Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I welcome Ian Marshall, the president of the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU); Freda Magill, the rural affairs chair of the UFU; Jim Carmichael; and Michael Clarke. You are all very welcome. I ask you to take up to 10 minutes or so to give your presentation. It might take a bit more, by the look of you. You are all right; take your time. We were behind for a long time today and have caught up on ourselves.

Mr Ian Marshall (Ulster Farmers' Union): You caught us unawares.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): You are OK. Not to worry.

Mr Marshall: Chair and Committee members, thanks for the opportunity to have this audience with you. In principle, the Rural Needs Bill is a very welcome proposal, and its expected intentions are positive and long overdue. However, we need to be cognisant of the fact that this is not the first attempt at such a piece of work. A lot of Government policy decisions have severely and negatively impacted rural areas, and in the advances of cost savings rural areas often come out worse, for example, through road traffic Bills, environmental regulations, road maintenance programmes, the closure of rural schools, planning etc. Unfortunately, a lot of severe damage has been done to rural areas, and we hope that the statutory Rural Needs Bill will be another tool in the toolbox to help to redress that. However, we feel that the proposed content of the Bill is a little vague and offers little clarity for public authorities. We are concerned that that could lead to ineffective and inappropriate application that would do little to achieve the ultimate goal. We want a Rural Needs Bill that results in the needs of rural areas being considered as part of public-sector decision processes, rather than what is perceived at present as an afterthought or a tick-box exercise.

There are many examples of different definitions of "rural", both between and within different Departments. That results in people who require assistance being left unable to access it. However, a one-size-fits-all approach may not always be appropriate. We suggest that DARD should develop a list of definitions that could be used. It could then give guidance to Departments on the most appropriate definition. For example, those with a farm business number should always be considered as rural. Any definition of "rural" must recognise differing degrees of rurality.

Clause 1 deals with the duty of public authorities to consider rural needs. It is positive, but it will only work effectively if the definition of "rural" is appropriate, depending on the policy. However, the UFU feels that the word "consider" is vague and does not necessarily mean that rural needs will be properly addressed and potential adverse effects mitigated. A consideration of rural needs must be factored in at the outset of each policy development or review. It should not just be a policy screening exercise.

Clause 2 deals with guidance, advice and information. The UFU suggests the development of an interdepartmental rural needs group to bring together all the main Departments at a senior level to discuss particular or topical rural issues and identify where policies or delivery can be adjusted. That group could also liaise with key stakeholders to give advice on impact of policies.

Clause 3 is entitled "Monitoring and reporting", and it is important that meaningful monitoring and reporting takes place, but I question whether this proposal will genuinely monitor the effectiveness of the Bill. It is not clear where accountability lies.

Clause 4 is entitled "Co-operation with other bodies". Again, there is a vagueness, and it is unclear what it intends to achieve.

In conclusion, we support the Bill in principle but feel that it should be strengthened before it is enacted. If done correctly, we believe that the Bill will be a very important document to ensure the equitable treatment of rural areas, subject to correct classification of "rural" for each specific circumstance and an acknowledgement that one size does not fit all.

Mr Michael Clarke (Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association): Chair and members, thanks for having us. A lot of what Ian has said is going to be more or less reciprocated. We welcome the Rural Needs Bill being put on statute. We congratulate the Minister on driving it under the present mandate, and, while there are no powers of sanction, the fact that there is legislation will keep the needs of rural people to the forefront when policies and strategies are being developed by Departments and local councils. It is an opportune time with the evolution of the new councils and the plans for the future, with DARD having a lead role. It has a duty to advise, guide and inform but not to act as a watchdog. We hope that adequate resources will be made available to implement the actions that need to be taken.

Mr Jim Carmichael (Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association): As Mickey said, this has taken some time to get this far. Again, I will reiterate what Ian said. When I looked at the Bill, I saw that it is really about advice and guidance. At the end of the day, the question will be whether or not the Bill has teeth. Mickey talked about there being no sanctions. I have read through the report of when DARD was here and was questioned by the Committee about various aspects of this. Really and truly, we hope that the Bill being on statute will draw it more to the forefront so that, as Ian said, it is not an add-on but is something to be discussed before any proposals or policies are formulated. It has to be dealt with in that way. I talked about the Bill having teeth, but it does not give it any more power because, if you want to have sanctions or if somebody wants to talk about the Bill, they still have to go through the ombudsman and, if you like, go for judicial review. From that point of view, we are hopeful that its being on statute will bring it to the forefront.

