I particularly welcome the increase in the local representation on the board. When vacancies arose on the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority last year, there were 30 applications for just two posts, which indicates the level of interest in working with the authority. There will be no difficulty whatsoever in filling the extra positions. Warrenpoint harbour is an important employer in the town, and we wish it well in its expansion plans.

However, a difficult balancing act must be achieved between the need to expand the port, which everyone recognises, and the need to maintain the unique character of Warrenpoint. Inevitably, that causes conflict. Having additional local government representatives will help in striking the balance that must be achieved between two apparently conflicting arguments. I understand that, already, some councillors in the area have not been hiding behind the bushes in suggesting that they might be appropriate for such positions. I have found the recently appointed council representative on the authority extremely responsive and helpful, which augurs well for any future appointments.

I welcome the increase in the borrowing powers but, as Mr McGrady said, Warrenpoint Harbour Authority's problems will not be solved even by those new generous terms. The provision of deep-water facilities in a way that is acceptable to the community will be extremely expensive, and the harbour will require his support, and that of the Department, if those facilities are to be realised.

I take a different view from Mr McGrady about the position of the person whom he implied to be the Department's "spy" who sits in on board meetings. I have found the Department's representative extremely helpful in all the negotiations associated with Warrenpoint Harbour Authority. He has helped to oil the wheels of government and to make them more responsive to the authority's needs, rather than acting as a spy or trying to slow down the authority's work.

Apart from those minor comments, the legislation is to be welcomed. It gives Warrenpoint Harbour Authority more flexibility and will move the port's work forward into the twenty-first century. Other difficulties still remain, of which the Minister is aware, but they are not relevant to this legislation. I give it my full support.

The time set for this debate is running out quite quickly. Mr Bradley, perhaps a brief contribution?

Rather than elaborate on earlier speeches, I shall ask only questions. In the event of Warrenpoint Harbour Authority identifying land suitable for its needs in Warrenpoint or nearby, what level of pre-purchase valuation or approval will be required from the Department for Regional Development before completion of a purchase? My experience with Newry and Mourne District Council's attempt to purchase land in Warrenpoint led me to ask that question. Officials, correctly, included pre-purchase clauses. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, a private developer offered more money, and the property was denied to the council.

Will the powers permit Warrenpoint Harbour Authority to negotiate with the Crown Commission in regard to the purchase or lease of land or property owned by the Crown?

My third and final question relates to the locality. Can the Minister assure the operators of the Warrenpoint to Omeath passenger ferries that the Order will in no way interfere with their operations?

I understand that time is running out, and I want to answer some of the questions that have been raised, both before and after Question Time.

Mr McGrady referred to the key issue of sustainability. He and Mr Wells referred to the importance of Warrenpoint port as an employer. I agree that its role in the local economy is important.

Reference was made to the academic power to dispose of land. Although at present Warrenpoint Harbour Authority may wish to procure land, the circumstances might change in the future. The provision is there should the need arise. I agree that the board deserves its complement of elected representatives. During my visit I was impressed by the work it had performed, and I was happy to look around the port facilities.

I confirm that I intend to appoint the maximum number of elected representatives to the authority, after consultation with Newry and Mourne District Council. I understand that the Department of the Environment must have a formal resolution from the council before the council's name can be changed. That will require another amendment to our legislation. However, none of that should impact on the appointments, and we will look for the council to provide us expeditiously with the additional names.

With respect to the borrowing range, Mr McGrady pointed out that it had increased from a paltry £10,000 to £2·5 million. However, there should be no rush to the shops. I understand the nature of the individuals concerned, and the matter will be dealt with prudently and responsibly.

Mr Wells said that the departmental observer should not be considered a spy. The harbour authorities consider him a friend and ally rather than a spy, and that is how it should be. As Mr McGrady said, it is not a statutory requirement. Schedule 1, paragraph 7, states that the Department

The Department is empowered, but there is no requirement upon it. As with Belfast harbour, now that there will be more elected representatives, I intend to review that issue. I understand, however, that our representative on that board has performed a very useful function. As a former Secretary of State said, we will look at it "in the round" as soon as the necessary additional appointments have been made.

