There has been keen interest in the issue of renewable energy. Clauses 49 to 55 of the Bill, which constitute Part VI, provide the legislative basis for establishing a renewables obligation in Northern Ireland to stimulate the generation and consumption of electricity from renewable sources. The renewables obligation will require electricity suppliers to provide evidence in the form of renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) that they have supplied a specified proportion of renewable electricity to consumers.

Renewables obligations exist already in Scotland, England and Wales. The ultimate intention is that ROCs should be tradable throughout the UK. That will require amendments to the Electricity Act 1989 in Great Britain and the Renewable Obligation Orders that were made under that legislation in Scotland, England and Wales. Contacts with Ministers and officials in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive are continuing with a view to establishing a UK-wide trading arrangement and agreeing the necessary legislative changes.

I have always been careful to point out the need to maintain a balance between the strong interest in renewables and the additional costs associated with ambitious targets for their development. The target for the proportion of electricity from renewable sources will be set in the context of the energy strategy that is being developed, and I will continue to work closely with the Committee, the new authority and the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland on that matter.

Part VII of the Bill contains several miscellaneous matters that I do not intend to describe in detail. However, clauses 56 and 57, which enable postalisation of gas conveyance charges, are vital elements of the Bill, because postalisation is absolutely necessary to enable the north-west, South/North gas project to go ahead. Postalisation will mean that the charges for conveying a therm of gas through designated pipelines will be the same regardless of the distance that it is conveyed or the number of pipelines through which it is conveyed.

The Executive have endorsed postalisation, and introducing legislative provision in the area fulfils a commitment that I made to the Executive in September 2001 when they approved grant aid for the project. The provisions enable the Department to designate pipelines that are to be subject to the postalised charge, and allow the Department or the authority to modify gas licences where necessary or expedient for the purposes of implementing the postalisation arrangements or to facilitate their efficient operation.

Some of the gas companies have expressed concern at the postalisation provisions, which are modelled on provisions in the Utilities Act 2000 for bringing the new electricity trading arrangements into operation. I am due to hear those concerns first-hand later this month, and in the light of those discussions I shall decide if adjustments which do not constrain our ability to effect postalisation are required.

Clause 58 of the Bill will replace the current temporary savings provisions in section 6 of the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. It enables the Department to make energy-related payments for certain purposes.

The Bill's provisions will be brought into operation by a commencement Order, as provided for in clause 62. The postalisation provisions will be the exception, coming into operation immediately on the Bill's enactment. Subject to satisfactory progress on the Bill's Assembly stages, I would like the changes to the regulatory and consumer-representation arrangements to take effect from 1 April 2003.

The provisions in this Bill will be very important in enabling Northern Ireland to move forward with the ongoing changes to its gas and electricity sectors. I commend it to the Assembly.

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Mr Neeson): I welcome the Bill. As the Assembly is well aware, the Committee has demonstrated a great deal of interest in energy policy. Indeed, the Committee's second very detailed inquiry was into energy, and we welcome the many provisions in the legislation that reflect the Committee's deliberations and recommendations.

I do not intend to go over old ground and rehearse earlier debates. Suffice it to say that the Committee's recommendations covered five broad areas: the cost of electricity; improving energy efficiency; renewable energy; the extension of the gas network; and the development of the all-island energy market. Most of those areas are covered to a greater or lesser extent in the detail of this very complex piece of legislation. Of course, the Bill also deals with other issues that were not in the Committee's report, and the Department has agreed to consider certain matters that were in that report for future legislation.

In the few minutes for which I am allowed to speak, I hope to concentrate on the areas of concern that we have identified in the Bill as it stands and give a commitment to the Assembly that those and all areas within the Bill's scope will be scrutinised in the detail that one would expect from a responsible Assembly Committee.

The most fundamental concern of the Committee is that electricity prices in Northern Ireland are still too high. Not only that, but a disproportionately high number of people experience fuel poverty. Although the question of fuel poverty is primarily the responsibility of the Department for Social Development, and tackling fuel poverty requires a fundamental belt-and-braces approach from across the Government, the Committee will scrutinise the Bill in fine detail and explore whether it can be amended in any way with the result of reducing prices for the consumer. There are ongoing deliberations between members of our own Committee and members of the Committee for Social Development to see whether a joint approach might be made on the issue.

