The State Pension Credit Bill will provide extra help for around half of all pensioners in Northern Ireland. Some 120,000 pensioners stand to gain an average of £400 a year, while some will gain up to £1,000 a year. With pension credit, the poorest one third of pensioners will gain, on average, an extra £8·20 a week. Pension credit will add £50 million to the money that pensioners at the lower end of the income distribution are entitled to receive. By contrast, spending the same amount on increasing the basic state pension would result in a gain of only £3·20 a week, which would be £5 a week less. The least well-off pensioners will gain over two and a half times more with pension credit than if the money were spread thinly by raising everyone's pensions.

At present, 75,000 pensioners receive a minimum income guarantee. That has increased the incomes of the poorest pensioners by at least £15 a week over and above inflation. Clause 2 sets out how the pension credit will build on that approach and lift pensioners out of poverty.

It is also necessary to ensure that it pays to save, and that is the purpose of the Bill. The pension credit will address a fundamental unfairness in the system. For the first time, we shall be able to tell people that if they save even modest amounts above the basic state pension, they will be rewarded for their efforts. It will pay to save.

The pension credit will work in two ways. First, it replaces the minimum income guarantee as the means to provide a floor below which pensioners' incomes should not fall. In 2003, pension credit will increase single pensioners' entitlement to a guaranteed minimum of £100 a week, or £154 for couples. Clause 2 also provides for a higher minimum income guarantee for carers and pensioners with severe disabilities: £140 for a single person, or £194 for couples. Secondly, and critically, the pension credit will provide an additional top-up to reward pensioners aged 65 or over who have saved for their retirement. Clause 3 will ensure that pensioners aged 65 or over who have a modest occupational pension or modest savings will receive more as a result of their thrift. It will give pensioners a cash addition of 60p for every £1 of their income above the level of the basic state pension, up to a maximum of £13·80 a week for a single person and £18·60 for a couple. The reward for savings ensures that those who have put something aside for their retirement will be better off for having done so.

Although pension credit may seem complicated, it is fundamentally a simple and straightforward concept. To ensure that Members have a grasp of it, and to illustrate the real gains to pensioners from the pension credit, I shall give an example of how it will work in practice. Pensioners with a full basic state pension of £77 a week will receive the maximum guaranteed credit of £23. Their total income will, therefore, be £100. As they do not have a qualifying income from savings or an occupational pension, they will not receive a savings credit. On the other hand, pensioners with the full basic state pension of £77 a week and an occupational pension of, for example, £12 will receive a guaranteed credit of £11 to bring their income up to the £100 maximum guarantee. The amount of the savings credit will be 60p for every £1 of qualifying income above the basic state pension. In that case, therefore, a pensioner will receive a savings credit of £7·20, giving him or her a total income of £107·20.

The guaranteed minimum for carers and severely disabled people would be increased. A single, severely disabled pensioner, with £77 state pension and £10 occupational pension, would receive a guaranteed credit of £53 to bring his or her income up to the £140 personal guaranteed minimum. In addition to that, he or she would also receive a savings credit of £6, giving a total income of £146.

That is fairly simple arithmetic. However, as is the case with any pension entitlement, pensioners do not have to do the calculation. What is important is that they know that they are entitled to apply. In general, pensioners will qualify if their incomes are up to approximately £135 for single people or £200 for couples.

Many pensioners think that there is a stigma attached to receiving income support. The process of reporting changes in income puts many people off claiming that support. They therefore lose out and risk poverty. To tackle pensioner poverty seriously, an income assessment must be undertaken to help claimants. There is nothing new about that.

Under the current rules, pensioners must report every change in their circumstances from week to week. However, with pension credit, they will be asked for the information only when it is needed to work out their benefit. For example, we will only need to know about their savings that are over £6,000.