Londonderry Harbour Order
(Northern Ireland) 2002

TOP

I beg to move

Many of the provisions in the Londonderry Harbour Order are identical to those in the Belfast and Warrenpoint Orders, so I will restrict my remarks to the key differences in the Statutory Instruments.

Like the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority, the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners have agreed a memorandum of understanding on their harbour lands with the Department. The memorandum came into effect on 1 March 2002, and a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library. As with the Belfast Order, article 4(2) of the Londonderry Order will give legal force to the arrangements set out in the memorandum of understanding.

Article 6(1) empowers the commissioners to borrow money upon the security of their revenues and property. However, article 6(2) provides that the total amount of such borrowing must not

As with the Warrenpoint Order, the lower amount reflects the smaller scale of the Londonderry port operations relative to those in Belfast. Again, the borrowing provisions are similar.

Article 9 introduces schedule 1 to the Order, which contains new provisions for the constitution of the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners and the procedures of the commissioners.

Schedule 1 of the Londonderry Order differs from the Belfast Order. Paragraph 2(1) states that the board of the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners

The board of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners has between 10 and 15 persons.

Paragraph 2(3)(a) states that a commissioner

To provide greater flexibility, that was changed from the previous three-year fixed term.

Paragraph 3 states that a maximum of three of the commissioners shall be members of the city council and, as with the Warrenpoint Order, shall be appointed following consultation with the council. However, that still represents a significant increase in the number of elected representatives to serve on the board because previously only one elected representative, my hon Friend, Mr Hay, has been a member of the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners.

Article 11 provides for the repeal or revocation of certain statutory provisions peculiar to Londonderry port, as set out in column 3 of schedule 2 of the Order.

I commend the Londonderry Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002 to the Assembly.

I welcome the Minister's announcement about the Statutory Rule for the Londonderry Harbour Order (Northern Ireland) 2002. That three members of Derry City Council are eligible to serve as commissioners is welcome. It may mean that, for the first time, a woman from Derry City Council will serve as a commissioner.

I welcome the borrowing powers, which are similar to those for Belfast and Warrenpoint. Commissioners will also be able to make decisions about infrastructure, to issue licences for pleasure crafts and to take such decisions that they feel are in the best interests of local people.

It is also welcome to see that "pleasure crafts" refers to any vessel not exceeding 100 tonnes gross and that any unlicensed craft will not be allowed to operate.

I would like clarification on two points to which the Minister has referred. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 states:

Paragraph 10(2) states that if a commissioner feels that he has any interest, directly or indirectly, it should be recorded in the minutes and he should withdraw from the meeting. Paragraph 10(3) states that if a commissioner has been prohibited from participating in the meeting but stays, a quorum will not be formed and his deliberations will be disregarded. Why is that? The practice is at variance with that in any other boards in that a member can remain while a decision is being taken although he has no pecuniary interest.

I welcome the debate. We have come a long way, especially if we recall 1998 when reviews of trust ports in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain were being carried out in parallel. As the Minister said earlier, the findings of the review reinforced the importance of local trust ports to Northern Ireland's economy. Mr Gordon Brown then announced the sale of Belfast port to get some money for infrastructure. It has not been easy to get the harbour Orders to the Floor of the Assembly.

We should thank the officials who have worked hard under difficult circumstances to produce the Orders. All trust ports in Northern Ireland welcome the extra powers, and there is no question about the significance of the ports to Northern Ireland: their importance to the economy cannot be overstated. Until now, the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners have been able to borrow only £350,000 for the port in Londonderry. The new Order will enable them to borrow £2·5 million. That is a huge increase and will be of great help in deciding what needs to be done.

I declare an interest because, as the Minister mentioned, I am a member of the Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners. Trust ports have played a significant and positive role in sustaining regional and economic development in Northern Ireland for many years.

A modern, effective port infrastructure will need continual investment to deliver high-quality port-related services. Given the significance of trust ports to our economy, it is important that we extend their powers to ensure that they can compete effectively with those outside Northern Ireland. They must act more commercially; develop a range of business activities; enter into joint ventures; and, most of all, access competitive finance and safeguard the public interest. Generally, trust ports in Northern Ireland have been more accountable than those in Great Britain. In Londonderry there has been a good working relationship between the council and the port.

