labelling. The initial compulsory indications that related to a reference number or code, member state or third country of slaughter and member state or third country of cutting were applicable from 1 September 2000. Additional indications requiring the name of the member state or third country in which the animal or group of animals were born and that in which the animal or group of animals were raised must also be shown on the label from 1 January 2002.

Existing legislation provides the necessary powers to enforce the additional, compulsory indications applicable from 1 January 2002. Slaughterhouses, cutting plants, meat processors, retail butchers and trade organisations have already been formally advised of compulsory beef labelling indicators applicable from 1 September 2000 and 1 January 2002. My Department will write again to interested parties to remind them of the additional compulsory indicators in advance of their coming into force.

The Minister will be aware that this matter has been raised in this House before. Can she make it absolutely clear that these regulations will come into force in Northern Ireland on 1 January 2002? Can she clarify whether the beef produce will be stamped "Produce of Northern Ireland" or "Produce of the United Kingdom"?

The regulations will come into force on 1 January 2002. Beef produced in Northern Ireland will be labelled as UK beef, but there is no reason why, for marketing or other reasons, processors or those with commercial concerns cannot put a label of their own choosing on it. However, it will have to bear the UK stamp because that is the member state from which the beef comes.

5.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail (a) the number of North/ South working groups that have been established to explore further opportunities for co-operation in the area of animal health, (b) their key areas of work and (c) when she expects to agree common animal health strategies with the Republic of Ireland.

(AQO 426/01)

To date, two working groups have been established, and another seven are in the process of being established. The key areas of work for the nine groups are brucellosis, tuberculosis, transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), veterinary medicines, zoonoses, animal welfare, animal health schemes, disease surveillance, import/export and cross-border aspects of fraud. We aim to have agreed animal health strategies by 30 September 2002.

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. It will be widely welcomed in the farming community. Does the Minister accept that there has been a widespread concern about the health of sheep, particularly in relation to how foot-and-mouth disease spread through that category of farm animals during the recent crisis? Will the Minister indicate if the problem of scrapie in sheep is being tackled, particularly on a North/South, all-Ireland basis?

Scrapie has been present for over 200 years, and it has been a notifiable disease in Northern Ireland since 1992. The control measures taken by my Department include a legal obligation on flock owners to notify the Department of suspected cases of scrapie. Those animals are slaughtered, and the farmers are compensated for their loss. The carcasses are tested by the veterinary science division and then destroyed.

Feeding ruminants meat-and-bone meal has been banned since 1989, and controls in this area were significantly strengthened in 1996. Specified risk material controls were introduced in 1990 for cattle, and in 1996 for sheep. In 1993 the Department initiated a national scrapie monitoring scheme involving a sampling target of 330 sheep per annum at abattoirs.

A programme of active surveillance in accordance with EC Regulation 999/2001 involving sample testing of sheep over 18 months old will start in January 2002. The authorities in the Republic take similar control measures. The nature of the disease and the sheep population in Ireland means that it makes sense to adopt a unified approach. Under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council, Joe Walsh and I have committed ourselves, in principle, to an all-Ireland approach to achieve the eradication of scrapie on an island-of-Ireland basis. We are consulting on proposals for a voluntary scheme involving genotyping, which is a method of breeding resistance to scrapie into the sheep population, as well as other more focused eradication measures. The proposals for a Northern Ireland scrapie plan are designed to take advantage of the low incidence of scrapie here, to reduce and, over time, to eliminate scrapie from the Northern Ireland flock.

6.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what steps she proposes to take in regard to the promotion of renewable energy through the use of biofuels.

(AQO 442/01)

I fully support the development of renewable energy sources. However, the responsibility for biofuels falls outside the remit of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Department for Regional Development and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment are responsible. Invest Northern Ireland (INI) has a role in the promotion of energy plants using biofuels. My Department promotes the use of biofuels and biolubricants where it makes business sense to do so. For example, Forest Service actively encourages the use of biodegradable oils in its vehicles and machines in support of certification of its forests under the United Kingdom woodland assurance standard. Other forestry machinery will be adjusted to use biodegradable products where practicable and where operations can realistically bear the additional costs. Similarly, forestry contractors will be encouraged to follow the example set by Forest Service.

Will the Minister undertake to investigate the potential of amoebic systems, which combine the safe disposal of agrifood waste, avoiding the dangers of botulism, with cheap eco-friendly energy production? That would enable us to meet European standards for renewable energy, which we currently fail to do.

I do not understand the question. However, when I have digested it and the Member has talked to me about it, I will consider it.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister consider a cross-departmental project, which could be funded from Executive funds, to promote the use of digesters in both farm waste and waste management? That would be a very useful project for the community.