The pension credit capital rules have been designed to promote saving. The current rule, which excludes pensioners with savings of £12,000 or more, will be abolished. Also, the first £6,000 will be ignored, meaning that 85% of people who claim pension credit will not need to disclose their savings. For savings above £6,000, a notional rate of income will be assumed. It will be set at 10%, which is half the current assumed rate of income in the minimum income guarantee, which stands at approximately 20%. Therefore, if a pensioner saves £10,000, the current minimum income guarantee rules assume an income of £16 a week, whereas under pension credit, only £8 a week would be assumed.

With the introduction of pension credit, the weekly means test for pensioners will be abolished from the age of 65. Most pensioners will have their awards set for long periods, normally five years at a time, which will reduce the intrusion that many of them rightly complain about. It will encourage them to claim money that is rightfully theirs, and it will help to tackle pensioner poverty.

It is expected that between half and two thirds of the pension credit group will remain on benefit for at least five years. By the time pension credit replaces the minimum income guarantee, it is estimated that 120,000 pensioners will be entitled to it.

When pensioners reach the age of 65, the majority find that their income is settled and their circumstances are stable. Therefore, there is no need to continue to impose on them the requirement to report every little change that may happen from week to week. They will be asked to report only major changes in their lives, such as the death of a spouse. However, they will be able to ask for their pension credit to be increased at any time, should their other sources of income be reduced.

Clauses 6 to 10 contain the principles of the five-year awards and the reassessment of income during that period. The Bill will provide more for the poorest pensioners and will help present and future pensioners to avoid poverty. It is a substantial reform that will benefit about half of pensioners in Northern Ireland. It helps to tackle poverty; it rewards thrift and saving; and it will benefit 120,000 pensioners by an average of £400 a year. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

TOP

Social Security Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Mr Deputy Speaker:

No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. The Further Consideration Stage of the Social Security Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

TOP

Employment Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning (Dr Birnie):

I beg to move

The Employment Bill received its Second Stage reading on 5 June 2002 and was referred to the Committee for Employment and Learning on 6 June 2002. It is important legislation that will introduce a series of measures designed to help employees better balance their family life with their employment responsibilities, while taking into account the needs of businesses.

The measures include amendments to existing legislation to improve maternity rights, a provision for two weeks' paid paternity leave, adoption leave and pay for parents, and a duty on employers to consider seriously requests from parents with young or disabled children to work flexible hours.

The Committee is committed to ensuring that it carries out its responsibilities fully in rigorously scrutinising the Bill. Members have discussed the Bill at eight meetings, and we have received oral and written submissions from several interested parties.

Several proposed amendments have been debated, and to ensure that due and proper consideration is given to them, the Committee seeks an extension to 18 October to allow it sufficient time to consider the Bill fully and to report its findings. We intend to complete our work as quickly as possible, and I assure Members that we will not take any more time than is absolutely necessary to ensure that all the legislation is in place before the dissolution of the House. I ask Members for their support.

TOP

Housing Support Services Bill: 
Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Housing Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Mr Deputy Speaker:

As the next two motions relate to the extension of Committee Stages of housing legislation, I propose to conduct only one debate. I shall call the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development to move the motion, and there will then be a debate on both motions. When all those who wish to speak have done so, I shall call the Chairperson to do the winding-up speech and will put the Question on the first motion. I shall then ask the Chairperson to move the second motion before putting the Question without further debate. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

I beg to move

The Housing Support Services Bill and the Housing Bill, both important pieces of legislation, which passed Second Stage on 3 July after some debate, presently stand referred to the Committee for Social Development.

The Housing Support Services Bill seeks to introduce a new method for funding the costs associated with providing housing support services for vulnerable people who live in supported accommodation. Although the Bill has eight clauses, the Committee is concerned that they are scrutinised fully. We are also anxious to examine that Bill in the context of the Housing Bill before reporting back to the Assembly.

Before the Housing Bill's belated introduction to the Assembly, there was great anticipation and much speculation about this long-awaited legislation. It is substantial in volume and content, having no less than 150 clauses and five schedules. It is the first piece of housing legislation to emerge in Northern Ireland for 10 years, and the Assembly has a duty of care to ensure that its wide-ranging provisions are given the utmost scrutiny.