Michael talked about DARD not having the role of watchdog. It is about guidance and information. We talked about the new councils and the impact of the change on them. We also looked through the actions proposed by the rural White Paper. There must be cooperation between Departments. Quite often, we feel that better cooperation between Departments should be considered, and we have mentioned it in the document. At the present time, we are talking about farming families and rural families. Given the way agriculture is going at the minute, there are discussions in that document about guidance on support, benefits and so on for farm families. At the minute, in a lot of cases, incomes are so low that farm families might have to resort to benefits. A lot of them will have to; there is no doubt about that. We need to get more than one body working together. In other words, DETI and DARD might work together or DARD and DHSSPS might work together. We need people to come together initially and for them to not have to be forced to come together. As Ian said, the stakeholders should have a view. We read back about the inputs. A report will come out, and we will not know until a report starts coming back annually on this Bill what effect it will have. It will take some time before we know what impact, if any, it will have. At the end of the day, the report comes back to the Assembly. We would like to see stakeholders included in any discussions on future reports. That is it for the moment.

Ms Freda Magill (Ulster Farmers' Union): I will add a point about the guidance, advice and information. If Departments are to have rural needs group that gets together to discuss this at senior level, the group should also liaise with stakeholders for advice on the impact of policies. There is no other way that they can foresee what the impact of policies may be, unless they talk to the people on the receiving end. Farm families are among the main stakeholders. In deciding who the stakeholders are, it is important that everyone who lives in a rural area does not have an equal voice. Some live with a whole family and are dependent and fixed in position and have no other job elsewhere. Those who are commuting to work or more transitory rural dwellers may not be faced with the same impact as a result of these measures.

The other thing is that looking in advance at anything coming in, before measures are taken, is very important. I will leave people with one thing to think about: when universal credit comes in, it will be misery for the self-employed and absolutely impossible for farming families. They tend to get 87% of their income on one day of the year, and universal credit is one of the major issues. It will be a massive achievement if the Rural Needs Bill can look at that, help address it and possibly modify it for Northern Ireland. I would like to think that the Bill will be able to perform that type of function.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): That would certainly be important. I see where you are coming from. They may get a cheque once a year in relation to basic payment.

I was going to ask whether you thought, given that there is no enforcement role, the Bill has enough teeth. However, I think that you have answered that. I think that you do not believe that it does not have enough teeth. Is that your view?

Mr Carmichael: We have to wait and see, from that perspective. It has been worked on for a long time. More people are involved; all the Departments, and local councils. Sometimes Bills are in statute, but what happens if somebody does not cooperate with them? As I said before, DARD is the lead Department and it talks all about guidance, information and so on. However, that is as far as it goes. We will perhaps have to wait until the first reports come back to see what is actually going on in the area. As far as that is concerned, it will be newly in statute. We will have to see what response you get from the people who are making policies. OK, I called it "teeth", but it has no more teeth than it had before.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Clause 1 states that the provisions of the Bill will apply to central and local government immediately. It is anticipated that the provisions of the Bill will be extended to non-departmental public bodies such as Translink and Libraries NI. What is your opinion on the deferral of the non-departmental public bodies? Do you think that they should be included in the Bill? They are not included in the Bill, but it seems to me that it may be extended to them in the future. Have any of you a view on that?

Mr Carmichael: It says in the documentation that they are not in the Bill but can be brought into it. That may be quite difficult because those are non-governmental bodies. From a rural dwellers' perspective, we would like to think that the more that they are not included in the Bill, they will take note of exactly what is there for other bodies. Again, we are back to whether or not there are teeth or not. We can see who is in the Bill and if there is a need there, because it does say somewhere that some of these can be brought into it again. So I think that we have to wait and see about that too. I do not know, Ian.

Mr Marshall: I agree totally with Jim. Our overriding concern with the Bill is that if we try to be too vague and oversimplify what "rural" is, it will not complement but damage it. We represent, in the majority, farming families and people who live and work in the countryside. We need to get this right — our classification of what "rural" effectively is. There are a lot of people who live in a rural environment but who are very loosely connected with the responsibilities that we have. It is about getting the classification of what "rural" is correct and about being aware that "rural" in one circumstance will be different from what it is in another. It has to be specific to whatever discussion is going on at the time.

Mr McMullan: Thank you for your presentations. What do you feel will be the role of the local councils in all this?

Mr Marshall: The councils have in-depth local knowledge and, very often, they have another level of understanding of what the classification of "rural" means in a specific location, either for the group of people who are in that area or for the disadvantages that that area has. Councils have a role to play in that because they have knowledge on the ground.

Mr McMullan: The councils could, sometimes, be the lead in all this.

