In the light of recent media coverage on the issue of age discrimination in the United Kingdom, and following the completion of the review of appointment and promotion procedures for the senior Civil Service, will the Minister confirm that civil servants in the Northern Ireland Civil Service will now be entitled to continue working until they reach the age of 65, instead of the mandatory retirement age of 60, which is currently the case?

The issue of the retirement age for senior civil servants was included in the review at the request of my predecessor, Mark Durkan. As I am just about to receive the review, I have not had the opportunity to consider what it may recommend about the age of retirement, and so I am not in a position to answer the Member's question. When the report of the review has been received, that issue, along with others, will be fully addressed. Whether we take the matter forward on its own, or as part of the other recommendations that the review report is likely to contain, remains to be decided upon. However, I can assure the Member that the review team has positively addressed the senior Civil Service retirement age issue.

Can the Minister indicate at this stage how the recommendations contained in the report may be taken forward?

As Members will be aware, the review was a Programme for Government commitment, and taking forward its recommendations is a commitment in the current Programme for Government. Exactly how they will be taken forward will depend on the nature of the recommendations and any views expressed during the subsequent consultation. Once the way forward is agreed, I anticipate that an action plan will be developed, and the views of the Committee for Finance and Personnel will be taken. I will be monitoring closely the progress on that plan thereafter.

I thank the Minister for his frankness. In the review of Civil Service staff, which will, no doubt, affect other staff, does the Minister intend to move senior staff in some Departments outside of Belfast? Will he consider the movement of such staff and Departments to Fermanagh where there is currently ideal office accommodation available in the Lisnaskea area? That area has lost many jobs recently.

The question is allied to an earlier one. I will answer it in the same terms. When and if we come to the relocation of sections of the Civil Service, it will not simply be a matter of relocating members of the senior Civil Service or deciding whether to relocate to County Fermanagh, a county of considerable natural beauty. I am sure that many civil servants would be only too delighted to work and perhaps live there. The qualities of Fermanagh - not just its natural beauty but also the facilities that it can provide - will be fully considered, along with those of the areas that his party Colleague Mr Ken Robinson drew my attention to. He would have described those areas in no less laudatory terms.

Once again, I am disappointed by the delay. We were supposed to receive a response to the question in July 2001 and then in February 2002. Now we are being told that the Executive will meet, but we do not know when that will happen, or what the outcome will be. Some people have lost out because of the delay, and more people will lose out if decisions are not made quickly. Will there be compensation for those people, and will it be backdated?

The Member raises an interesting point. In answer to the first part of his question, when reviews are established they are often expected to be completed quickly. However, sometimes that expectation is not realised, because the issues turn out to be complex, and a variety of views must be considered in depth. I have been impressed by the work of the review team under Lord Ouseley, whom I had the pleasure of meeting. He gave me a progress report on the work of the review team several months ago. The complexity of the issues struck me forcibly at that time. It is far better to have a full, comprehensive report that addresses all of the issues, than one that is completed solely to try to meet a deadline. I accept that the deadline was set with the expectation that it would be met. However, we will have a full and comprehensive report.

I fail to understand what lies behind the second part of the Member's question about compensation. I have not had an opportunity to consider that issue, nor has my attention been drawn to any matter for which compensation might be sought. If, when the review is published, the Member has concerns about compensation relevant to the work of the review that he feels must be addressed, he should draw that to my attention and the attention of the Executive.

TOP

7.

asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how many people can benefit from the Help with Rates campaign.

(AQO 1009/01)

It is difficult to determine how many people can benefit from the Help with Rates campaign. Housing benefit applications received from the Rate Collection Agency show a downward trend. In 1999-2000, for example, the agency received just over 68,000 applications. This year fewer than 60,000 applications have been received. The current Help with Rates campaign was launched in the light of that downward trend, so that owner-occupiers would be fully aware of their entitlement to housing benefit, which is administered by the Rate Collection Agency on their behalf.