It attempts to deal with a host of issues by introducing new provisions or amending existing legislation. The main areas to be addressed in the Bill include: the conduct of tenants of premises let by the Housing Executive or registered housing associations; the payment of grants for the renewal of private sector housing; caravan sites for members of the Irish traveller community; the rent register; the allocation of housing; and registered schemes for houses in multiple occupation.

The Bill is likely to be remembered as the most important piece of legislation considered by the first mandate of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is regrettable that we have so little time left to give the Bill the consideration that it deserves. However, it is important to acknowledge that the Committee had the foresight to conduct a major inquiry into housing matters in anticipation of the Bill's introduction. We received much evidence and called many witnesses during that inquiry, and two reports on the subject were published in the past year, all of which should prove invaluable as we carry out this enormous task.

I hope that the House will agree that the Committee will be unable to do justice to either Bill in the 30 days prescribed in Standing Orders. The Committee is mindful, however, that there may be a desire for a significant and long-running debate on the Housing Bill after its Committee Stage. Having carefully considered the matter, the Committee believes that it could fulfil its responsibilities only if it met at least twice weekly during September, October and November, in order to examine the detail of the Housing Bill and the Housing Support Services Bill, and subsequently to produce and present associated reports to the Assembly for its consideration.

In seeking extensions on both Bills until 13 December 2002, I recognise that members of the Committee will face increasing and competing pressures in the weeks ahead. I stress how important it will be that Committee members attend the meetings and that everything possible be done to accommodate their attendance.

Mr Cobain, there have been no requests to speak. Do you wish to make a winding-up speech, or will I put the Question?

Please put the Question.

Seeds (Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002:
 Prayer of Annulment

The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (Rev Dr Ian Paisley):

I beg to move

The entire Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has endorsed my speech, so I speak not only as the Chairperson of the Committee, but on behalf of all the Committee members. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, Mr George Savage, asked me to apologise for his absence and to make it clear that he supports the motion. He has other urgent business to attend to.

My Committee does not want to pray against Statutory Rules - they are a prayerless bunch. However, the Committee believes that it has no option but to bring the matter before the House. This Statutory Rule, which increases seed growers' fees by 5%, came into operation on 2 September and is a burden that the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland should not be asked to bear at this time.

At its meeting on 24 May, the Committee discussed the proposed Regulations and agreed that it could not make an informed decision without knowing the number of people who would be affected by the proposed increase, and without knowing the outcome of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's consultation exercise. The Committee had an opportunity to consider the Department's response at its meeting on 28 June. Despite concerns raised by the Ulster Farmers' Union in its response to the consultation exercise, the Department was determined - even at that early stage - to proceed with the introduction of the Statutory Rule. The Department's response clearly demonstrates the reason behind that determination. It states:

The Committee did not accept that the fear of incurring "adverse comment" - presumably from Mrs Beckett - was sufficient reason to add to the industry's financial burden. However, it reluctantly agreed that, given the relatively small number of seed growers affected, and the fact that fees in Northern Ireland would remain lower than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, the Department could proceed to make the Statutory Rule.

However, when the made and laid Regulations came before the Committee on 6 September, the situation for the agriculture industry had considerably, even drastically, worsened. In that meeting, the Committee resolved that the Deputy Chairperson and I should seek a meeting with Mrs Beckett. The meeting was urgently required to discuss the impact of unprecedented wet weather on the industry and the need for the United Kingdom Government to apply for EC wet weather payments on behalf of Northern Ireland producers.

In June and July this year, Northern Ireland had 155% and 150% more rainfall respectively than for the average of those months between 1961 and 1990. With that in mind, the members present at the meeting on 6 September could not approve the Statutory Rule, because, by doing so, it would add to the industry's financial hardship. At a meeting on the matter a year ago, the Committee was adamant that, while the plight in the farming industry continued, it should not be asked to vote for an increase in payments from farmers.