The port officers and commissioners have kept the council informed of the three-year and five-year financial and economic plans. That role is important. When the new harbour Orders are finally in place, it is important that an understanding exists between the local authority and the ports. Where possible, trust ports such as Belfast, Warrenpoint and Londonderry should meet with councils to work in partnership on three-year and five-year plans. The trust ports should meet councils at least twice a year to update them on their economic plans. That is one way to achieve the proper accountability that the trusts ports in Northern Ireland must show.

Trust ports have stood the test of time and continue to perform a valuable role in supporting the local economy. The memorandum of understanding has been mentioned several times. We now have an understanding between the harbour authorities and the Department. For many years, trust ports have wanted to improve their public accountability. Moreover, there is a desire to protect the assets of the ports, as that is in the public interest.

I welcome what has been achieved in the House this afternoon, and I thank everyone concerned. The Committee for Regional Development -

Order. The Member must bring his remarks to a close as we are running out of time.

The subject of extra powers for trust ports has eluded members of the Committee for Regional Development for some time. We all worked well to achieve today's outcome.

I am grateful to those who contributed generally positive comments in all three debates on the new port Orders.

I am unsure whether I understood what Mrs Courtney was attempting to query about procedures for disclosure and withdrawal. I am clear that, as it appears in the Order, it would be common practice for someone with an interest in a matter that comes before the harbour authority to declare it and leave the meeting. A person who leaves the meeting will not participate in the procedures and should therefore not be counted as part of the quorum. Those who will participate in the decision-making process should form the quorum. Having increased the number of commissioners, it should not be hard to sustain a quorum.

I shall be delighted if the council includes a woman in its list of representatives. The Londonderry Port and Harbour Authority has taken a lead in that matter by appointing Mary Breslin as its chairperson. Those who have worked with her recognise that she is a very competent chairperson.

My hon Friend Mr Hay spoke about the working relationship among district councils - I suspect that he means in all three port areas - and the harbour authorities. I agree entirely. We wish that relationship to become closer.

There have been varying degrees of co-operation in each area, and, happily, it has been improving in all three areas. I hope that it will continue to do so.

The additional elected representatives will help to improve that relationship. However, Mr Hay will be aware that I intend to bring forward an additional piece of legislation - a short harbours Bill. The Department is already preparing that piece of legislation, and part of it addresses adopting a code of practice and providing information for the Department. He and his colleagues on the Committee may well have views on issues relating to the interrelationship between councils and the ports when we deal with that piece of legislation.

Overall, I am delighted that the Assembly has taken the attitude that it has to these three Orders. The Port of Belfast, Warrenpoint and Londonderry operate in an extremely competitive environment. Members will be aware that competition comes not simply from the private sector in Northern Ireland, but also from the Republic of Ireland ports. The Republic has much more flexible arrangements than we have had in Northern Ireland. This will assist our ports to be more competitive and give them the ability to borrow and invest money. Many people will recognise that this will assist them in how they handle their business. I am also sure that Members will welcome the memorandum of understanding that has been agreed by all three ports. This ensures that there is a close understanding between my Department and the ports when there is any disposal of land.

Social Security Statutory Rules
Subject to Confirmatory Resolution

TOP

As the next four motions relate to social security Statutory Rules subject to confirmatory resolution, I propose to conduct one debate only. I shall ask the Minister for Social Development to move the first motion, and debate will then take place on all four motions. When all who wish to speak have done so, I shall call the Minister to make his winding-up speech and then put the question on the first motion. I shall then ask the Minister to move each motion in turn and separately put the question on each motion without further debate.

I remind Members that a Statutory Rule subject to confirmatory resolution is already law, but will cease to have effect unless approved by the Assembly within a specified period. The following Statutory Rule subject to confirmatory resolution was made on 13 March 2002 and will expire on 1 October 2002 unless approved by the Assembly.

I beg to move

That the Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 79/2002) be approved. - [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Dodds).]