Information suggests that approximately 80% of the applications are successful. However, that percentage can vary from year to year because of changing circumstances. The benefit is led by demand. The agency's Help with Rates awareness campaign seeks to inform homeowners with low incomes that they may be entitled to help with their rates bill. The campaign will therefore increase the uptake of housing benefit.

I welcome the Minister's reply and his efforts to promote the awareness campaign. What steps are being taken to ensure that those who apply are entitled to receive housing benefit?

Considerable assistance is provided through the offices of the Rate Collection Agency to draw the attention of applicants to their entitlement to housing benefit. The offices are there to provide advice about the benefit and to ensure that applicants are provided with all the information necessary to enable them to clearly establish their means. Entitlement to housing benefit is determined on a means basis.

In conjunction with helping with rates, when will rural post offices and shops be entitled to receive rates reductions?

The rural rate relief scheme, for which an equality impact assessment and new targeting social need (TSN) analysis have been carried out, is now being considered by Department of Finance and Personnel officials. I intend to report to the Executive on the way forward on that issue in the coming weeks.

TOP

8.

asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what financial incentives are in place, such as rates rebates, to support the ongoing additional costs associated with the upkeep of property in historic town centres.

(AQO 1002/01)

Rates rebates are not available to assist with the additional cost associated with the upkeep of such properties as those identified in the Member's question. There are no plans to introduce any such form of rates relief.

Will the Minister agree that some town centres are in need of urgent reinvigoration? In some towns over 20% of retail property is vacant. A range of policies may be needed to bring that property back into use and for the public to benefit from those rates. Will he consider reviewing the level of rates in order to allow for the additional costs of maintaining buildings and townscapes of historic merit, and for the re-examination of the rating of vacant property that often causes a blight in town centres, in conjunction with a reassessment of the planning restrictions that might also exist?

The cost of upkeep of all property affects their market rental values and is, therefore, reflected in their net annual value. The new valuation list currently being prepared will come into force on 1 April 2003. It will redistribute the rate burden of non-domestic ratepayers. Broadly speaking, sectors and locations that have fared well since the last revaluation in 1997 should, all things being equal, find a corresponding reduction in rate liability to the extent that any downturn is reflected in current market rental levels.

Members will be aware that a consultation on the review of rating policy is being prepared and will, it is hoped, be launched in the coming weeks. That will afford everyone an opportunity to make submissions and to deliberate on the basis of future rating policy and on whether there are questions relating to reliefs and exemptions that should be addressed.

TOP

11.

asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how he ensures that additional funding for allocated Departments provides value for money.

(AQO 984/01)

A range of measures is in place to ensure that resources used by Departments provide value for money. First, all expenditure is subject to scrutiny by the Department of Finance and Personnel's central finance group in conjunction with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Assembly and its Committees also examine expenditure. In addition, the Comptroller and Auditor General provides the Assembly, and the Public Accounts Committee in particular, with reports that identify the extent to which Departments provide value for money from the resources allocated to them.

How does that analysis work for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety? Despite a 37% increase in that Department's spending in the lifetime of this Assembly, waiting lists are higher than ever. How can the Minister account for the £110,000 that was spent on translation services as good value for money, given the current state of the Health Service?

Some of those questions need to be directed to the relevant Minister. In response to an earlier question, I said that needs are being assessed. The effectiveness of the manner in which allocated resources are being spent is currently being addressed.

I must interrupt the Minister while he is in full flow because the time for questions to the Minister is up.

Agriculture Industry

TOP

Debate resumed on motion:

The fact that this debate is required suggests a lack of feeling, of which farmers are aware, on the part of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern Ireland's agriculture industry. Minister Rodgers claims to understand the difficulties that farmers face and claims to sympathise with them. Sympathy is simply not enough, and practical solutions seem to be a distant prospect. That is why I do not hesitate to support the motion.

Calls for an early retirement scheme are not a new phenomenon. In the difficult past few years, numerous spokespersons on agriculture have called for such a scheme. Many have gone further and added the obvious accompaniment of a fund for new entrants. The reasons for that are obvious to everyone except the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

As the average age of a farmer is 57, and only 7% of farmers are aged under 30, it does not take an enormous stretch of the imagination to make an informed guess on where farming is going - the Province's primary industry is heading for extinction unless we attract young people back into the business. That can only be done by instilling confidence in young people that there is a future in farming.