That will include giving consideration to whether the Department should be instructed to make provision for the issue of consumer bonds. The Committee believes that the option for such a provision should be in the Bill, and we may well introduce an amendment on the issue. Regardless of whether the Department takes such a course, we believe that the opportunity should be provided in the legislation. As the Minister said, certain organisations will meet him, and they will meet me soon to discuss those issues.

The Committee has given its full support to extending the gas network in Northern Ireland, which means, in the first instance, that the gas pipeline will be extended to the north-west. The Committee will closely scrutinise the Bill's provisions that legislate for the postalisation of gas supplies. The Committee intends to confirm that proposals that are designed to ensure that gas costs are the same for all consumers mean exactly that - that those who live and work in outlying and disadvantaged areas pay no extra charges. That is why I welcome the Minister's commitment. I am aware that he has come under pressure from various quarters on that, but it is an issue that the Committee feels very strongly about.

The Committee's advocacy of the greater use of renewable energy is on record; in practice, that means the extensive development of wind farms. The Committee feels that the Department is not being ambitious enough in its attempts to meet the targets that were set by the Kyoto Protocol. The Committee will consider whether to propose amendments to the Bill that will enable Northern Ireland to take its rightful role as the pacesetter in generating renewable energy throughout these islands. That was reflected in the Committee's report on energy.

The Committee will also examine whether the Department has followed the provisions of Great Britain's Utilities Act 2000 too closely. There are arguments for and against following "parity legislation" word for word in Northern Ireland after laws have been passed at Westminster. However, there can be no dispute that the energy market in Northern Ireland is different from that in Great Britain. We have higher electricity prices, a greater reliance on oil, and a rudimentary lasting gas infrastructure. Despite the interconnectors, Northern Ireland's electricity industry has what amounts to a monopoly on electricity supply. Is slavishly following Westminster legislation appropriate in those circumstances?

There is, of course, much to be applauded in the Bill. Without wishing to prejudice further deliberations by the Committee, I can give a guarded welcome to the new Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation and to transferring certain responsibilities in that field to the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. The Committee recommended that in its report. Although welcoming that, I can give the Assembly a commitment that those parts of the Bill will undergo the same detailed scrutiny as the more controversial areas.

Finally, facilitating the establishment of an independent transmission system operator should be welcomed. It will mean that in future responsibility for the transmission of electricity will be divorced from responsibility for the generation of electricity. That removes a potential conflict of interests, which should benefit the consumer. The legislation does not detail how the transmission system operator should operate. The Committee will probe departmental intentions on that matter.

The Bill is laudable legislation, which, I suspect, the Committee will generally support. In many ways, it reflects the changing nature of the energy market in Northern Ireland, in the island of Ireland, in the British Isles and in Europe. However, the Committee intends to scrutinise the legislation thoroughly. It has already publicly advertised for submissions from all interested bodies.

Like the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I do not intend to say much other than to welcome the Second Stage of the Bill. During its inquiry, the Committee received many written and oral submissions. It made many constructive visits to places that have renewable energy policies, such as Denmark and Brussels.

The Committee visited those places to see renewable energy facilities, particularly in Denmark, which has one of the most energy-efficient heating supply systems in the world due to the implementation of combined heat and power (CHP) technology. That was also evident during one of the Committee's case study visits to Brook Hall estate at Culmore in Derry.

The Committee's main objectives in visiting Denmark were to see how for example diversification, creating energy from waste, could be achieved; to consider a strategic challenge to the inequitable generation contracts, which had been negotiated at the time of privatisation; and to see at first hand the renewable energy market and its potential in the global market, which could make up to £1 billion a year by 2010.

In Denmark, the Committee also saw the operation of an offshore wind farm - a project currently under discussion here. The Danish wind farm was built in November 2000 and consists of 20 2-megawatt wind turbines. It is situated just three kilometres outside the port of Copenhagen. The expected annual electricity production is 90,000 megawatt hours, which equals the electricity consumption of 20,000 Danish households and represents approximately 3% of Copenhagen's power consumption. The visit illustrated to the Committee the advantages and disadvantages of wind energy. It will certainly inform part of the debate about the proposed wind farm off the north-west coast.