The responsibility for that does not lie with my Department. It is the responsibility of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I cannot take a lead on that. However, if propositions are put to me I will look at them.

7.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline any update on the work of the Peace II natural resource rural tourism initiative; and to make a statement.

(AQO 439/01)

The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Minister of the Environment and I have agreed four of the local partnerships that will deliver this initiative. The partnerships are Causeway Coast and Glens Heritage Trust, South Armagh Tourism Initiative, Mourne Heritage Trust and Sperrins Tourism Ltd. The partnership group for the Fermanagh area will be announced shortly. A consultation exercise was carried out in parallel with the initial invitation to prospective partnerships interested in delivering the initiative. A reply to the 36 written responses to the consultation exercise will be issued very shortly. The partnerships will have up to six months to prepare sustainable tourism strategies for their respective target areas.

I congratulate the Minister and her Department on the work being done in this area. I am sure that she is aware that there is concern about how long it is taking to get these projects off the ground. When will the successful local partnerships be in a position to call for project applications?

Successful partnerships will have up to a maximum of six months to produce a sustainable tourism development strategy for their target areas, which will bring us to May 2002. However, in view of the tight timetable for the Peace II programme, strategies will be considered as they are received. When approved, the strategies will be awarded an interim indicative financial allocation to allow work to begin. Final indicative allocations will be made when all the strategies have been assessed.

8.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline the potential benefits of having meat plants carrying out grading.

(AQO 431/01)

I assume that the question follows the vision group recommendation that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should consider, in consultation with the industry, the transfer of carcass classification from the Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC) to the meat companies. The fact that the vision group has made this recommendation, as with all other recommendations, should not be taken to imply that I or my officials either support or oppose it. I will want to take account of comments received on this, as on other recommendations, during the consultation exercise, before making a decision.

First, it is a disgrace that the Minister has not made a statement on the statement made last week to the House.

Secondly, I do not assume that the Minister has made any decisions on whether meat plants should be grading or not. I have asked the Minister to outline the potential benefits. I can see the potential downside. The question still sits before the Minister.

I am not aware of the statement the Member is referring to. Many statements are made in the House. He has not been specific.

As regards the question that he asked, I clearly indicated that I do not want to prejudge any of the debate that is taking place or the conclusion that I will come to following consultation. The Member would be the first to criticise me if I stood up in the House and prejudged issues that are currently the subject of consultation.

9.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail (a) the number of farmed salmon which have escaped from the Northern Salmon Company Ltd in Glenarm and (b) the number of farmed fish which have escaped over the past three years.

(AQO 448/01)

The Northern Salmon Company Ltd has reported to the Department that approximately 13,000 salmon escaped when a net at Glenarm suffered structural damage during a storm in August. There is no method of independently assessing this figure. The Northern Salmon Company Ltd is currently dealing with its insurers. There have been no other escapes of farmed fish from the Northern Salmon Company Ltd or other farms in Northern Ireland over the past three years.

I am sure the Minister has noted that Glenarm salmon is on the menu here today. In view of the concerns expressed about farmed salmon escapees and the disastrous effects that they have on the Atlantic wild salmon population, does the Minister have any plans to monitor the situation at Glenarm?

Glenarm salmon frequently turns up on the menu here, and I was in a restaurant on Saturday night where it was also on the menu. I wondered how it had suddenly become so popular.

Members have raised concerns about the genetic integrity of the wild fish, and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will keep a close eye on that area. However, the Department has already conducted some work in that area. It monitored the genetic composition of the salmon stock in the river, following an escape in 1990. That indicated that some change in the genetic composition of the wild population had taken place, and that was probably attributable to interbreeding between wild fish and escaped farmed fish in the lower part of the river.

There is no evidence that such a change is detrimental to the wild population, but precautionary scientific advice is to remove as many of the escaped farmed fish from the river as possible. Accordingly, no fish of farm origin would be selected as brood stock as part of any fishery enhancement activity, and the Department's technical staff will repeat the electro-fishing operation to remove any remaining escapees before the spawning period.

10.

asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to detail (a) when the conference addressing the report of the vision group into the future of the agrifood industry will take place (b) when the consultation will end and (c) to make a statement in respect of the meetings she has held to date with interested parties.

(AQO 438/01)

The conference will take place tomorrow. The consultation period ends on 31 December 2001. As part of the consultation process, I have begun a series of meetings with stakeholders in order to obtain their preliminary views on the vision report. So far, I have met organisations that represent farmers, consumers, processors and environmental interests. A programme of meetings with other stakeholders has been arranged.