The chances are that an 18-year-old with the opportunity to take any kind of job outside farming will do so. Banks will not assist young people, and the Department is indifferent to the plight of young people who wish to carry on, let alone develop, a family business. We must pave the way for the older generation of farmers to retire to make way for young people, who must be given the resources to become involved in farming.

We hear so much about the size of farms. There is no better way to increase the unit size of a farm than to introduce an early retirement scheme alongside a new entrants scheme. To decide that such schemes would not constitute value for money is a short-term view of the situation, and one that I suspect is based on a study that is distinct from the circumstances in Northern Ireland.

I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to consider carefully the options for funding such schemes, if she has not already done so. So much is made of the impending increase in membership of the European Union, the effects of globalisation on commodity prices for farm produce and the strategic purchase of produce by processors in the Province that the chance for farmers to succeed appears negligible. Unless all possible action is taken, our industry will not have a sporting chance of success. It will be doomed from the outset.

If given a reasonable chance, Northern Ireland's farmers can respond to the challenge. The beef export embargoes of the last seven years have proved their resolve. The Department and the Government must serve the farming industry by shaking off a negative and defeatist mentality and setting about the proactive development of a recovery strategy.

I support the motion.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome this debate. There have been several debates on agriculture in the Assembly, and those with no particular interest in agriculture will say that this is more of the same. However, the industry needs support, together with a great deal of thought and discussion. The debate on the future, or the extinction, of agriculture is, therefore, timely and vital, and I have no difficulty in supporting the motion.

The difficulty is in trying to find either a retirement scheme or a mixed retirement and loans system, as has been suggested. I have some concern about the use of loans. There is a place for a capital grant scheme to encourage young people into farming. On examining the South's attempt at a retirement scheme, we find that almost half of the applications came from larger farms and not from the targeted group who would have benefited from the scheme. It did little for the restructuring of farming and for making a difference to the industry by bringing people into it. Will such a scheme make a difference here? All those things must be taken on board.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's vision document says that there will always be farmers and farming. That is debatable. There may be neither if the current situation is not resolved. Young people are not coming into the industry. They look at their peers and see that they will be economically much better off in one of the many jobs now available, such as construction work. Those factors come into the equation. People do not stay in farming, and older farmers have no extra help. High employment levels and the money available outside farming work against keeping the agriculture industry at its former standard. There have been changes in the last five years. The industry has been damaged by BSE and other food scares.

Sustainable agriculture should be about meeting current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. Social and economic sustainability within the rural community could be another way to look at the matter. Perhaps we should pay farmers for jobs other than food production, such as looking after the countryside. If we have only large farms, will the rural areas be properly taken care of? Will people from the lowlands, for example, be prepared to farm in severely disadvantaged areas? I do not believe that they will. Only people who come from such areas will be prepared to live and work in them, so the idea of changing structures to such an extent will probably not work.

Returns on farming are critical. If milk production does not wash its own face, it will fail, as did small- scale pig production in places such as Fermanagh several years ago. When those farms' inputs became greater than their returns, they were closed down. There is a possibility that that will happen to all elements of agriculture over the next few years. If we do not do something, there will no be farms here, and we will have to import everything.

The farming infrastructure is critical. Farming has been decimated; it is in decline; and there is waste. Farmers face environmental demands, and they are also under pressure to retrain and get different skills. Furthermore, animal welfare concerns must be incorporated into farming. The Government do not provide support or capital for farmers to deal with any of those pressures. It is very expensive to maintain the infrastructure of a farm, and that must be dealt with or everyone will leave farming, and that is the last thing that we want to happen.

Reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) is on the top of everyone's agenda with regard to the direction of policies and world demands. Grassland has been expanded in places such as Brazil and Argentina to create beef production methods. The environmental impact of that is immense. In places such as Argentina, 30% of the gross domestic product (GDP) was beef production or agriculture. However, such countries still went bankrupt. They based their outputs on the lowest sourcing and the lowest labour costs, but it did not work. Is that the direction that we should be taking? Those countries were able to work with cheap resources, such as cheaper pesticides - which they used a great deal of - and had very little or no concern for animal welfare.