The visit to Brussels provided the Committee with an opportunity to become more familiar with European energy policy within the Commission. Now that all EU Directives are being scrutinised much more closely, we must make ourselves aware of the energy policy. There have been discussions about burning Orimulsion at Kilroot. Seeing Orimulsion plants at first hand informed the Committee about what it was considering and whether it could recommend Orimulsion to the Minister.

The Committee made 45 recommendations, which have mainly been supported by the Minister. However, he did not support the first recommendation on nuclear energy. The Committee wants the nuclear power reprocessing plants on the western seaboard of Great Britain to be eventually replaced with sustainable energy facilities.

The Committee was quite troubled by electricity costs and was awaiting the outcome of the Department's consultation on its paper entitled 'Towards a New Energy Market Strategy'. We welcome the Minister's decision on licensing and the extended powers being given to the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland.

The Committee felt that the energy efficiency levy should be increased to £5 per household per annum. As the Deputy Chairperson said, it would be used to help eradicate fuel poverty. There have already been discussions on that with the Department for Social Development.

The combined cycle gas turbine electricity project at Coolkeeragh is now going ahead. I am glad that the Minister said that the postalisation of gas and electricity costs must be borne equally and equitably by all domestic and commercial consumers. Support should also be sought from the EU and other sources to meet the cost of current and future gas pipeline extensions.

The Committee wants to ensure the future of the all-island energy market. Of course, that requires adequate electricity and gas interconnector capacity, strong charging policies with effective regulation, and strong consumer protection. The Executive should investigate the possibility of abolishing the Government royalty tax, thus reducing the differential in corporation tax between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland to enable companies to trade in a more equitable all-island energy market.

As the Deputy Chairperson said, targets for renewables are probably set too low. The Committee is aware of the considerable cost to the consumer. Having seen such measures in operation in Denmark, they are probably a more expensive part of electricity charges. However, because of the climate change levy, the difference in pricing between here and Great Britain, and the length of time it took for gas to be introduced here, the Committee feels that derogation should be extended. The Minister has given us an assurance that derogation will be sought for 10 years rather than the current five years, and the Committee welcomes that.

As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment said, the Committee spent much time and energy on clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill to ensure that it will benefit all consumers in Northern Ireland. I welcome its introduction by the Minister and can assure him that we will give it an advantageous reading.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I too will be brief. I thank the Minister and am sure that he would agree that, although the Committee retains its right to challenge and be critical of the Department and the Minister, our relationship with both provides a good example of how well partnership arrangements can work. I enjoyed working on this - I found it interesting. It is a shame that much of the valuable work done to date will now be brought down by the political crisis.

Mr Neeson, the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment adequately represented many of the Committee's views, particularly those on the emissions target. The Committee is broadly agreed on that. I will not rehash all those issues, but I want to make several points about the Bill.

First, I would like the new arrangements for regulation and consumer representation to include all perspectives on energy and to pay particular attention to domestic consumer representation, especially for those on low income and other vulnerable consumers. That may require changes to the process of application to the General Consumer Council or a change in criteria for potential members - such changes would not be beyond the council's capability. I expect that any appointments to the General Consumer Council will adhere to equality principles. I would also be interested to hear a detailed response from the council about how it intends to fulfil the duties proposed in the legislation, so that we can assess the impact of those changes.

The issue of the fuel poor has much exercised the Committee and, I am sure, the Minister and the Department. The Minister may find it worthwhile to recognise the fuel poor as a distinct vulnerable group in the legislation and to make the necessary provision for that. The extension of the natural gas infrastructure should be wholeheartedly supported; so too the principle of a common tariff. Pricing according to location is an exclusive measure that will contribute to further uneven economic development and may contribute to the exclusion of those customers who could gain most from a natural gas supply - people on lower incomes and the fuel poor. I broadly welcome the Bill. At this stage, we do not know when the Committee will be able to scrutinise it in more detail, but I look forward to having the opportunity to do so. Go raibh maith agat.

I am grateful to the Members who contributed to the debate. I will try to deal with the points as they arose. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise Trade and Investment, Mr Neeson, expressed his concern at the high electricity costs. He is preaching to the converted. However, many of the energy measures that we have been dealing with over the past few years have begun to lay foundations for change.