My Committee wishes to send a clear message to the farming industry that it recognises its plight and will take action to help in whatever way it can. I call on the House to do likewise. I would be a happy man if I could say that problems will be over by a certain time, but the problems have yet to be solved.

Therefore, I call on the House to support the motion to annul the Seeds (Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 and put this matter on hold.

I concur with the remarks made by the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. I find it strange that the Department's answer is that it is desiring to have the payments equal to those in the rest of the United Kingdom. On 16 November 2000 I raised a matter with the Minister on pre-basic seed potatoes and Northern Ireland inspection charges, which were not the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Payment was being demanded in Northern Ireland, but it was not being paid in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I have frequently written to the Minister, and I have got answers back. I have requested meetings with the Minister since November 2000, but those requests have been refused. I intend raising with the Speaker the fact that a Minister can refuse to have a meeting with a Member of the House on such a basic matter. If fees are supposed to be basic across the United Kingdom, but are not being paid in the rest of the United Kingdom, then the Department is trying to have a bite at both cherries - it wants it both ways, and I do not accept that.

The farming industry is on its knees, and everyone can see that the farming community is facing crisis after crisis. For reasons outside of their control, no sooner are farmers out of the depths of the slough of despond than they are driven back into the depths of despair again. The Chairperson, on behalf of his Committee, has outlined that now is not a time to be putting further weight upon an industry in which farmers, for all their labours, are not even getting the basic minimum wage. That is disgraceful, and the Department must rethink this matter. I hope that the Assembly has the guts to stand up to the Department and say that it will not go along with this rise. We will endeavour to do our part to alleviate the great suffering of the farming community.

I trust that the Minister will renege on her refusal to meet me. I have many letters from her Department on that, and I have made many telephone calls trying to get answers. I trust that, even yet, she will have the decency to speak face to face with people in the potato industry who are aggrieved. Even if the answer is the same, she should at least have the honour to speak to those who are suffering and to tell them the facts, rather than relying on a review that has been promised since 16 November 2000, and which is unfinished. Something is seriously wrong, and answers could easily be provided on this matter. The potato industry, which is suffering like the rest of the farming community, deserves at least that.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Along with the rest of the Committee, I agreed on a position about this particular Regulation. This is little different to many Regulations that come through the Committee, but this is an issue on which the Committee took a stand.

We are looking here at costs that are continually being placed upon producers. Those producers have faced lower returns, a decline in their income and a decline in the entire industry on an ongoing basis over recent years. That is not the fault of the Minister, but it is caused by the fact that Britain, the member state, has policies that do not help farmers here. One of the basic problems is that the policies coming from Europe, or the member state - now led by Margaret Beckett - are damaging to the industry here. This Regulation would place additional costs on the producers of cereals; they have faced problems, as have the producers of milk or beef.

They have faced BSE and foot-and-mouth disease; tuberculosis and brucellosis have had quite rampant effects in the border counties of Armagh and Fermanagh; and lower returns - especially on milk - have signalled meltdown to many of them.

Many small farmers - and large farmers who years ago would have been sustainable - are now thinking of leaving the farming industry because they see little future in it. We do not like to admit that that is the situation, but it has happened because of increased costs, outside competition and imports that are not subject to the same Regulations or costs as local produce. It is not a level playing field. The push towards world prices and the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy (CAP) taking place in October will put further pressure on the future of the industry in this part of Ireland.

The problem is that farmers are expected to pay every time, regardless of how much has gone before. The Minister may have difficulty with that, but it does not look well for the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development to be adding more costs to farmers. The farmers question how much representation they have in Europe with regard to European Regulations and the fact that it is people such as Margaret Beckett who represent them in Europe and who have the final say. We must fight to be treated as a region with its own agriculture industry and priority. That will not happen while British Ministers represent us on farming matters. All Committee members, including the Members on my right, agreed the position on that, and I cannot see why they are becoming chummy with the Minister. We should not be increasing costs now. Go raibh maith agat.

