Northern Ireland Assembly, 11 September 2000

309 contributions from 65 members. The official report.

Appointment of Ministers

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to inform the House that Mr Gregory Campbell has been appointed Minister for Regional Development on the resignation of Mr Peter Robinson MP, and that Mr Maurice Morrow has been appointed Minister for Social Development on the resignation of Mr Nigel Dodds. These appointments were made under the provisions of section 18 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and became effective on 27 July 2000.

Assembly: Committee of the Centre (Chairmanship)

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I further inform the House that Mr Edwin Poots has been appointed Chairman of the Committee of the Centre.

Royal Irish Regiment: Sierra Leone Hostages

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

As the House is aware, the headquarters of the Royal Irish Regiment is in the North Antrim constituency. I am sure that the residents not only there but in the whole of Northern Ireland will want to express their gratitude to Almighty God for an answer to their prayers and the deliverance of those who were held captive as hostages.

We also wish to pay tribute to the member of the British Army who lost his life while helping to save the lives of these young men. To their families and friends we wish to express our great relief that they are now free. Getting the hostages out without further bloodshed is something of which the British Army can be proud.

Legislation Programme

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

With permission, Mr Speaker, the Deputy First Minister and I will make a statement about the legislative priorities of the Executive Committee for the Assembly session from September 2000 until July 2001. In making this statement we will have to be sketchy about the content of some of the measures, but we feel that it is desirable to give Members as much notice as possible about the subjects that are likely to come forward over the course of this session.

I should like to begin by updating the legislative proposals announced in the Assembly on 31 January. At that time we set out a programme of some 12 Bills to be introduced in the initial session, with a further six being brought forward later. Of the initial 12 items of primary legislation announced, three have been made. These Equality (Disability etc.) Order and an Appropriation Order, both of which were made by Order in Council at Westminster during the suspension of the Assembly, having been initiated here. The third was an Appropriation Bill which, as Members will know, was made by Assembly Bill before the summer recess and received Royal Assent on 25 July. A further four Bills were introduced to the Assembly in June, namely the Ground Rents Bill, a Weights and Measures Bill, a Dogs (Amendment) Bill and a Fisheries Bill. These are now at various stages of the Assembly process, and approval was given by the Assembly on 3 July to carry them forward into the new session.

Of the five remaining Bills announced in the initial programme, two represent parity measures, and their timing was dependent on the progress of corresponding Bills before Parliament at Westminster. These are a Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill and a Health and Personal Social Services Bill. The Great Britain legislation was completed on 28 July, after the Assembly recess, and both Northern Ireland Bills are now being finalised for introduction at the end of this month. A further two Bills — the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill and the Street Trading Bill — are at an advanced stage of drafting for introduction by October. The final Bill in this group — a Trustees Bill — was deferred pending further legislation at Westminster. It is now hoped that this will be introduced before Christmas.

I shall now move on to the Executive Committee’s further legislative proposals for the current session.

In addition to the Bills I have already mentioned, the Executive has identified a further 21 proposals for legislation at this time.

I shall start with Appropriation Bills. Depending on the position with autumn supplementary requirements, an Appropriation Bill may be required in late October. Thereafter, two Appropriation Bills will be needed, one to deal with the spring Supplementary Estimates in February, while the second, setting the Main Estimates, will be introduced in May.

In addition, it is intended to bring forward four other Bills relating to Finance and Personnel matters in this session.

The first is a Resource Accounting and Budgeting Bill to implement resource accounting and budgeting in Northern Ireland from the new financial year.

The second is a Defective Premises (Landlords) Bill. This would implement reforms recommended by the Law Reform Advisory Committee in relation to a landlord’s liability to repair defective premises that he owns. Under the current law, landlords have certain immunities from this liability.

The third Bill is a Family Law Bill, which would facilitate the acquisition of parental responsibility for unmarried fathers and modernise the law on scientific tests to determine parentage.

Finally, the Audit (Transfer of Staff) Bill is to enable the transfer of staff from the Health Service and local government audit to the employment of the Northern Ireland Audit Office. The purpose of this would be to enhance the independence of the audit function.