There is a growing worldwide demand for food. International trade has been liberalised, and there has been EU enlargement. The notion that expanded globalisation is sustainable is nonsense. Some 13% of all air freight is food. Food, including vegetables and fruit, such as strawberries, is the largest category of air freight. A kilogram of apples has been known to produce at least its own weight in fuel emissions. What is the cost to the world, and to farming on a global scale, of the removal of rainforests to create grassland? That is happening in countries where the greatest benefit is to be had from maintaining the original environment. The demand for low-cost food, at the lowest possible prices, benefits only multinational giants. That situation cannot be sustained. We need a more localised market, which is where organic farming comes into its own. I note that the German Federal Minister of Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture supports organic farming methods and wants more money to be invested in them. Farming and the environment have to be taken as a whole.

I welcome the Minister's presence today. I hope that she has a good pen because I have several questions that I would like her to answer.

I am not a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. My leader David Ford has that onerous task, and he apologises that he cannot be present to contribute to the debate. However, as a representative from a constituency with a large farming community, I am only too aware that agriculture is in decline and has been for years.

Some years ago I was a member of the Agriculture Committee in the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue. I gained some insight into the industry's problems through visits to the Forum from representatives from every sector in the industry. Unfortunately, the situation has gone downhill since then. We must act now to generate a viable agriculture industry for Northern Ireland before it is too late.

The timing of the motion is somewhat premature, given that a statement may be pending from the Minister in response to the Department's vision group's report. Surely it would have been more productive to have waited for the Minister's formal response and any unique proposals or suggestions that she may have. Perhaps the Minister will give some indication of her thinking in her response. I pay credit to Ms Rodgers. As Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, she was thrown in at the deep end. She has represented Northern Ireland well not only in agriculture but also in her other duties, including the fishing industry, despite being constrained by European legislation.

I will highlight some specific issues that the Alliance Party hopes to hear more about in the Minister's response. The Alliance Party shares the desire to have a dynamic, long-term and prosperous future for Northern Ireland's agrifood sector. Of particular interest are: the need to protect and enhance animal health status; the strengthening of the rural economy through all farming activities, including those that involve beef, crops, milk and so on; and the safeguarding of our land-based heritage and rural developments.

I draw the Minister's attention to the anxiety of farmers and landowners in the Strangford constituency. The Department of the Environment has designated the coastline of the outer Ards Peninsula and the east coast of the Irish Sea as areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs). Farmers and landowners regard that as a removal of their long-held and long-enjoyed rights, an additional worry that farmers could well do without. Perhaps the Minister's response will give some relief to those landowners and farmers.

Members referred to an early retirement scheme that could be offered to those who have served the agriculture industry well over the years, and who choose, at this stage, to hang up their wellington boots. Members also referred to the development of an early entrants scheme that would allow young farmers to become involved in the industry in the hope that they would enjoy a good, prosperous future.

I look forward to hearing the Minister address the vision group's findings that a climate of mistrust and hostility exists in parts of the food chain. There appears to be a lack of synergy among producers, processors and retailers. I would like to know to what degree the Minister endorses the recommendation of the vision group's report on that.

The recent arrival of multinationals in Northern Ireland has had a detrimental effect on our local food producers and has resulted in an enormous change in demand. Furthermore, Europe's dictation of food specification - size, shape, colour and so on - has had a huge impact on producers, has placed enormous stress and strain on all local producers and has caused many farmers to pack it in altogether.

Obviously, protecting and enhancing our animal health status is of the utmost importance, and, in this regard, I am sure that the Minister agrees that we need to place urgent priority on tackling brucellosis and tuberculosis.

With regard to strengthening the rural economy, the Alliance Party would emphasise the whole rural economy, which extends beyond agriculture to include non-farming activities, and I am sure that the Minister will agree. Specifically, the vision group's report recommends the establishment of a rural baseline as a rural proofing benchmark, and that is much needed - indeed, it is overdue.