We should accept that there must be an increase owing to the extremely bad weather this year. Changes are made in all sorts of issues, because nothing in life ever stays the same. However, it could be postponed until a later date and no expenses put on the agriculture industry now. We should wait until after the growing season next year, and I ask the Minister to reconsider and hold off any expenses on the farming community until then.

It is always very difficult to follow a speech by Mr Armstrong, as he is so erudite, humorous and lengthy. His oratory has given me something to live up to.

Northern Ireland has had a terrible summer; appalling wet weather has affected the entire country in a very bad and unstable way. It has affected the farming community, who make their living by the land, in the worst possible way. On that basis the Minister should reconsider, and recognise that the potato sector is not grant-aided and does not get handouts like other sectors. It lives and falls by the marketplace, the sweat on the brows of men and women, and on what farmers put into and get out of the land. When that land has been saturated as a result of the wet weather we realise something of the problems and plight that the potato sector has had recently.

I hope that the Minister will accept that changes at this time are burdensome and ought to be rejected for that reason. I hope that she is prepared to stand down this bill, which will otherwise be sent out to potato farmers, and that she will grant them the assistance that they require so urgently. I support the prayer of annulment.

I have noted Members' comments and concerns on this matter, but I must oppose the prayer of annulment and ask for the Assembly's support in rejecting it. Although, having heard the views of the various parties represented, I think it highly unlikely that it will be rejected, I shall make my position very clear.

Like all Departments, my Department is required to recover costs from the beneficiaries of the statutory services that it provides. The requirement that fees cover the full cost of service delivery where a benefit accrues to an individual business has been a justified policy feature of the Treasury and, in our case, the Department of Finance and Personnel for some time.

Northern Ireland sets its own seeds fees, although traditionally those have always been set at the same level as those charged in Great Britain, even though they have not been sufficient to achieve the full recoupment of operating costs. Indeed, on this occasion, the Northern Ireland seeds fees were being increased by 5% instead of 18%, the level required to keep Northern Ireland in line with its counterparts in Great Britain. I was particularly conscious that a decision not to increase the seeds fees for a second year in succession would mean my having to fund the additional costs involved from my Department's resources again. I see no valid justification for rejecting the increase, and I wish to make that very clear. If I cannot gather fees in this way, the costs will have to come out of another part of my budget; something else will have to be cut.

On 13 May 2002 my private secretary wrote to the Clerk of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development apprising him of my Department's intention to consult bodies representative of the local industry on the proposed fee increases. The Committee Clerk responded on 27 May 2002, stating that the Committee had considered the proposal and had resolved to await the outcome of the consultation exercise before commenting. Members also asked for some additional clarification on the proposal.

On 21 June 2002 my private secretary wrote again to the Committee, advising members of the outcome of the consultation exercise and providing the additional information sought by the Committee members on various points. On 1 July 2002 the Committee Clerk replied, stating that the Committee had considered the proposals in the light of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's consultation exercise and the additional information provided. He said that members objected in principle to fee increases and also that a member's proposal to reject the increase had fallen by the narrowest of margins. However, the Clerk further stated that the Committee was content for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to make the Statutory Rule, having taken into account the small numbers affected, the relatively small fee increase and the information that fees payable in Northern Ireland would remain the lowest in the United Kingdom.

I sought and obtained the Committee's approval for the Statutory Rule and proceeded on that basis. The Regulations have already come into effect. An 18% fee increase would have been needed to achieve full cost recovery in 2002-03, but I decided to limit the increase to 5%. Even with that increase, our fees will remain lower than those in Great Britain. For instance, in the case of crop inspection, £12·90 a hectare in Northern Ireland still compares very favourably with £13·20 in Scotland and £13·55 in England. The figure of £12·90 a hectare amounts to an increase of 25p an acre.