On agriculture matters a Foyle Fisheries Act 1952 (Amendment) Bill will be brought forward. The main purpose of this Bill will be to amend the Foyle Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1952 to enhance the functions of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission in line with the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Order (Northern Ireland) 1999. These new functions would relate to the promotion and development of Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough, and the development and licensing of aquaculture in the loughs. The Bill must proceed in parallel with corresponding legislation in the South. It was originally intended as a composite measure along with that dealing with the regulation of shellfish. However, owing to time constraints, it was decided to separate the two elements and take the latter forward in the Bill currently before the Assembly.

The Deputy First Minister will deal with the other Bills.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

A number of Bills are proposed in relation to Department of the Environment matters.

A Local Government (Best Values) Bill will remove existing statutory provision for the compulsory competitive tendering of specified council services and replace it with a new duty on councils to achieve best value in the delivery of all of their services.

A Local Government (Finance) Bill will introduce a new methodology for the distribution of the resources element of General Exchequer grant to district councils. The new methodology will address the complex nature of the current formula and also provide for regular payments to facilitate good financial planning by district councils. It will also incorporate factors into the calculation that will take account of relative socio-economic disadvantage between districts in accordance with New TSN principles.

A Game (Amendment) Bill will be brought forward to amend the partridge-shooting season. There will also be a Dangerous Wild Animals Bill to regulate dangerous wild animals kept in private collections in Northern Ireland to ensure the safety of the public through a licensing scheme and the facilitating of processes of appraisal, appeal, inspection and seizure.

There is a need for planning legislation, which will include proposals to clarify and strengthen development control and enforcement powers; give primacy to development plans in the determination of planning applications; and amend the working practices of the Planning Appeals Commission.

A number of Bills are also planned to do with Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety matters.

First, a Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill will place the current Pre-Employment Consultancy Service (PECS) on a statutory basis and widen its remit to include vulnerable adults in certain settings. Placing the existing scheme on a statutory basis will allow it to become part of a UK-wide scheme to provide safeguards for children and ensure that details of those deemed unsuitable to work with children can be exchanged between jurisdictions.

A Carers and Disabled Children Bill will provide legislation to facilitate trusts in the provision of carer assessments, including extending to the carer choice in the sourcing of care provision following assessment.

A Children Leaving Care Bill will help to improve the life chances of young people aged 16 and over who have been looked after by health and social services trusts as they move from care to independent living. It will change the financial regime for supporting these young people and involve changes to the social security benefits system.

Also, a further Health and Personal Social Services Bill is planned to put in place a framework for the setting of explicit standards and guidelines for health and personal social services.

From the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister an Electronic Communications Bill will be brought forward to enable Northern Ireland Departments to amend legislation to facilitate the use of electronic signatures and electronic data as described in the UK-wide Electronic Communications Act 2000.

The Minister for Social Development has plans to bring forward a Housing Bill, which will include new arrangements for housing regulation.

The Minister for Regional Development is considering three pieces of legislation dealing with transport matters, including possible travel concessions, the development of public/private partnership to improve bus and rail services, road user charging, workplace car park levies and a new legislative framework to support modern and safe rail travel.

Before any legislation is brought to the Assembly, Executive Committee approval of the policy and draft Bill is required. The policy issues associated with the legislative proposals from the Ministers for Regional and Social Development will have to be carefully considered by the Executive Committee. Unfortunately, if those Ministers continue to absent themselves from the Executive Committee meetings, the full exploration of the policy issues becomes more difficult.

Our priority, however, is to provide good government for all people in Northern Ireland, and these Bills will be incorporated into the legislative programme if the Executive Committee is content with the detail of what is proposed.