There will be additional competition. There are now North/South and east-west interconnectors for gas and electricity. The nature of the contracts and our high dependency on fuel costs, which are passed on directly to the customer, have been long-term problems for us. Nevertheless, after the regulator's transmission and distribution review, and the likely substantial rise in electricity costs in the Republic, the differential is beginning to narrow, or at least it has been prevented from becoming any worse. Electricity prices in Great Britain are artificially low, and it will not be possible to sustain those prices in the distant future. The basic foundations for substantial change are being put in place.

Mrs Courtney referred to the fact that the North/South interconnector is in place. However, we cannot trade fully on that interconnector. Although it has a substantial capacity, the Republic's distribution network cannot yet handle it. Substantial investment is necessary, and we have pressed the authorities to examine the issue closely. The investment will come, but much work must be done on the distribution network's infrastructure before the full benefit of that trade can be achieved.

Mr Neeson referred to renewables, and he is correct to say that it is the responsibility of the Department for Social Development to introduce legislation to address fuel poverty issues. I support his view that there must be co-operation at a high level, and we must have regard to the definition of "vulnerable consumers". Dr O'Hagan made that point in her contribution. "Vulnerable consumers" should cover the majority of those who are in, or are at risk of being in, a fuel poverty situation. Approximately 170,000 households in Northern Ireland come into that category. There is work to be done in that area.

Mr Neeson also mentioned parity legislation, which is not simply carbon-copy legislation. Our consumer arrangements are totally different from those in Great Britain. He also referred to the issue of capital, as other Members have done in previous debates. I refer Mr Neeson and others to the press release I issued when I introduced the Bill. I invited proponents of such a proposal to consider how the provision, now included in the Bill, might be used to develop ideas into specific proposals, which would have to address potential state aid issues and tax implications before any consumer benefit could be assessed fully. I am prepared to examine that issue, as is the Committee. However, if we go down that road, we must ensure that we can identify genuine and real benefits and that it is not done simply because somebody thought it was a good idea at the time. It must benefit the consumer.

Several Members, including Dr O'Hagan, mentioned consumer representation arrangements. The General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland already represents consumers, and clause 14 of the Bill requires the council to consider the interests of consumers on low incomes. The Bill also obliges the council to prepare and publish a forward work programme.

Dr O'Hagan's point goes to the core of public appointments. We know that the rules are strict, including the guidelines issued by Sir Leonard Peach, the former Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland. Although one must be as fair as possible at all times, there is a valid point about the number of people who feel able to apply for jobs. The application process is tiresome and, for many, a daunting task. There is a question over whether someone from such a vulnerable background would get over the different hurdles, including meeting the criteria and passing the interviews. Such things could militate against someone from a vulnerable group. Undoubtedly, there is a problem. It is not, however, confined to the General Consumer Council; it applies to the whole public appointments sector.

In an effort to be fair to people, in my opinion, the pendulum has swung too far. The process is much too elaborate. Members debated the 11-plus earlier. Mr Deputy Speaker, although, given your background, you might be good at the 11-plus, if the rest of us were to sit the test, how many would pass? The hurdles that ordinary people must overcome to be employed in public bodies are too high and too complicated. That is something for all of us to consider; it is not specific to this case.

I am conscious that, in making the changes to representation work, we must demonstrate that those who are directly affected have a voice. The question is whether that can be achieved within the strictures of the public appointments process if we do not have much discretion in such matters. I am not sure of the answer to that question; perhaps it should be discussed during the Committee Stage.

Members expressed support for the postalisation of the gas network, which is a critical element of the Bill. Without postalisation, it will not be possible to get the gas pipelines approved and built.

Postalisation sounds very complicated, but it is relatively simple. We already have postalisation for electricity: a unit of electricity in Belleek is the same price as a unit in Larne, and rightly so. If people were charged the true cost of conducting a unit of electricity to Belleek, it would be prohibitive. Similarly, postalisation of gas would spread potential access to such a natural resource as widely across the population as possible. This is the only way in which that can happen.

Of course, the term "postalisation" is derived from the postal system. It costs the same to send a first-class letter from Belfast to Lisburn as it does to send a letter from Belfast to Plymouth or to the highlands and islands. The principle is that a single price transports a unit around. If we stray from that principle, we will encounter serious difficulties. We must ensure that postalisation occurs. There are details to be discussed on how best to introduce it, and I will hold discussions with interested parties in the coming weeks. However, I am convinced that the principle of postalisation is sound and that we can finalise the details as we progress the Bill.