Among the group's other recommendations aimed at safeguarding our land-based heritage and rural environment are the promotion and development of good farming practice throughout Northern Ireland and the implementation of the recommendations of our biodiversity strategy. I understand that both those actions require grant aid to be successful. Will the Minister commit adequate financial resources to realise these objectives?

Every person in Northern Ireland has a duty to support local agriculture. Our slogan should be "Buy the good Northern Irish products". Not only would that help to produce the best food and products, it would also help the industry remain one of our major employers. Although we all wish to support agriculture, it is certainly disappointing when the antics of some people in Ballymena threaten the whole industry because some people wish to use a few hours on a Sunday afternoon to promote their good work. Obstacles do not support proclamations of 100% support for agriculture, and 100% support should mean exactly that.

I acknowledge that the Minister has yet to make her formal reply to the vision group's report, but I look forward to her addressing the matters I have raised. Will the Minister assure me that she will incorporate my party's specific concerns in her formal reply to the report?

Northern Ireland has lots of capacity to produce good quality food, and in view of the enormous number of people in our world who are starving today, it would be remiss of me not to ask why someone in authority cannot come up with some way of using all our land to produce food and have it despatched to those areas where people are starving to death? The Western World could do more to feed the starving. I support the motion.

I thank Mr Savage for bringing this motion to the Floor today. The agriculture industry has been in a state of flux over the past few years - indeed, since BSE reared its ugly head in 1996. Since then we have had price cuts in all commodities, and with Northern Ireland's industry being mainly grass-based, these cuts have been most severe with beef, sheep and milk.

I know that the Minister is considering the findings of the vision group's report and that she hopes to report soon on the measures she wishes to take forward. I have some difficulties with this, as there will not be enough finance to take forward all that she would like to take forward. My fear is that much more finance is needed than will be there.

I do not want to be seen as not supporting the retirement scheme, which other Members have raised, but the finance required will not be forthcoming. What is needed is more assistance for people who want to remain in, or enter, the industry. In my reply to the vision document consultation I asked for a new entrants scheme to create a larger proportion of farmers under the age of 45. This could be managed in conjunction with a low-cost loan system to enable younger farmers to acquire land or expand their business base. Also, there would be merit in awarding higher rates of grant to young farmers for repairs and environmental schemes.

Modulation money, which is increasing this year, could be used to fund this on a Northern Ireland basis. Rationalisation in the farming sector - as has happened over the years - is inevitable, whether we like it or not, so we must ensure adequate advisory and financial support so that new and existing farmers can remain viable in an ever more competitive environment.

We must not forget that if farmers were not caring for the countryside we would not see that patchwork quilt when coming back on a plane. We would have an unkept jungle, which would please the eyes of few, and we would have to rely on foreign food. I agree with Graham Wynn, chief executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), who said at a recent conference that farming should become part of the solution for environmental improvements and not be an environmental problem.

Northern Ireland has a very good environmentally sensitive areas scheme, and there has been a very good uptake by farmers. However, it has been a victim of its own success. Although the main scheme has progressed, and farmers continue to be paid for various measures, the enhancement plan element of the scheme has been shut since 1 April 1999 because of insufficient funds to meet demand. At one time the Department lauded the scheme as the jewel in the crown.

This enhancement plan element provided farmers with more than just money to carry out environmental improvements. It also provided off-farm employment for farmers with small farms. They could develop small businesses to assist the environmental services. In my constituency the scheme provided a boost to off-farm income and made the area more attractive to tourists, thus providing another stream of income. As the scheme is partly funded by the European Commission, Northern Ireland receives additional money. I again call on the Minister to reinstate a proper financially managed scheme as soon as possible, because the Department's lack of financial management caused the closure.

We also need a scheme to upgrade existing slurry and effluent facilities on farms. Money for this should come from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of the Environment, because they jointly police environmental issues.