Finally, this programme represents the legislative needs identified by the Executive Committee at this stage; it is not an exhaustive list. During the year, Ministers may, and probably will, wish to bring forward other policy initiatives, particularly those associated with the Programme for Government that require legislative authority. In the coming months, consultation documents will be issued and views taken on a number of further initiatives. The legislative programme, as set out, constitutes the current priorities, but it is possible that one or more pieces of legislation may not come forward. It is also possible that additional legislative proposals could be brought forward to the Assembly in the current session. For example, in this latter category the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has reported the possible need for legislation arising from the current review of industrial development agencies.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the statement from the First and Deputy First Ministers on their legislative programme, which contains a number of measures that I think will be of benefit. However, I am concerned that the Game (Amendment) Bill will be brought forward to amend the partridge-shooting season. This matter was brought to the attention of the Environment Committee in July. A consultation paper has been issued, and I believe that responses are due by 20 September. I have responded to the consultation paper to the effect that I am not persuaded of the need for this change. Therefore I am very concerned, as the consulation period has not yet ended, that this statement says that a Bill will be brought forward. I trust that whether a Bill is brought forward, and what it might contain, will be decided upon in the light of the outcome of the consultation process.

On transport matters, I welcome the idea that a Bill may be brought forward to develop public and private partnerships to improve bus and rail services. Can the First and Deputy First Ministers reassure the House that no decisions will be made on the closure of railway lines until every avenue has been explored for financing and improving the services? It is essential that the opportunity to mobilise private finance be made available before any such decision is taken.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members have returned from the recess, and I urge them to return to the good habit of ensuring that questions are actually questions rather than statements — although, inevitably, some expressions of view will form part of them.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Mr Speaker, you have referred to the ingenuity of the hon Member in drawing attention to the possibility of financing railways through public private partnerships, and no doubt that will be considered. I am not in a position to comment on the Member’s question with regard to a Railways Bill. All we are saying at this stage is that we have received a request from the appropriate Department to include provision for legislation on those transport matters. We are not in a position to comment on what policy matters might be contained within that or the particular policy choices to which the Member refers. Obviously, these will have to be discussed, and my Colleague the Deputy First Minister has drawn attention to the difficulties we have in discussing them given the non-participation of the relevant Minister.

With regard to the Game (Amendment) Bill, I would like to reassure the Member about the language that was used. From a timetable point of view —and it is necessary to attempt some timetabling of the legislation — we have looked at where legislation on game matters might come in.

Where it might come in terms of timetable is not intended in any way to preclude the consideration that will occur in Committee. It is perfectly open for the Committee, and the Department in consultation with the Committee, to look at the proposals and to change them or, indeed, to decide to withdraw the legislation. We did give a general warning at the end of the statement that this timetable was not set in stone, and the particular matters to which the hon Member has referred are part of the reason for that.

Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill. I do not have to remind the Assembly of the unfortunate history we have in Northern Ireland of the abuse of children and vulnerable adults. Will the Deputy First Minister explain some of the steps in this Bill, and will he also give some consideration to the scheme so that we can work with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that abuse of children and vulnerable adults does not happen there?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

The aim of the Bill, in broad terms, is to provide safeguards for children and vulnerable adults by putting systems in place for checking the suitability of persons seeking to work with them. They will be operated by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on the basis of the information provided by those seeking to work with children and adults with a learning disability.

Checks will be carried out, including checks against criminal records, records held on those banned from working in schools and the PECS register. The register is compiled from information provided by statutory and voluntary organisations in relation to workers who have been dismissed or transferred in circumstances in which it is considered that they do pose a threat to children or vulnerable adults with a learning disability. The decision to place the name on the register is made by the Department in consultation with the Social Services Inspectorate.

The system is in advance of that in any other part of the United Kingdom but has no statutory basis. Placing the existing system on a statutory basis would allow it to become part of a wide scheme to improve safeguards for children and ensure that details of those deemed unsuitable to work with children could be exchanged between jurisdictions. That would apply also to the Republic of Ireland. On an island such as this it is absolutely essential that that information be available to both Governments.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

In a previous statement the First and Deputy First Ministers told us that the Executive agree that we need to do more for the long-suffering agriculture industry. What is in this programme to benefit agriculture? We have one Bill that is tied in with the South of Ireland. Do the Ministers realise the perilous state of the agriculture industry at the present time? I call their attention to an extract from the statement. It says

"There is need for planning legislation which would include proposals to clarify and strengthen development control and enforcement powers".