That the Social Security and Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 164/2002) be approved. - [The Minister for Social Development (Mr Dodds).]

An uprating Order is made annually to increase rates of contributory and non-contributory benefits, together with the various premiums that form part of the income-related benefits. As usual, the increases are based on changes to the relevant price indicators over the 12 months ending in September. Most social security benefits rise in the usual way, in line with the retail price index, which this year is 1·7%. Income-related benefits - income support, housing benefit and income-based jobseeker's allowance - are increased in line with the Rossi index, which is also 1·7% this year. Pensions and bereavement benefits are increased by more than that percentage.

It is important to look at the uprating measures as part of the wider pensions strategy. The basic state pension is, and will remain, the foundation of pensioner incomes. This year it has risen again - by £3 for single pensioners and £4·80 for couples - and on top of last year's increases, that makes a total rise of 7% above the rate of inflation. Future rises in the basic state pension will be at least £100 a year for single pensioners and at least £160 a year for couples. Increases to the basic state pension alone would not be sufficient to tackle pensioner poverty. The minimum income guarantee has been radically improved, benefiting many pensioners. From April this year, a guarantee for a single pensioner has increased by £6 to £98·15 a week.

The standard rate of maternity allowance, as statutory maternity pay, has increased from £62·20 to £75 a week. Next year, maternity benefit will rise again to £100 a week. More has also been done for families with children. Child benefit and the income support allowances for children, which provide real help to families on low incomes, have been increased. Extra money is being paid to low-income families with a disabled child. This year, it has increased by a further £5 on top of the normal uprating to a new rate of £35·50 a week. Next year, it will rise again by a further £5 above inflation to more than £40 a week, benefiting a large number of children who need that help. It will also help families on low incomes, both in and out of work. The Order increases rates of benefit in line with inflation and provides additional help for those who need it most.

I now turn to the Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001. The Social Security Act 1986 and corresponding Northern Ireland Order provided for a reduction in the amount of state earnings related pension scheme (SERPS) that a surviving spouse could inherit from his or her late spouse from 100% to 50%. This change, which was due to take effect from April 2000, was designed to bring SERPS into line with practice in non-state pension schemes, where it is usual for only half the pension rights to be inherited by the surviving spouse. The intention was that people would have the long lead-in period to make alternative provision, if they felt it necessary to do so.

In 1998-99, it came to light that several people felt that they had been misled due to incomplete advice in pensions leaflets, while others contacted the Benefits Agency in Great Britain and the Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland to argue that they had been given misleading advice. In response to those concerns, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000 provided for the reduction to 50% to be deferred until 6 October 2002. As a result, no one widowed before 6 October 2002 will be affected by the reduction.

The Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 provide additional protection for the spouses of those at or near pensionable age and of those who attain pensionable age before 6 October 2010. Under the Regulations, the spouse of a person who reaches pensionable age before 6 October 2002 will be able to inherit up to 100% SERPS. The spouse of someone who attains pensionable age between 6 October 2002 and 5 October 2010 will have his or her inherited SERPS protected at a rate between 90% and 60%, depending on when the spouse reaches pensionable age.

The objective has been to devise a system that makes the transition to 50% inherited SERPS fair and recognises the fact that the amount someone must save to make up for the reduction increases the closer that person is to pensionable age. The Regulations provide such a system.

I now turn to the third Order before the House - the Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002. My Department spends over £3 billion each year on social security. It is our duty to ensure that the system is secure from both fraud and error, so that the right money goes to the right people at the right time. Members are well aware of the problem of social security fraud. During the debates on last year's Social Security Fraud Bill, Members across the Assembly signified their support for measures to tackle this problem.

The Social Security Fraud Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, which received Royal Assent last November, introduced several powers to support the overall strategy of safeguarding social security.

The Regulations provide the detail for one of those measures. The loss of benefit provisions form part of the continuing welfare reform programme. They build on one of the key recommendations in the report by Lord Grabiner on the informal economy that was published in March 2000. For the vast majority of people who cheat on benefits, their first conviction is their last. However, for those who continue to offend, it is appropriate that an offence should be brought into play.