A can of worms could be opened in the light of the Department of the Environment's revisiting the issue of nitrate-vulnerable zones. I agree with the president of the Ulster Farmers' Union, who said at the weekend in 'Farming Life' that any new zones must be based on science alone. If we are to have further restrictions on the disposal of farm waste and effluent, there must be a grant to allow farmers to upgrade as necessary. No farmer wants to see pollution, but if repairs or the expansion necessary to meet proposed measurements cannot be funded, production must cease, and that is precisely what we do not want.

A Member who spoke earlier mentioned farmers hanging up their boots. A farmer never hangs up his boots, but he needs a reasonable return to survive and protect the environment. I am not sure that I agree with Mr McCarthy's statement about Ballymena. I am opposed to that. Good work is done on Sunday, so I cannot agree with Mr McCarthy's sentiments.

I conclude by calling on the Minister to press Margaret Beckett hard to claim the final tranche of agrimoney compensation from the EU, which could be given to farmers. Although it is only a small amount, it is, nevertheless, a significant amount to individual farmers, and they are entitled to the money. If the British Government had paid UK farmers all the agrimoney compensation that they were entitled to in recent years, the industry would be in a better position to compete on a level playing field. I urge the Minister to use every opportunity in the next weeks to lobby for this compensation. I support the motion.

I congratulate my Colleague, George Savage, for moving the motion on making farming and the food industry more economically sustainable.

Agriculture and the various stages of food processing represent around one tenth of regional gross domestic product (GDP). According to some definitions, it is clearly our most important economic sector. Given that, it is appropriate for those of us who do not represent agricultural constituencies to comment on the motion.

I support George Savage, especially on the early retirement proposals. There are no easy solutions. The right policy for agriculture demands recognition of the external factors that bear down on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and her counterparts in Edinburgh, Cardiff, London and Dublin.

The first external factor is that the common agricultural policy (CAP) cannot remain in its present form. That now seems to be universally accepted. It still takes up half of the European Commission's budget. The European Union is about to be enlarged, which, in itself, is a good thing. The levels of GDP per head in the countries concerned are around one quarter of our own. Farming accounts for around one tenth to one fifth of their total labour forces, compared to roughly 5% here. Clearly, the CAP in its current form cannot simply be extended to central and eastern Europe.

Since the founding of the European Economic Community in 1957, the CAP has operated by keeping European consumer food prices - the prices that we all pay when we go into the shops to buy food - well above world levels. It has become obvious to commentators across Europe that that is not a cost-effective way of maintaining rural incomes, nor is it now sustainable. It also goes against the historic approach to food policy in the United Kingdom. For example, from the end of the Corn Laws in the 1840s through to the Great Depression of the 1930s, the UK had a policy of free trade and cheap food.

That was then followed, from the second world war to accession to the Common Market in 1973, by the so-called deficiency payment system. This system was able to deliver farming support in a more cost-effective manner than the common agricultural policy. It may well be that in the future as the CAP is dismantled, elements of a deficiency-based system may have to be, and should be, restored.

The second external factor under which the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development operates is the gradual move to global free trade in farm products. Slowly, but probably irreversibly, the three main world trade blocs in farming - the United States, Japan and the European Union - are beginning to reduce their heavy subsidisation of consumer agricultural prices. That is a good thing to the extent that the way that agriculture has been supported in the rich economies has often acted to the detriment of the poorer countries, notably in Africa.

Annual aid to the Third World from the so-called northern economies amounts to around $50 billion. However, the current level of total agricultural support in Japan, the EU and the United States amounts to six or seven times that - $350 billion a year. That is a strange imbalance, and Mr McCarthy rightly referred to global hunger. If the ongoing Doha World Trade Organisation round is successful in freeing up food and textile trade, that could increase the total GDP of the world's poorer countries by around $1,500 billion - $1·5 trillion - by 2015 and lift an extra 320 million people out of dire poverty. Clearly, that is desirable.

In summary, we must move to a more diversified and self-sustaining economy in our rural areas. That is the implication of the global constraints under which agriculture here operates. That would be to the good of all in Northern Ireland, and it would also benefit the poorer parts of the world, whether that be Poland and Hungary in central and eastern Europe or various parts of Africa.