While we proceed with the legislation, we must remember our end target. Because of the structures that we inherited, systems operation is done in-house by Northern Ireland Electricity. We want to separate that out.

Any authority that may be created will not be huge; it will be very small, run by a handful of people. The existing regulator, Mr Douglas McIldoon, will chair it, and one or two others with particular skills and expertise may help him. We do not intend to create an elaborate structure.

As with the General Consumer Council, we are removing one body and amalgamating it with others to form one because we want to create a one-stop shop that is a centre of excellence. That is no reflection of the work that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has done on electricity, but Northern Ireland is a small place, and it makes sense to have all the consumer representatives and experts working under one body. It is not a complicated concept, but it will help.

As we proceed to the next legislative stage, I will appreciate the support of the Committee. Renewables are high on its agenda. We must set a target - people think that we have done so already, but we have not. We are discussing targets through the energy strategy, and we will reach a conclusion. People must remember that if you set a target for renewables, however desirable, there is a cost. Mr Neeson began the debate by saying that we have high electricity costs. I want to see as much renewable energy as possible, but we must remember that there is a price to be paid.

People think that the windmills can be erected here, there and everywhere, that biomass can be used and that the more of those we have, the more renewable energy we have. It is not as simple as that. Wind will realistically be the source of over 90% of our renewable energy, but people are not picking up on the fact that it tends to be in remote areas - on mountains, at the coast and so forth. By definition, the distribution network in those areas is fragile because of their remoteness. The intermittent nature of wind energy means that the system cannot technically absorb large bursts of electricity that are followed by none. The consumer must be constantly supplied with electricity. If a system receives huge surges followed by a withdrawal of those surges, it must be replaced. The distribution network must be technically strengthened in many of those places, which will be a major cost. People must understand that, and that point is not coming across in the debate.

Offshore wind was mentioned, and we know that there is local concern about it. That is going through a year-long process, and we will see what is proposed at the end of that. Ultimately, windmills will be placed in prominent places, either offshore or on top of mountains. People will be able to see them, because that is where the wind is. Therefore, if we want renewable energies, and as most of it in Northern Ireland will come from wind, we must either decide to tolerate their visual impact environmentally or accept the surreptitious gradual erosion of our environment through the emission of CO₂ and other gases into the atmosphere. All developed countries must make that choice, and, in common with those countries, we must debate that.

A difficult choice must be made, and we know locally that that is the sort of thing that we want in somebody else's backyard but not in our own. Biomass has the advantage of being able to supply a constant flow of electricity; the supply from wind, on the other hand, is more intermittent. However, realistically, the potential for biomass is limited because of the amount of material that is available to keep the machines going and the likely cost. Willow and other materials are usable and good. The technology will improve, as will our performance, in time. However, that will not be done for nothing, and it is fine as long as everybody understands that.

In conclusion, I thank the Committee for how it conducted its report into energy and for its handling of these matters. I look forward to working with it as it considers the Second Stage of the Bill. If amendments are suggested to the Bill, the Department and the Committee will co-operate in the spirit of partnership that has marked our work. We are endeavouring to get the best deal for the consumer and to ensure that our economy is as competitive as it can possibly be in relation to our neighbours who hitherto have had significant energy advantages over us.

The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

TOP

Limited Liability Partnerships Bill: Final Stage

Resolved:

TOP

Open-Ended Investment Companies Bill: Final Stage

Resolved:

TOP

Fair Price Commission

Mr Savage:

I beg to move

When I first mooted the idea of a fair price commission, those who prefer inaction to action - among whom I am sorry to say is our own Department of Agriculture and Rural Development - deliberately misunderstood me. They tried to accuse me of price fixing. They said that "That cannot be done in a free market."; "It is a reserved matter."; and "It is not within my competence.". These are smokescreens for inaction and are without substance.

My intention was to redress the unfairness of the distribution of profits in the end price of agricultural goods. Recently, Ben Gill, the president of the National Farmers' Union told the 'Daily Telegraph' that of an average basket of farm produce, containing eggs, beef, milk, bread, tomatoes and apples, which typically cost £37 in the shops, the farmer received only £11, a figure significantly less than one third of the end price.