The Social Security (Loss of Benefit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 introduces powers that will provide a deterrent to those who are considering committing further benefit offences. The Regulations will ensure that there is an effective deterrent to dissuade those who are subject to a first conviction for a benefit offence from reoffending, provided that where a sanction must be applied, it is done in a uniform manner across all sanctionable benefits and that the level of the sanction applied is based on experience gained from other areas of the Department that are tried and tested.

The Regulations ensure that a non-resident parent's responsibilities continue to be met by deducting child support payments before a sanction is applied. That sanction is enforced even when an offender tries to hide behind a partner by swapping benefit claims. That occurs in the case of a joint claim where an attempt is made to change the name of the primary claimant.

The Regulations provide for related passport benefits to continue when a sanction is applied and the availability of fallback provisions to protect the vulnerable, and those dependent on them, by providing a scheme that is a close reflection of the hardship scheme that already operates for labour market sanctions. Finally, they ensure that a sanction to benefit cannot be avoided by merely stopping and restarting a claim to benefit.

The Regulations are not disproportionate. They are consistent across the board and introduce a fixed 13-week disqualification period. The Regulations are part of the overall strategy of tackling fraud and rebuilding confidence in the welfare state.

The Social Security and Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 make some technical amendments to various sets of Regulations governing child support to prepare for the introduction of the new simpler child support scheme. The package also includes some small amendments to the current scheme that are designed to protect the interests of parents who find themselves in certain specific circumstances.

Under the current rules it is possible to depart from the standard formula assessment in certain circumstances. One of the circumstances in which a departure direction can be given is where a party to the maintenance assessment has an asset worth more than £10,000 that is capable of producing income but is not being used to do so. The Regulations amend the current scheme so that certain payments made under the compensation scheme for victims, and the families of victims of variant CJD, will not be regarded as assets for the purposes of a departure direction. A corresponding amendment is being made in respect of the variation scheme that will replace departures under the new scheme. Those payments are made in recognition of the pain and suffering endured by the victims of that terrible disease, and by their families, and are intended to help reduce any financial hardship that they may face.

A further current scheme amendment concerns the calculation of the exempt income figure. That represents the income that parents need for their personal expenses, and it also includes allowances for any of their children living with them. Therefore, it is not taken into account when making a maintenance assessment.

The Regulations further provide for an amount equivalent to the enhanced disability premium to be included in a parent's exempt income calculation. It applies where either that parent or the child would, if he or she were on income support, satisfy the conditions for payment of the premium. It is important that we should provide protection for those clients who will continue to be subject to the current rules for some time yet.

Many of the amendments to the new scheme Regulations make minor technical corrections or serve to reflect the intended detail of the new scheme legislation, and I do not intend to elaborate on them.

In conclusion, the Regulations make small, but important, changes to the current child support scheme and ensure that the new scheme will work fairly and effectively, so that maintenance can be sorted out quickly and children will see the benefit of maintenance payments.

I support all four of the amendments. The uprating of benefits is welcome. It will ensure that benefits for people on the breadline will be increased in line with inflation, which will help them to meet their daily expenses. I welcome the softening of the blow as regards the state earnings related pension scheme (SERPS) Regulations.

The Minister's point about the loss of social security benefit is correct. It is essential that the right people receive benefits. The people who defraud the system take benefits from those who need them the most, and sanctions should be imposed on them. People must fulfil their responsibility to pay child support. The Statutory Rules are confirmatory, therefore parity of legislation principles dictate that they must be introduced, otherwise the whole social security benefits system in Northern Ireland will be upset. On that basis alone, we support their introduction.

It is interesting that the champions of the unemployed and claimants of disability living allowance (DLA) are nowhere to be seen today. That shows how much they really care about unemployed people; they merely grandstand.

This side of the House welcomes the Statutory Rules and hopes that they will benefit the people of Northern Ireland.

I concur with Mr O'Connor's comments. The Minister has set worthwhile objectives, which we all support and wish to be realised. I welcome the report and the fact that the scheme will protect DLA recipients. I also welcome the new rules to deal with habitual defrauders. People who make one mistake will not have their money taken off them, but those who continue to defraud will be penalised.