Mr Savage's motion points in the right direction. The House of Commons Agriculture Committee is studying farming policy in various countries, most notably New Zealand, where a radical approach has been taken over the past two decades.

We cannot be like Canute. The tide is moving against the farming policy that operated in the 1970s and 1980s, and we cannot go back to that. I support the motion and its innovative ideas.

It is with some trepidation that I follow the erudition of Dr Birnie on the macroeconomics of farming and the global track on which he led us. It was a fascinating and interesting trip. However, he distilled the whole subject when he said that we must achieve a recovery for the farming community and achieve sustainable viability in farming. I think that was the crux of his message.

I have some difficulty in speaking to this motion because it urges the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to do something. The Minister does not require urging; she has been in a very urgent mode since the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. However, a motion asking us to consider implementation measures for sustaining viability should have had more examples of what Mr Savage wants the House, the Department and the Executive to do. Many Members took their cause, or their exercise as we said at school, from the 'Vision for the Future of the Agri-food Industry'. I could easily list headings from the Executive summary, but that would add nothing to the debate.

Dr Birnie said that the gross domestic produce (GDP) of agriculture is one tenth of the economic contribution in Northern Ireland. In my constituency, as in others, it is much greater. Our rural community depends on the viability and profitability of the farming industry, and we require a radical view. I was pleased when I read the 'Vision for the Future of the Agri-food Industry' and even more pleased with the response from the Ulster Farmers' Union. The recommendations scored 99 out of 100; it is no mean achievement for representatives of the farming community to agree 99% with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. That gives us a blueprint for progress.

I can only emphasise one or two aspects of the problems we face in the aftermath of BSE and of foot-and-mouth disease. One obvious and uncontroversial objective should be to improve the control of animal disease and traceability along with the introduction of disease insurance. These require an all-Ireland mechanism and the concentration of both Governments. It is unfortunate that the irrational outburst of the leader of the UUP may make that more difficult, and that would be to the detriment of the farming industry. I hope that the common sense that prevails in the farming community will prevail in politics and will enable us to continue to address those all-Ireland requirements to sustain our farming and livestock.

There has been an enormous increase in bovine tuberculosis in many constituencies. I have mentioned that disease many times and urge the Minister to address the problem. I also want to emphasise the need for a review of the food chain concept to investigate the direction of profitability from producer to consumer. One or two studies have found the supermarkets "not guilty". I would rather employ the Scottish legal phrase "not proven". That should be looked at again.

The concept of less favoured areas, of which my constituency has a considerable proportion, should be allowed to continue with increased or modernised funding and the maintenance of the 90% safety net for at least another year.

We have all spoken of the need to restructure the farming industry. I am pleased to see that the schemes that we have discussed in the House are well articulated in the vision document, which was published by the Department and endorsed by the Ulster Farmers' Union. The most important of those schemes is the agricultural restructuring scheme. Its aim is to restructure those aspects of farming that were not delivering viability, profitability and sustainability.

I am also an enthusiastic supporter of the land management contract scheme. I know that it is a difficult scheme, but it looks at farming in its entirety - agricultural production, the custodial relationship of the farmer to the environment and the social requirement to sustain a rural community. Those three things can best be achieved by a broad land management contract scheme.

The other aspect of modernisation is education and training. Our farming sector needs easy access to modern information, techniques and scientific interests. A one-stop shop is needed to facilitate a community that, at its grass roots, is not given to innovation. It must look again, as Dr Birnie said, at what the market requires. We have to move away from the European Union policy of rewarding quantity to a policy that rewards quality. I spoke to a farmer recently who deplored the fact that good quality strains of animals, be they beef or sheep, were rapidly disappearing from our countryside and needed to be sustained by paying for quality and not quantity.

It would be interesting if all the parties in the House could adopt a unanimous approach to the issue. They should publish their responses to the vision document so that we all can read them. The fact that the consultation period ended some weeks ago does not indicate a lack of urgency. With that simple caveat, I support the motion on the clear understanding that "diversity", "profitability" and "sustainability" are the key words.