Are they going to take a realistic view and relax planning control on farm land so that farmers can gain something from their property? I draw their attention to the Agriculture Committee’s recommendation. Is the Department of the Environment going to take steps to do something with regard to that?

With regard to Ministers not attending the Executive, the Ministers of the DUP are doing exactly what the First Minister said he would do. He said that if there was no decommissioning he would not be sitting down with IRA/Sinn Féin. They are keeping their word to the electorate, and in a few days’ time the electorate of South Antrim will have an opportunity to decide on this issue.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The first two points made by the Member related to agricultural matters, although one was disguised — it is a planning matter. The Member is aware that the bulk of policy and other matters relating to agriculture are determined by Europe. This is a European matter. The scope for local initiatives is limited. Nonetheless, as the Member knows, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is engaged in developing a vision for the future of agriculture in Northern Ireland. It is aware of the challenges and is trying, within the limited scope there is for local discretion, to develop a view for the future of agriculture. We are aware of the extent of the crisis facing agriculture at the moment, and need to work out a clear future for it — something which goes beyond a "quick fix" or simply injects a little bit money on a one-off basis into some farms, but not into others. We need to establish a vision for the future.

All the changes that are taking place, both inside and outside the European Community, affect this industry. The planning matters referred to are obviously important in themselves. The Member will agree that there is a clear need to review the planning service so that it becomes more effective and takes decisions more speedily. These measures may achieve that aim. The relevant Minister will go into greater detail on this.

Finally, I noticed that the hon Member said that his party was sticking to its pledges by refusing to sit down with Sinn Féin. I also noticed comments in the media today about publicity in Committees. I hope that it will be possible, through the greater publicity that is to be given to Committee meetings, for the people of Northern Ireland to see that the Member in question is sitting down with Sinn Féin each day but coming to this Chamber and pretending otherwise.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. We need to proceed with questions on the statement.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order. Is it right for the fudged First Minister to mislead this House deliberately? [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I said that we were not sitting on the Executive. He can take that grin off his face because he knows that he is going to get his come-uppances very shortly.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I must ask the Member to resume his seat. It has become practice to ask if it is in order for others to mislead the House, and that is rarely a point of order.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. When working with our DUP colleagues on the Standing Orders and the Statutory Committees, we find that they do not behave in this way. Normally it is fairly businesslike.

I thank the First and the Deputy First Ministers for their statement. I am drawn to the section which deals with the semi-detached Ministers for Regional and Social Development. I hope that in their consideration of how this affects the legislative process there will be an examination of how they fulfil the Pledge of Office. Even in the context of the current crisis in the Department for Regional Development, the Minister concerned is not prepared to meet with members of my party.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I have been reasonably generous in trying to identify at which point a Member’s oration relates to the statement by the First and the Deputy First Ministers. As yet I have not quite identified that point in this oration. I ask the Member to address himself to that.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I am dealing with the final page of the statement, which refers to those Ministers who continue to absent themselves. I hope that we will get specific proposals from the First and the Deputy First Ministers about how this will be dealt with.

My primary point — and I would like an answer to this from the First Minister — is that the statement continually refers to the parallel legislation being developed at Westminster which has consequences here.

In the final section of his statement the First Minister indicated that this is not an exhaustive list and that Ministers may wish to bring forward other policy initiatives. Can he provide an assurance at this stage that the local government elections, which are scheduled for May of next year, will proceed at that time, and that we will not have a late ministerial initiative on that issue.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the hon Member for a question which is not entirely related to the legislative programme. As I understand it, the hon Member is seeking an opinion on something which does not appear on the legislative programme, and the reason it does not appear on the legislative programme is that it is not within the competency of this Administration to put it there. Although I would love to be in a position to answer the question, I would be foolhardy even to attempt to make a guess at what might be included in any arrangements for a hypothetical case such as this, if it ever ceased to be hypothetical.