Mr Carmichael: They are developing strategic plans as well. It was an apt time for this to come in under the new councils; they get all this on board when they are developing those plans. Planning is at a local level now; we talked about transport, but planning comes into this as well. That is, if you like, part of the councils' strategic view, because we are talking about people who live there already, as well as people who want to live there. It is about planning in relation to farms; we are talking about improvement schemes for farms. All of that comes under planning. There is quite a lot that comes under local government that has to be considered. As far as I am concerned, the councils will have, perhaps, a bigger role, because it is the day-to-day stuff that will be impacting there.

Mr McMullan: You touched on the whole question of "rural" in your presentations. That has always been a bone of contention. What is "rural" and who is a rural dweller? I told a story earlier about my time on the then Moyle District Council, when we gave discounts for people parking their boats in the marina. We were giving a discount to locals, and then the row started about who was a local. We ended up defining a local as a ratepayer. Is that a fair analogy for defining a rural dweller? Would a rural dweller be a ratepayer, even though they could be transiting in and out while people such as you are there all the time?

Mr M Clarke: Although, by and large, we represent farmers, we agree that people who live in rural areas are part of the fabric of those areas and they keep it alive. They may not be farmers at all. Unfortunately, the way things are going, farmers will become fewer because of the magnitude and scale of intensive farming, which might not necessarily be the best way forward. Unfortunately, that is the way it is going. Some people may have discontinued farming, but we would prefer that they still live in a rural area and that more people come to live in rural areas. You have only to look at some parts of Ireland, such as the west of Ireland. People are moving away from it and shops, post offices and basic services are closing. That is the fear here.

You asked about the councils. Sometimes, rightly or wrongly, councils are accused of focusing more on urban areas. As Ian and Jim said, the councils know their rural areas and local areas, and maybe the powers-that-be should be bringing that focus to what is needed.

Mr McMullan: We also talked about the Housing Executive, for example. A lot of young people are moving out of country areas because of a lack of housing. That is another big thing. I looked at figures yesterday and, in the last financial year, just over 2,000 social houses were built. Of that figure, in the whole of the North of Ireland, only 190 were built in rural areas. Only 6% of the total built in the last financial year were in rural areas, so you have a problem there as well.

Mr Carmichael: Where the documentation refers to rural versus urban, it talks about areas of population of 4,500 and things like that. They come on to areas of population, as opposed to distribution of population. To add to what Michael and Ian said, you also have extended families, because most of the people we represent have families that are not active on the farm but are rural and want to stay there. There is a lot more to it. I support fully what Ian said. There has to be a lot of consideration given to different aspects of "rural", not just being pigeonholed and left at that. You cannot do that.

Mr McMullan: That is an interesting thing that you bring up. In the rural development programme, the areas that could benefit included urban areas, simply because of their postcodes. Deprivation levels are sometimes higher in urban areas than in rural areas. There is that balance; you are quite right. I maintain that the Noble indices need to be overhauled.

Ms Magill: If we can get rural proofing — I will call it that at this stage — implemented and effective, the idea of population shift from rural to urban will be minimised because rural will be more acceptable and feasible as a place for people to live and function. That is the whole purpose of this.

Mr McMullan: At the same time, it is well known that it costs money to live in the countryside as opposed to urban areas. That is where this will, hopefully —

Ms Magill: Will even things out a bit.

Mr McMullan: Even things out.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I was going to ask what you hoped the Bill will achieve once it becomes law, but Freda more or less touched on that. Does anyone else want to ask a question?

Mr Marshall: There is an analogy that we could draw between what is contained in this and some of the stuff that we deal with. Very often when we talk to telecom or communications companies about rural broadband coverage, they will give you figures about the level of coverage in a region. Very often you look at that and think, "Goodness, Northern Ireland is not all that bad. We've fairly good coverage". However, in a rural context it is appalling. We need to be mindful that sometimes figures can deceive, as in not being a reflection of reality, because we all represent rural areas.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I have people outside one village. There was a fibre optic box in the village, and they were only one mile from it, but it was diabolical.

Mr Carmichael: One of the actions in the 2013-14 review was that by 2015 we would have the best broadband in Europe, never mind anything else.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): That might be in the centre of Belfast.

Mr Carmichael: There is a lot of chat in this about developing broadband. In agriculture, as with other things, there is demand for returns online for an awful lot of stuff. That cannot be delivered properly, efficiently or maybe at all in a lot of areas. That is one of the joined-up things as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): The Department of Agriculture is pushing for 100% online in a short time.

Ms Magill: That is not feasible. It is so difficult for people to find someone even to do their VAT and submit it. That is most unfair, because you should not have to pay in order to fulfil your statutory duty with a simple thing like VAT returns. If that extends to all the other information things, some people will be so disadvantaged that they may be breaking the law.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Let us hope that the Bill makes a difference. Thank you very much again.