My decision to increase those fees should be supported. Annulment of the Regulations will create an unwelcome precedent and will revoke the entire basis for such fees. A new Statutory Rule will be required to reinstate the 1999 level of fees, and that will mean a waste of time and resources.

I apologise to the Chairperson of the Committee for my absence at the start of the debate: the business of the House went faster than expected. However, I have listened to some of the remarks that have been made. I am well aware of the difficult circumstances facing the farming community. My officials, the unions and the veterinary association have apprised me of those circumstances, and on my visits to farms I have seen the damage that has been done and the costs that will be incurred this winter and beyond.

I have done everything possible to help the farming community. My officials and advisers have provided technical advice to farmers from the beginning. My Department is setting winter management options in motion, which will be rolled out from Hillsborough and throughout the North. Workshops will help farmers to manage their difficult circumstances. I have received permission to use set-aside land for grazing, and I am working hard to get permission from Europe to increase the amount of advance beef premium to help with farmers' cash-flow problems. I have also asked for a meeting with the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association and the Northern Ireland Bankers' Association.

With regard to weather aid, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and the House know that well before 1 July, when the Committee made its decision to go ahead, we were aware of the difficulties facing farmers. There was twice the normal rainfall in June. The Committee and the House knew that I had already asked the UK Minister, Margaret Beckett, to examine the possibility of seeking wet weather aid from Europe.

I do not wish to give false expectations to the farming community; the last thing they need is to be told things not as they are but as they wish them to be. We cannot begin to build a case for wet weather aid until we reach the end of the growing season. In June, I instructed my officials to monitor the situation so that if there were a case to be made, we would be able to make it. If we can prove that the loss fits the criteria that Europe requires, we will make that case for permission to have wet weather aid. However, there is no European fund to pay for that aid. I shall have to seek it from within the Northern Ireland block grant. I have already spoken to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, who is aware of the difficulties. That is as far as I can go at the moment.

The farming community knows that I have its interests at heart, and that I am doing everything possible. I do not want to be lectured about what the farming community is going through as if it was something I was not aware of. At least Mr Armstrong's comments are always consistent and honest. Sneering at Members, or trying to put them down, is of no use to our purpose, which is to deal with the serious issues facing the farming community.

Mr McCrea, or should I say Dr McCrea - I can never remember these titles - talked about not having meetings with me.

I remember having at least one meeting with Mr McCrea. He will be aware of the serious hiccup in the agriculture industry between 2000 and the end of 2001 when much of its work had to be halted and the serious crisis addressed. Many matters were put on the long finger. I told him then that there was no point in having another meeting until the review was finished and I knew what proposals were being made to the Department. That still stands. I think that Mr McCrea is confusing the fees about which he wrote to me with the fees in question here.

I do not accept that the Committee's change of mind was because its members suddenly realised that farmers were facing difficulties. I knew that the farmers would probably face a difficult time because of the awful weather in June; the Committee may not have been aware of that, but I knew it was a possibility by the end of June. The Committee said that it was "prepared" - I shall not say "happy" because nobody is happy, and the members said that they were not happy - to accept the small fee increase for a small number of people, but a few months later it changed its mind. It will not do anything to build a good working relationship or increase my confidence in dealing with the Committee if it changes its mind. When I get a view from the Committee I want to know that I can depend on it remaining the view while I go ahead and take action.

I ask for the support of the Members in rejecting the motion to save the Committee, if nothing else, from appearing ludicrous.

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development does not think it is ludicrous for its members to be fighting for the farmers, and the farmers are with the Committee all the way. If the Committee was divided and if members of the Minister's party were not supporting it, let them say so. However, that is not what was said to me, and that was not what I was to do as Committee Chairperson.

I bitterly regret the Minister's attitude and her implied threat that it will be hard for her to work with the Committee because its members take a different view to hers. This is a democracy. I am entitled to put the views of those whom I represent to the House.

Will the Member give way?