Clearly, that is an appalling and unsupportable situation. What additional value do food processors and the food retailers add to the goods produced by farmers? Fair-minded people would say that it certainly is not two thirds of the end price. Mr Gill eloquently highlighted the central problem, which I want a fair price commission to tackle.

The first task of that commission would be to establish the facts of the case and to weed out the apocryphal and completely unacceptable. Just how much goes to the end retailer, which, as often as not, is a supermarket chain?

Once again, the president of the Farmers' Union, Ben Gill, put it well. He gave a simple illustration. Pig farmers receive 96p a kilo for their animals, yet pork retails at £6·97 a kilo. Somewhere between the farm and the retail outlet, someone makes £6·01 more than the farmer is paid for every kilo of pig meat. The farmer gets less than 14%; the processor and retailer, between them, receive some 86%.

In anybody's language, that is unfair. From farm to fork, it is plain that something is wrong. For years, the farmers' unions have talked to supermarkets, but, as one would suspect, no progress has been made, for sentiment and money are bad companions.

Where the fault lies - whether the processor takes too much by manipulating the number of cuts that he pays for, or whether the supermarket chains take too much by using their overwhelming buying power - is not really the point. Wherever there is unfair practice, the facts of the case must be established. The only way to do that is by investigating the matter, using the medium of a specially established fair price commission. That investigation would be the primary task of such a commission. All we ask for is fair play - a level playing field. Farmers in Northern Ireland are efficient and have proven over the years that they are at the forefront of modern expertise in all sectors of farming.

The commission's second task would be to establish what was broadly accepted as a fair distribution of profits between the different sectors: the farmers, or producers; the processors; and the retailers.

One thing must be established. As things stand, processors and the distributors take their profit first. Everybody takes their whack out of the profit. When it reaches the bottom of the chain, there is nothing left for the farmers. The whole process needs to be reversed. The farmers must get a fair price for what they produce, and others can follow. There must be an about-turn. We cannot go on in this way. This must be based on the real value added to the produce. This must be done using pre-established yardsticks. Only then will myth be separated from reality. We need a third-party assessment of the true extent of the problem, and the figures will cause public shock.

The third part of the remit of a fair price commission would be to award certificates. These would appear in the form of labels on products in shops stating that those items of food were produced under circumstances in which farmers received a fair price. Because of price controls, the scheme would have to be voluntary. It would operate in the same way as the PONI (produce of Northern Ireland) labels. The labels would be similar to the labels on organic food now appearing in supermarkets.

Consumers are the next part of the equation. Consumer education is required. They would have to be aware that the fair price labels on goods meant that they were buying produce for which the farmers had received a fair price. Consumers drive supermarkets, and supermarkets will only change their practices if customers dictate it. Consider the example of organic produce. It is only by establishing such a structure that we will create change.

Ben Gill also said that talks with the supermarkets have dragged on for years but that they never get anywhere, which is true. What I propose would break the impasse. It is market-orientated and market-driven. The Government should enable the introduction of fair practice by producing a structure or mechanism for it.

That is the Government's duty. Hiding behind excuses is disreputable, and it leaves a bad taste, especially for the Department. I have every sympathy for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development; it has many problems. It now has an opportunity to give a lead rather than resist it, and to earn the reputation of being an aid worker rather than being the policeman. Let it do so with good grace for once, instead of trying to put obstacles in the way of the farmers, who ultimately keep in place that enormous, £200 million-a-year, edifice that is the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and its employees.

I read about one of the issues that currently concern us in the paper this past week. Italy's Government are introducing a quality-control system to guarantee standards. They are fed up with impostors. Checks have been carried out in all sectors of the Department there. One of the most important points is that meetings continue to take place across the country. People are voicing their concerns at the bad prices being paid. Meetings are actually taking place today.

All this could be avoided if the primary producer got a fair price for his produce. Greed is a powerful weapon. Will it last? There are currently 80,000 jobs directly or indirectly involved in the agriculture industry here. Those jobs must be protected and not left to the wills of unscrupulous people. Look what has happened to our shipbuilding industry this past week. Do we want that to happen to the agriculture industry? Not only would we like to see the shipyard back, but we would like to get our agriculture industry back onto a level footing.