In terms of the hon Member’s previous point it is quite true. I make this appeal and put it on record again: having an Administration of our own in Northern Ireland is something worth nurturing. To have it on the basis of a four-part coalition is very difficult indeed. It is made more difficult when we do not have the opportunity to develop the corporate responsibility that we owe to the people of Northern Ireland and that collectivism which will eventually make it a very fine Administration. The sooner we are all in a position to concentrate our efforts in a collective way, the better this Administration will be.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

My first comment is to express a degree of disappointment that the majority of the Bills being brought before us today appear to be rather slavishly following legislation from another place. I hope that we will soon reach the day when our own stamp of individuality can be placed on the legislative programme. The people will cherish the Northern Ireland Assembly when they see that it is doing things to their advantage. That has been lacking so far. I seek an assurance from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, particularly in relation to the Appropriation Bills and the Estimates for the financial cycle, that we will have a proper amount of time and information to enable, for example, the Finance and Personnel Committee to fulfil its scrutiny role. The honeymoon period — if I may put it that way — should be seen to be over.

On the question of local government Bills — and again this mirrors to a degree Mr Mallon’s comments — it strikes me that we are continuing to tinker with local government. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that a more radical overhaul of local government is required. I do not believe that with a Northern Ireland Assembly with legislative powers we can continue to justify 26 local authorities and, in particular, the Local Government Finance Bill, which is looking at the resource element of the General Exchequer grant. Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Ministers agree that this is effectively trying to make councils which are non-viable, viable at the expense of the rates? That is not the proper way to go about it. Do they also agree that the question of the new duty on councils to achieve best value — the move from compulsory competitive tendering to best value — is nothing but another layer of bureaucracy for hard-pressed council officials to cope with? It has been demonstrated clearly over the years that local government does operate efficiently in Northern Ireland. Up until now, the question mark would have to be placed on the Department. One has only to look at the measure of efficiency being demonstrated by the rate of increases in district rates and compare that with the rate of increase in regional rates to see where efficiency and best value are coming from.

I welcome the comments of the First and Deputy First Ministers on that aspect.

To be slightly frivolous, I note that the Game (Amendment) Bill is to extend the shooting season. I find it rather ironic that we are attempting to extend shooting seasons when we are all trying to bring about the completion of decommissioning in order to eliminate any shooting here. Am I not also correct that the grey partridge in Northern Ireland is extinct? Is the extra month of shooting to give the shooters a possibility of finding this poor extinct bird rather than for any other reason, such as an increase in finance?

The proposed amendments in planning —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. There is a limit of one hour for questions. We not only have to share power; we also have to share time to ensure that Members get an opportunity to put questions and that Ministers get an opportunity to respond. I call now on the First Minister to respond.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

First, I will deal with the Member’s fifth and sixth questions. He referred to them as "frivolous". I do not agree that trying to persuade people to use firearms only for entirely legal purposes is frivolous. That purpose is a very serious one. One must not confuse the legal use of firearms, as in this context, with the illegal use of firearms that we want to see ended completely.

With regard to the Member’s question about the grey partridge, I have to confess that I have no knowledge of that at all. It is a closed book to me, and I shall refer that to the Minister responsible. I cannot answer the question.

On the first point that the Member made about his being disappointed about the measures that are being brought forward, he himself does appreciate that until we reach the point of evolving a programme for government and the Administration starts to sort out its collective priorities and policies, there will not be any exciting new measures. At first sight these might appear to be mundane matters. Policies cannot really be made independently on a departmental basis. There are many ramifications, and many policies involve a range of Departments. I said that at first sight the business may not look very exciting. However, there are important things here. What we are doing in some of these matters is repairing the neglect that stemmed from direct rule.

To illustrate that neglect, I will take the measure that the Member referred to: the Dangerous Wild Animals Bill. It may not be a huge problem, but it is a serious problem that has been raised in this Chamber before. The legislation coming forward mirrors GB legislation, enacted in 1976. Because of the neglect that we encountered under direct rule, that legislation, which deals with an important matter, does not apply here.

One could have gone exhaustively through the statute book and found scores of matters that have been enacted in England and Wales or for Great Britain generally which have not been paralleled here. As a result of that, our statute book is in a bit of a mess. And much of that is a result of accumulated neglect over quite a time. It is not all due to direct rule, but most of it is. One of the things that devolution enables us to do is start to tackle that problem. It may not be terribly spectacular, but it is important.