No, I want to have my say and then the Minister can come in by leave of the House if she is granted leave.

I take what the Minister says as a threat, and I regret her attitude. I also regret that she implied that one member of the Committee was honest - I do not know what she thinks of the rest of us. Are we dishonest or a parcel of liars? She said at her party conference that I was a liar, so I can expect nothing less from her.

Minister, do not malign the Committee. I made it clear that the Committee had a change of heart. It is entitled to a change of heart, especially when farmers are committing suicide when their income is ludicrous compared with what is required to keep life and limb together. The Committee is also entitled to do what it can in Europe to make Mrs Beckett face up to her responsibilities, and it will continue to do that. The Committee has never raised the hopes in the hearts of the Ulster Farmers' Union or the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association. We told them the plain truth in language that they understood. The Minister should not say that there are people going around and raising hopes.

The Minister says that the farmers should pay the fee. What about her cutting some of the salaries of the fat cats in the Department? Some £80 million are paid out in salaries in her Department. What about telling those people to take a salary cut? Do struggling farmers always have to pay for those cuts? Does the Minister not realise that the industry is on its knees? Does she want it to end up on its face? If the Minister is to have a cutting programme, she should start with her Department rather than with people who cannot even make a decent wage.

The Committee does not want to have to pray to the Minister in this way. It would prefer to argue the arrangements in Committee, but, in a time of dire crisis such as this, it is the responsibility of all Committee members to take their duty seriously. I am amazed that the Minister is stressing that this would cause a great deal of trouble: it is about time that the Department had some trouble. It is about time that the British Government realised that we are in trouble. It is about time that they got the message that farmers in Northern Ireland are not going to lie down any longer; they are going to get up and fight for their existence. What does it matter if the British Government get angry or if someone else gets angry? The poor farmers must be delivered.

I plead with the Minister to change her mind and to get the idea out of her head that everyone in the Committee is an enemy and that she has to fight them as such. I smiled today when I heard that the Minister said that she would have no regrets about getting out of my hair. Well, I will not be in her hair any longer, but the whole Committee is in her hair today. I am only a spokesperson - do not kill the messenger. The Minister should start by killing off the people in her own party who have the same views as I do. She should turn her guns on her own side before she turns them on people who are only trying to do their jobs. I regret that this issue has had to come before the House today. I also regret that, in the midst of the farmers' dire plight, we are arguing over this matter today.

The Minister has every reason to support the Committee. Then she could face up to the row, which would be most profitable, because it would teach people that they cannot continue to whip farmers and not expect them to rise, dig in their heels and say that enough is enough.

I appeal to the House to support the Committee. It is up to Members as to how they cast their votes, but if they were in the same position as the farmers, I know how they would vote. Let us think about the farmers and about the suicides in their community. That is of great concern to me. Let us vote today to say that we are masters in our house, that we are here to help the farmers and not to obey the rules of some people who have never been in Northern Ireland and do not know what we are up against.

TOP

Hospital Waiting Lists

I wish to advise Members on how I propose to conduct the debate, which has been allocated two hours by the Business Committee. Two amendments have been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The mover of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and seven minutes to do the winding-up speech. The proposer of each amendment will have seven minutes to propose and five minutes to do the winding-up. The amendments will be proposed in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List. When the debate has concluded, I shall put the Question that each amendment be made in turn. If amendment No 1 is made, I shall put the Question on amendment No 2. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

I beg to move

On 5 September 2002 the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety issued a press release claiming that she "gets tough on waiting lists". If her record in recent years is anything to go by, I would hate to see the results of a softly-softly approach to waiting lists, which appear to be totally out of control.

We are used to hearing the Minister make all manner of promises about healthcare - especially on the waiting lists crisis - and failing to deliver. Every quarter, before the publication of waiting list statistics, we hold our breath in anticipation of the ever-increasing numbers of patients on lists. Last March the Minister pledged to reduce the number of people waiting for hospital treatment to 48,000. That promise has never been fulfilled. Today more than 59,000 people are on the waiting list, which represents an increase of almost 9% since June 2001.