Will the legislation help people who have received compensation for car accidents, as a result of which their health has been affected? Will they be able to keep their compensation? Will it affect the benefits to which they are entitled?

The debate has been brief. However, I shall explain the subordinate legislation.

I welcome the comments made by Mr O'Connor and Mr Shannon. The legislation is mainly technical, but it addresses issues that affect vulnerable and needy people, many of whom look to the Assembly to introduce the correct structures and the appropriate level of benefits.

I will respond in writing to Mr Shannon's question. I welcome the fact that some Members have consistently shown an interest in the matter, as proven by their presence here today. Mr O'Connor, as a member of the Social Development Committee, is consistent on these matters. I am sure that he sometimes wonders why Members who are vocal on these issues in other areas are not present when these matters come before the House. That question is a matter for them, and no doubt their constituents will address it to them in due course.

The second Statutory Rule subject to confirmatory resolution was made on 31 December 2001 and will expire on 6 April 2003 unless approved by the Assembly.

The third Statutory Rule subject to confirmatory resolution was made on 6 March 2002 and will expire on 1 October 2002 unless approved by the Assembly.

The fourth Statutory Rule subject to confirmatory resolution was made on 29 April 2002 and will expire on 30 October 2002 unless approved by the Assembly.

Committee for Employment and Learning:
Change of Membership

TOP

Resolved:

Committee for Education:
Change of Membership

Resolved:

Report by the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development

TOP

I beg to move

The Committee decided on the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's rural development programme as its subject for inquiry for several reasons. Most Committee members, and many other Members, have had some dealings with earlier phases of the programme. Therefore we were interested in the commitments made in the Programme for Government and in the Department's public service agreement to implement a new phase of rural development actions in 2001. Importantly, the Committee was conscious that good scrutiny involves following up on promises and commitments made by Departments to ensure that they have been carried out.

It was this concern to engage in good scrutiny that led the Committee to agree the inquiry's terms of reference as a follow-up on several issues highlighted in the Public Accounts Committee's report on the rural development programme. The Committee had no wish to rake over criticisms of earlier phases of the programme. However, Members felt that it was important to find out whether lessons had been learnt and good practice developed and implemented by the Department and by those agents involved in delivering other parts of the programme on the Department's behalf.

The Committee decided to concentrate on three main issues from the Public Accounts Committee's report: participation, project appraisal and rationalisation of programmes. In addition, we decided to take a brief look at the resources assigned to deliver the programme. The inquiry was not an attempt to investigate the whole programme or the reasons behind it. As elected representatives in rural constituencies, Committee members welcome all investment in rural areas, and the £80 million to £100 million quoted by the Department is worth having.

Rural development groups throughout the country have done much good work, and the Committee applauds those who have worked hard and given of their time to make things happen for the benefit of others. Therefore we did not go into the overall policy. We concerned ourselves only with certain aspects of the programme's delivery. Our hope is that the recommendations in the Committee's report, which I ask the Assembly to endorse, will help to ensure that public expenditure is properly targeted, made available to those who are most in need and protected by good appraisal practices.

Of the three issues, participation was of primary interest to Committee members. The Public Accounts Committee asked the Department and the Rural Development Council - two of the main delivery organisations - to ensure that under-represented groups such as the farming community, women, young persons and the long-term unemployed participate fully in the new programme. The Committee felt that full participation was a fundamental requirement in a programme that sought to help the whole rural community. Members were keen to see the inclusion of farmers and their families. Although we recognised that the rural development programme is aimed at the whole rural community, members believed that the farming sector deserved special attention, considering its many recent difficulties. The Assembly has often debated those difficulties, and I do not need to repeat them today. We were told that audits and evaluations of the earlier programmes showed that farmers had not been involved as much as might have been expected, and Committee members felt that it was important for farmers to get a fair crack of the whip this time.

Members had no difficulty with the Department's definition of participation, which includes administration of programmes, membership of partnership groups and direct involvement in projects. However, the Committee concluded that all these must be measured to ensure that the target groups were getting their fair share of funds and participating as they should.