Nobody should have a problem with supporting the motion. If the Minister were not doing what it says in the motion she would have no position to fill. The agriculture industry needs significant support and some rational and innovative thinking to get out of its current situation.

It is regrettable that those issues arise time and again, and many of the same issues are repeated because of the nature of the problems in agriculture.

One of the worst affected areas is the dairy industry, which, up until now, has got away lightly compared with the beef, sheep and pig sectors. The dairy industry has been one of the hardest hit, with milk prices at around 16p per litre. That price cannot be sustained, and dairy farmers cannot withstand it for any length of time. One of the main problems for the dairy industry is debt levels. Beef and sheep farmers could not borrow large amounts of money from the bank, unless they were large operations. However, dairy farmers had the additional collateral of milk quota. Therefore banks allowed many dairy farmers to borrow six-figure sums. They anticipated that the situation would remain good for a considerable time. Unfortunately the most recent downturn has created a situation in which that is not the case. Dairy farming is in a predicament, and many people have a high level of debt. It cannot meet that debt if that situation continues.

I ask the Minister to consider cereal farming, which, in the past three or four years, has been going through a difficult period. The Ulster Farmers' Union has put forward sensible suggestions on arable aid payments and on how a deal can be done with the rest of the United Kingdom. The suggestion is that there would be a degree of land exchange that would allow Northern Ireland cereal farmers to receive a higher level of payment for arable aid. Such a scenario would not necessarily take away from the aid that is received in the rest of the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister to pursue that further.

I have not heard much noise from the Department on what is being done to improve arable aid payments that are made to Northern Ireland farmers. I want more of the modulation money to come back to the farming community. I know that that money is destined for the rural community, but the money comes out of the pockets of the farming community in the first place. I want more of that money to go back into the pockets of the farmers for environmental schemes, for schemes that improve marketing and for schemes that improve animal health beyond the statutory limits that are set down by the Department.

I welcome the setting up of a group in my constituency called Laganside Rural Development Ltd. It will seek to acquire funding for items of that nature. I hope that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will give the group its full support. I welcome the support that has been received from the Department thus far, and we look forward to the support continuing when it comes to the funding of the group.

I have always been on at the Minister about the beef ban. The Department hopes to have the beef ban lifted this year, and it is essential that we get it right and win this time. People's expectations have been raised that the beef ban would be lifted, but their hopes have been dashed. No one would have thought six or seven years ago that a beef ban would still be in place in 2002. That would have been the worst-case scenario that could have been painted at the time, yet the beef ban remains in place. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must put all its efforts into seeking the removal of the ban, and farmers must fully support the Department in its delivery. It is essential that farmers play their part.

Brucellosis is one of the major problems in agriculture. It is anticipated that as many as 3,000 cows could be lost in a small area close to Lagan Valley. That causes us grave concern because some of our top dairy herds are being lost.

We hear much about the benefits of looking after the environment. However, these cattle are dying close to Lagan Valley Regional Park, and I am genuinely concerned that badgers in the park are spreading brucellosis. This costs the Exchequer a great deal of money; it causes considerable hardship to the people involved and causes the death and destruction of many valuable dairy cows. One must consider the benefits of the badgers and the benefits of the businesses that are being lost and weigh them in the balance. In that case, the balance would be heavily on the side of agriculture.

Mr Savage should encourage the Minister of the Environment, Mr Nesbitt, to support the agriculture industry. On Thursday his officials met the Committee for the Environment to discuss farm waste, and the officials gave a poor performance. They sought evidence from the farming community to change legislation; however, the evidence was not convincing for some of the legislation they wanted to introduce. The Department of the Environment cannot operate double standards on this issue. If it wants to introduce legislation, let it produce convincing evidence to support its proposals.

Farmers are concerned about the Minister of the Environment's second announcement on nitrate-vulnerable zones. They are concerned that if we go down this route, farmers will be crucified. Farmers are often told to do this or do that for the environment, and that is fair enough. However, what support do they receive to carry this out? It is essential that farmers receive the necessary support from the Department of the Environment if they are to carry out its requests.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>