The Northern Health and Social Services Board has a massive waiting list; it is the highest outside Belfast. More than 9,000 people are queuing for the treatment that they deserve. Like many representatives, I am bombarded by queries from constituents and the families of patients about what is being done. It has become embarrassing to try to explain to them that I and other Members have voted more money than ever before to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I will vote even more money to it this year, yet it will make no impact whatsoever on the surgical needs of my constituents' loved ones. It is embarrassing, because this place is getting the allocations wrong.

If the figures are staggering, consider how much more staggering they are in the light of the 28% increase in the excess waiting list, that is to say, the number of people waiting to get onto the priority list. Tens of thousands of people are waiting for urgent treatment - they are waiting and waiting and waiting. Given the track record of the Minister's current policy, they will go on waiting.

Trends in waiting lists make an interesting source of study. In 1997 waiting lists decreased steadily. Since the Minister took over, they have risen consistently in every quarter except one. What concerns me most is that the Minister and her minions have no ambition to reduce the waiting lists. The press release of 5 September, which was issued together with the trends, states that her target is to "hold" the waiting lists at these unsatisfactory levels. By the words of her own press release the Minister is condemned.

This year's waiting list is unacceptable, yet the Minister will tolerate it for another 12 months with the weak ambition to "hold" the figures at that level.

I thank the Member for giving way. Wards in certain hospitals are closing because of infections. I was asked to visit Belfast City Hospital, and on the exit stairs I counted around 500 cigarette butts and saw tin cans and all sorts of rubbish. The wards open onto those exit stairs, which are an absolute disgrace. How can hygiene be maintained in a hospital where such conditions exist?

I thank the Member for his observation; it shows that money is being targeted incorrectly.

The Minister has adopted the bureaucratic speak of "acceptable numbers" on waiting lists that are thoroughly unacceptable. I will discuss the trends later. The scandal of waiting lists is somehow robbed of humanity when we speak only about stark statistics. It is only when we meet constituents day to day and hear about their personal trauma that we realise just how harrowing and appalling the situation is.

I wish to mention two constituency cases. The first is a letter from Mrs W of Ballymoney, who wrote:

I was seen again on 7th July 1999 and was told then that I would be put on the waiting list. The only contact I have had since then from the Ulster Hospital specialist has been a letter in January 2001 asking if I still want to be kept on the waiting list. On 20th June 2002 I was told that I was still on the waiting list."

That is an appalling example of what it means to be a statistic on a waiting list in my constituency. Yet it is being repeated, and I am sure that Members across the House, representing the four corners of Northern Ireland, would agree.

The second example is from a gentleman from Broughshane, who has written to the Minister's office about his concerns. In his letter to me he states:

One of his injuries persists, and he has told me:

I cannot express adequately how shocked and horrified I was to find that the orthopaedic specialist had not received either of my referrals from my consultant. How can it be possible that two referrals within a few months of each other can fail to reach their destination? What sort of crass, bureaucratic inefficiency does it take to lose, not one, but two referrals?"

Let us be clear about one thing; it is no longer a question of money - the resources are there. More of our Budget goes to health than at any time before. In the words of Brian Patterson, the British Medical Association Northern Ireland representative:

If the Minister were called Barbara Brown - and I ask Members to consider setting aside all of the political divisions in the House for a moment - and spoke with an English accent and was here on behalf of the Labour Party or Conservative Party as a direct rule Minister, people would not get near Stormont Castle without tripping over Sinn Féiners calling for her to go because of the way in which the system has been managed. We should draw back and look at the situation from that perspective. We would not let an English Minister run the Health Service in this way, or pump up the waiting lists. Why then are we allowing a person from Northern Ireland, a devolved Minister, to do it? We ought not to; we ought to reject her. The silence of some parties on the issue has been deafening.

TOP