TOP

Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Injuries Compensation

I beg to move

Following the resolution of the Assembly on 10 September, the Ad Hoc Committee established to consider the proposal for a draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and its associated scheme met on 17 September, and I was elected as Chairperson. As Chairperson, it is my responsibility to present a report to the Assembly for its endorsement.

I shall give a brief overview of the background of the draft proposals and the work that the Committee undertook. In October 1997, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Rt Hon Dr Marjorie Mowlam MP, established the Northern Ireland's Victims Commission to consider possible ways to recognise the pain and suffering felt by victims of violence associated with the troubles. That commission, chaired by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, reported in April 1998, and one of its recommendations was for the Government to establish an objective, independent and wide-ranging review of the fitness for purpose of the compensation system as it operated in Northern Ireland.

On 12 August 1998, the then Minister for Victims, Adam Ingram, announced the Government's intention to establish such a review as part of the Victims Liaison Unit's package of measures. That review was established, and, in July 1999, a report was issued for consultation, prior to the final recommendations being submitted to the Government.

I will list some of its recommendations for a fairer, more equitable, open and transparent system. Compensation should continue to be decided by the Compensation Agency, with a right of appeal to the courts; there should be a simpler method of deciding how much compensation is paid for less serious injuries; victims who suffer more serious injuries should continue to have their claims assessed as at present; where a person has died as a result of violent crime, an enhanced bereavement support payment should be payable up to a maximum for any one family of £50,000; compensation for psychiatric illness should be paid in a wider range of cases; there should be more flexibility in the time limit for making an application; and cases should be capable of being reopened in particular circumstances.

The Government's response to those proposals was contained in the draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and the draft Northern Ireland Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2002. The Government did not accept all the review's recommendations.

Over the past few weeks, the Ad Hoc Committee has heard evidence from various interested bodies - the Compensation Agency, the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Office and Victim Support Northern Ireland. During those meetings, many issues were raised, and the Committee considered each in detail.

The proposals are being taken forward by the Northern Ireland Office, and the Committee welcomed the opportunity to comment on them in their draft form. The key features of the proposed new arrangements are the introduction of a tariff of injuries, setting out the value of specific injuries; the hearing of appeals by an independent appeals panel; and the removal of paid legal assistance from the scheme, to be replaced by support and help from Victim Support Northern Ireland. There should also be wider eligibility criteria and other changes to eradicate anomalies; the removal of specific terrorist exclusion provisions; and provisions for past victims of child sex abuse, who cannot claim because of the current statutory time limits, to make a fresh claim.

The Committee had reservations about the proposed legislation. The assumption that a tariff system is in the best interests of victims of crime is erroneous. All the evidence suggests that it is a cost-saving exercise that will reduce the compensation paid to victims of crime, while removing paid legal assistance. The Committee felt that the removal of the right of appeal to the courts as part of the due process of law is fundamentally flawed and may be subject to challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Committee recognised the role played by Victim Support Northern Ireland over many years in supporting and counselling victims. However, the proposal to use Victim Support Northern Ireland in a quasi-legal support role is inappropriate, given the reservations outlined in its submission.

The Committee noted the core recommendations set out in the Law Society of Northern Ireland's supplementary memorandum of evidence. It called for the establishment of a working party with a general remit to examine the compensation process. The key objective would be to bring about systematic improvement by addressing the problems of delay and ensuring transparency, communication and closer liaison among agencies in the system. The Committee encouraged the Northern Ireland Office to engage with the Law Society and give due consideration to its proposals.

In light of the Committee's reservations about the proposed new arrangements, the Committee recommended that the proposed legislation should not be introduced to Parliament in its current form. Despite a tight timescale, the Committee considered all the proposals, and, although some of them would be welcome, the Assembly should send a strong message to the Northern Ireland Office that the proposals should not be implemented as they stand in the draft Order and scheme. I recommend that all Members lend their support to our report and its recommendations.

I thank the Committee Clerk and his staff and those who gave evidence to the Committee or made written submissions that helped us in our consideration of the proposals. We were charged by the Assembly to produce a report by 27 November, and we have fulfilled that duty, albeit with just a day to spare. We held six Committee meetings, took oral evidence from four bodies and received submissions from another six. The record of that evidence is in annexes three and four of the report.