A farmer told me last week that working on his farm was like working in a concentration camp, as all he did was work and sleep. Things cannot continue as they are. As the Committee of the Regions noted:

Our problems are the same as those of many other countries. If our farming industry is not protected, in a few years' time we will have no industry. We do not want to finish up like the shipyard in Belfast, which used to be the backbone of Northern Ireland. Agriculture is currently the backbone of our country, and we must protect it. I tell our Government that we can work together to solve the problem. There is no point in pussyfooting about because we have major problems. That ties in with the weakness of the territorial impact analysis for the proposed measures. It is stated:

I call the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Bríd Rodgers, to respond. My apologies, Minister, I see Gerry McHugh's name on the list.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have no difficulty understanding that anyone can mix things up today. The focus is on everything except the Order Paper.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is not in the Chamber yet. He purports to be very supportive of the farming community and its needs, but it is clear that he, and his party, are off fighting for their real interest, which is the demolition of anything that might be positive for farming here.

The motion is difficult inasmuch as one might ask what a fair price commission could achieve. However, I support the motion because anything that might help the primary producer or the whole industry must be supported. People might say that a fair price commission would support farmers. The debate could be widened to the point where people would have to realise that it involves the whole industry; not just one part of it. If we do not have a fair price at the producers' end, as the last Member said, then we will not have an industry. It is as simple as that.

My biggest worry is that there could be a situation here in the not-so-distant future in which we would have to import all of our raw agricultural material for processing and everything that consumers need. Such imports would raise issues about quality.

Mr Savage said that farmers are now in slavery and that the next generation will not take part in an industry that will not be giving them any return. There are precious few farmers now who can say that they are getting any return for their effort. No one in any other walk of life would put in the same effort for such a small return. The result will be the total meltdown of the industry. Any vision statement or document with a 10-year delivery span will not have a hope of delivering improvements. Those are the difficulties.

I have a few questions concerning a fair price commission. Would it embarrass only the processing industry? Would it put enough pressure on supermarkets to increase prices to the farmers and not just the processors? How would it stop the importation of inferior food from all corners of the world? There would be a demand for quality produce from imports. For example, there is the poor quality of grain coming through Warrenpoint. Ten per cent of that grain can contain anything, and it would certainly not be good enough to go into animal feed. We should be able to stand over the production of the end product.

Given the forecast that 50% of dairy farmers may go out of the business following Agenda 2000 proposals, and given the 15% cut in intervention prices for butter and 5% for milk powder, would a fair price commission have any effect on staving off those cuts? What effect would it have in keeping prices up when we are heading towards world market prices?

The World Trade Organisation and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Margaret Beckett, want to increase the cuts. They also want to speed up the common agricultural policy reform. They want the opposite to what would support the industry and its mainstay here.

In the light of those questions, where will we end up? Moving to world prices would mean high costs for the farmer, high wages, high inputs and low end prices. Could farmers survive? We do not have an option because of the scale of countries such as Brazil and New Zealand that are in straight competition with us. The UK policy for more drastic cuts and reforms works against us.

We had a long debate at Loughry College last week about the common agricultural policy reform. That puts the industry's future into perspective. The principal components have been addressed. The Committee's report dealt with the business of fair prices for farmers. I am sure that most of the recommendations contained in that report have yet to be implemented.

The consumer and the primary producer are closely linked. What does society want? That question was asked during a speech last week. However, what question was society asked? Was it asked whether it wanted food from outside Europe? Does society want low-quality food that has no traceability? Does society want food from producers who are not required to adhere to the same regulations that we must follow? Is that what the consumer wants? Will the consumer even be able to choose local produce in the future?

Perhaps we should move towards localised markets that are free of food that has been transported many miles. Localised marketing offers the farmers more control. There is also the issue of global sustainability. Do we want large areas of rainforest to be wiped out in order to create grass that is eroded after three years? The rainforest countries may be poor, but they have been exploited and destroyed by multinationals. That is why they must do what they do. However, as a result, we are importing food from countries that are unable to produce it in the long term. We can produce food, but we are not allowed to produce it, and it seems that it will not be economically feasible to continue to do so in the near future. Those are the questions that we must ask.

Just as the Assembly seems to be almost in meltdown, so is the agriculture industry. I am sure that it can only look on at the disgraceful attempts to bring down the only institutions that might have a hope of making a future for local farmers. British Ministers and British Government policies will not do that. I support the idea of a fair price commission that can do something to stem the low prices that primary producers endure. Go raibh maith agat.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>