I agree in general terms with the comments about appropriation, the Finance and Personnel Committee and procedures. However, they are subject to the unique problems of a particular timetable that has to be met, and we are still running to try to catch up. We have a very tight timetable to meet for the initial stages of the Programme for Government, and that has to tie in with the budgetary exercise, which also has timetables to meet. I know that the honeymoon period cannot run indefinitely, and we do appreciate the tolerance, good sense and co-operation that the Finance and Personnel Committee has shown in dealing with the problems that arise.

The hon Member then referred to local government generally. He raised a number of points about the viability of councils. There are major issues which we hope to tackle, to a certain extent, through a review of public administration. We hope to bring forward some proposals about the structure and range of that review soon. The hon Member’s comments were based on an assumption of what the outcome of that review might be. It is not appropriate for me to follow on from that. He was doubting the viability of some councils and was critical of how we operate. He was also critical of any changes in local government functions. Those are valid points, but not ones that I can address in these circumstances.

In Northern Ireland a consultation exercise on best value was initiated in December 1997. I am told that it revealed cross-council support for the introduction of best value in Northern Ireland. Consequently a decision was taken to implement the new policy on a voluntary basis, working in partnership with district councils in advance of primary legislation. New primary legislation is now needed to make provision for the repeal of compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) as further deferral is not a viable option. The measure is intended to help councils, not to add an extra layer of bureaucracy.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

We welcome the recognition of the need for amendment to the planning legislation, including proposals to clarify and strengthen development control and enforcement powers. This would give primacy to development plans in the determination of planning applications. I also understand what Dr Paisley said about the need to relax planning controls on farmland. Will this amendment strengthen planning controls in urban areas? I am sure that the First and Deputy First Ministers recognise that there is serious concern in certain areas about unfettered development. Does this planning legislation intend to strengthen control in urban areas and put a stop to unfettered development?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I agree with Ms Morrice, but I cannot, by definition, put it in context. I also agree with Dr Paisley’s point on rural planning and how it applies, especially, to the farming community. I agree that planning can be part of the environmental blight in urban areas, just as much as a lack of planning is in other areas. At this stage it is not possible to say exactly what the Bill is going to do and what it is going to deal with.

Two key elements have been touched upon. One is to try to facilitate those who live off the land, to enable them to live on the land. That is very important. As someone who has represented rural areas for a long time, I have seen young people raised on a farm, working on it and then having to move to a Housing Executive house in a town five or 10 miles away. That is not good from a social point of view or from a planning point of view.

With regard to urban planning, spacial deprivation in parts of Belfast, and in almost all the bigger towns in the North of Ireland, must be looked at. That is a matter not just for the planners but also for us, as public representatives, and for other Departments. One can look at the linkage between violence, especially recently, and that type of spacial deprivation and see that certain questions have to be answered.

To refer to a point made by Assemblyman Close, there should be a review of planning in Northern Ireland, and planning priorities should be established. What was good enough for Milton Keynes for 30-odd years is not good enough for a Northern Ireland that has its own Administration, talents, creativity and a unique knowledge of its place and the people who live in it. If we proceeded to bring a new creativity into that, we could produce something that would be recognisable as being more in tune with life of North of Ireland than some of the regulations that we administer.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

As the Assembly Member who highlighted the lack of legislation governing dangerous wild animals in Northern Ireland I welcome the Bill to deal with this matter.

Under the paragraph dealing with a Local Government (Finance) Bill the statement mentions New TSN principles. I was dissatisfied with the proposed New TSN criteria governing economic development and higher and further education, training and employment. I am on the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, and the Committee and I made representations on that to the New TSN unit. Can the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister tell us when the new criteria for New TSN will be made public and when the consultation period will be over so that we can be satisfied that our concerns have been addressed?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

There is a reference in the Local Government (Finance) legislation to New TSN. New TSN is called "new" because it is intended to be better than the "old". One of the ways to make it better is to refine the criteria more precisely for identifying the areas concerned and for dealing in the best way with the spatial deprivation that has been mentioned. It is also important to ensure that the criteria are always objective and relevant, and we hope they will be.