The Ad Hoc Committee took its scrutiny role seriously. Given the central importance of victims in our society, we were guided by a shared desire to recognise their trauma and continuing suffering. As far as possible, we also wished to ensure that society understood why victims deserved to have their suffering considered sensitively and practically. In that context, I welcome the proposal referred to in paragraph 66 on page 17 of the report, which seeks to introduce a "bereavement support payment". Victim Support Northern Ireland and many other bodies also welcome that proposal, which not only acknowledges the grief and sorrow caused by the death of the victim but ensures that there will be no further misinterpretation of the purpose of the payment. The proposed extension of the cohabitation definition, as noted in paragraph 67 on page 17 of the report, together with the two-year residential time frame, are also viewed as positive indications of a desire to reduce the trauma for victims and their families.

For those claiming compensation for psychological injuries, the proposal is to widen the eligibility criteria, and that is also viewed as a positive step towards recognising the suffering of many in our society. I welcome the removal of the stipulation requiring a person "to be present at the scene of the crime". Anyone who reads the case submitted by Victim Support Northern Ireland on page 108, paragraph 3i, will concur. That case concerns a lady who was confronted by a harrowing scene at the end of her lane, following a heinous crime perpetrated by terrorists. As any good Samaritan would, she responded to the need of that fellow human being, who died in her arms. She was subsequently denied compensation for the trauma that she had experienced, as she was deemed not to have been present at the scene of the horrific crime.

I welcome the inclusion of the proposal to define a disabling mental illness, rather than the previous reference to serious and disabling mental disorder and to have that confirmed by psychiatric diagnosis. That is a step forward in recognising the different forms of trauma experienced by victims.

So far, I have welcomed the proposals in the draft Order, but I must now express some serious concerns. The proposals purport to address the needs of the victim regarding time scales, transparency and reduction of trauma. One could be forgiven, however, for drawing the conclusion that the tariff system is a device for reducing compensatory payments. The wisdom of removing the assessment of compensation from the judiciary and placing it in the hands of the executive arm of Government is to be questioned. On page 19 paragraph 3c of the report it states that the Law Society of Northern Ireland proposes the establishment of a working party that would include representatives of the professions, agencies and victims in order to prevent such a contingency. I welcome that proposal. The working party would consider the present system, identify measures to reduce delays, improve inter-agency communication and seek to increase transparency.

The Committee considered that the proposals in the draft Order exacerbated the claimant's distress by constraining his or her ability to have needs individually assessed, even more than the present arrangements. The example submitted by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers - the details are on page 69 - concerning the individual impact that the loss of an eye would have on a pilot as opposed to an elderly person highlights the need for each case to be assessed individually.

I am in serious conflict with the proposal to withdraw paid legal assistance from claimants. We recommend that, in the interests of fairness, paid legal assistance should continue. The tariff system will seriously erode the ability of a claimant to receive adequate or equitable settlement. The stipulations concerning multiple injuries, as commented upon in paragraphs 78 and 79 on page 19 of the report, illustrate the point that the tariff system's inflexibility will cause claimants to lose out. We also noted that the scale of tariffs is significantly lower than that currently available under the 1996 Northern Ireland "Green Book" formula.

Victims will be penalised by any proposals that are designed to deduct payments from private healthcare insurance towards medical expenses or healthcare arrangements. That situation would be further exacerbated by the proposed removal of compensation for the loss of earnings for the first 28 weeks following an injury and the removal of compensation for special expenses, such as the adaptation of accommodation, unless earnings capacity had been lost. Both proposals appear punitive and are not in keeping with the Northern Ireland Victims Commission's remit to recognise the pain and suffering felt by victims of violence. After all, that was what led to the 1998 review of criminal injuries compensation, 64 recommendations of which laid the basis for many of the current proposals.

I subscribe fully to recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9 and to the conclusion in recommendation 10 that the proposed legislation should not be introduced to Parliament in its present form.

Finally, the role envisaged for Victim Support Northern Ireland is grossly unfair to that highly respected body. How can it be expected to assemble on a Province- wide basis the number of highly skilled personnel needed to deal with thousands of extremely complicated cases? That defies all logic, as the Committee of the Centre highlighted in its submission, reproduced on page 79 of the report.

The withdrawal of legal aid will save an estimated £7 million, yet additional funding of only £400,000 will be provided for Victim Support. Surely, there is cause for concern that, if the level of support to claimants that is envisaged in paragraph 50 on page 14 is introduced, applicants will not receive the representation that is currently provided by geographically well dispersed, long-standing legal firms with expertise in the field. That fact cannot be ignored.

Victim Support should be given an enhanced, proactive role that reflects its specific expertise in providing support and counselling for the victims of crime. I support the recommendation made by the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee that the proposed legislation should not be introduced to Parliament in its present form.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>