The Committee also expected to see clear statements of intent from the Department and its agents regarding participation backed up by appropriate action. The Committee's inquiry showed that the Department had stated its intention to encourage the participation of the farming community and other groups who had not benefited fully from earlier programmes. That was clear from the Department's published strategy, numerous documents, and the Department's written and oral evidence to the inquiry. It was also clear that the Rural Development Council and the rural community network had similar objectives. However, the Committee found that there were weaknesses in the Department's preparation for, and implementation of, the new programme, and that those weaknesses had resulted in obstacles to farmers' involvement.

To be fair, the Committee welcomed much of what the Department had done, such as making farm businesses and co-operatives eligible for funding for the first time and involving farmers when promoting the programme. However, it found that farmers, unlike community groups, had little access to assistance in the early stages of group development. The Committee was disappointed that the Department did not have targets for farmer participation and was not prepared to give a higher score to projects that came from under-represented groups when applying the selection criteria.

The Committee has made 12 recommendations to address the issues. Those include that the two divisions of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development co-operate to provide early development services to farmers' groups; provision of form-completion assistance to farmers ring-fencing of funds for the target groups and for projects that take longer to develop; and full monitoring of the uptake of grant aid made by the target groups.

The Committee's main criticisms concern the issue of full participation. However, Members believe that they have been constructive in their criticisms, and they have suggested solutions that should go a long way towards removing the weaknesses found.

The Committee was also keen to ensure that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development honoured its project appraisal commitments as that had been an area of major concern to the Public Accounts Committee.

Following the Committee's inquiry, members were pleased to conclude that the Department had taken action to ensure that satisfactory appraisal procedures were in place. However, the Committee's 11 recommendations on project appraisal - particularly those on scrutiny, audit and staff training - will strengthen the procedures. For example, the Committee recommended that the Department's economists scrutinise a higher percentage of pro forma appraisals to take account of an increase in the value of projects that will be appraised in that way.

The Committee also recommended that the choice of appraisals for scrutiny should be made more independent from the teams that carried out the appraisals, and that each project officer in a team should have at least one appraisal checked. Members believe that those actions will provide greater reassurance that public money is being well spent.

The Committee also investigated the Department's assurances to the Public Accounts Committee that it was seeking to rationalise the rural development programme structures. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development had been criticised over duplication of the roles and responsibilities of different programme providers.

On a positive note, the evidence shows that real improvements have been made. For example, the number of delivery groups and partnerships has almost halved - from 33 in the last phase of the programme to 17 in the current phase.

The Committee considered that important, as less money should be spent on administration and more on projects. Time will tell whether that happens. The roles of the Department and its main agents were also found to be better understood by customers and by agents. Those are improvements on the last programmes. The Committee decided, however, that there was still room for improvement. It made six further recommendations, including the need for greater clarity on farm diversification opportunities and on the terminology used by the Department.

I have given only a flavour of the Committee's report, as much effort went into its production. I commend it to the Assembly as an example of good scrutiny. I am sure that Committee members will want to add their own thoughts. The Committee will also be interested to hear the Minister's views, although, to be fair, she has had little time to consider the report. The Committee has asked for a full written response in due course.

The Committee believes that the report is fair and balanced; it gives credit where credit is due but is rightly critical where it finds weaknesses. I trust that the Assembly will support the motion.

I support the motion. I thank the Deputy Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee for his presentation; he covered much and has left the rest of us with little to say.

The Committee engaged in long, healthy debate in developing the report. It is fair to pay tribute to all those who gave evidence, because they supported the thinking of the farming community and associated bodies. They are all due recognition.

The greatest problem in the rural development programme has been present from the outset - the difficulty of persuading the farming community to recognise the need for change. Maximum effort is required by everyone who supports the programme to ensure that the farming community is fully aware that change is needed. I trust that the Department will endeavour to get that message across. A survey in rural communities would find that many farmers still do not recognise the need for change; however, the rural community cannot survive without participation in farming.

The red tape associated with accessing funding for projects is often prohibitive; it discourages farmers from applying. They find it hard to understand why the pound cannot reach their pocket without going through a complicated process. That must be addressed, even now, to make it easier for farmers who present a genuine case for funding.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>