These matters relate to the particular responsibilities of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and we intend to proceed with them, in the public arena, as quickly as possible.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I welcome the statement from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I particularly welcome the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill. The present legislation is in a mess, and any proposal that may help families to adopt a child whether from Romania or elsewhere is to be welcomed. However, in saying that, I am concerned about child trafficking, and I seek an assurance that the Bill will address that point.

With regard to the Health and Personal Social Services Bill, I would like to see social workers being able to secure qualifications which are necessary for standards.

I welcome the proposed repeal of the law on GP fundholding, but I, like many other people throughout Northern Ireland, am concerned about what will take its place in primary health care. I would like an assurance from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that there will be full and proper consultation on the future of primary care in Northern Ireland — on every aspect of primary care, from mental health, to the elderly, to children’s services.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

There are three parts to the Assemblyman’s questions. I am aware of the interest that Dr Hendron has in the matter of adoption, and I know how sensitive and difficult an area it is, but I know of nobody who is better equipped to give us information on this matter than he himself.

This Bill will make provision to give effect in Northern Ireland to the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption, concluded at the Hague on 29 May 1993, and make further provision in relation to adoptions with an international element.

It will make it an offence for anyone other than an adoption agency to assess the suitability of prospective adopters of children from overseas. Secondly, it will be an offence to bring a child into Northern Ireland for the purposes of adoption without satisfying certain conditions that will be prescribed in regulations.

This is an opportunity to pay tribute to those people who work in this ultra-sensitive area, and those who have had the courage to adopt — many of them late in life. Many people’s lives in this country and beyond have been changed by their great generosity.

In relation to the point about changes in primary care, and in the Health Service as a whole, reference was made to our lack of legislation that goes to the heart of many of the problems here. That is what we want to rectify in terms of health care. However, it can only be done after a remarkable amount of consultation. That consultation must take place. Much of it is statutory, and will take place with the relevant professionals. Much of it has to be done in the Assembly Committees as well. However, I agree that the sooner the Assembly gets its own substantive primary legislation on the table for health care, education, agriculture and planning, the sooner we will know that we are creating a new way of life for everyone here. That stems from a vibrant political process.

The sooner we get that primary legislation, the better for all of us — the better for the end results and the better for the political process.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome the proposal for the Social Development Department to bring forward a Housing Bill. This will be extremely important for the people of Northern Ireland, and I look forward to that legislation. I note that the First Minister has begun, as he has continued over the summer, by attacking DUP Ministers while praising Sinn Féin/IRA Ministers for their work. Will the First Minister take it from me that the DUP will continue to act in accordance with its electoral mandate and its electoral pledges? We, unlike — I was going to say "the party" — the half a party that he now leads, will not be breaking our election pledges.

He may do that, but does he not realise that his support for a policy of IRA/Sinn Féin’s inclusion in the Government is the primary reason for him now being in a minority position in Unionism — overwhelmingly in this Assembly, as illustrated by the last vote here? I would like to hear his comments on that.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I must encourage Members and Ministers not only to be as concise and relevant as possible but also to stick to questions on the statement itself. There is a danger of its being widened.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I simply commented on the fact that the First Minister had once again attacked DUP Ministers, while continuing to praise the performance of IRA/Sinn Féin Ministers. Does the First Minister accept that the reason he is in a minority is that he continues to break his pledges and that the Unionist people of Northern Ireland do not accept that IRA/Sinn Féin should be in the Government? That is why this statement today —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member is very aware of what is in the statement and what is not in the statement. Making comments on other matters is not addressing the statement on the legislative programme. The Member may take the view that what he is addressing should be in the statement, but it is not in the statement. If it is not in the statement, it is not a subject for a question.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The First Minister, along with the Deputy First Minister, without whom he does not make any statement or take any action in his capacity as First Minister, has decided to criticise the performance of DUP Ministers. Does he not realise that the reason he is in a minority on the Unionist benches is that he continues to break his pledges on the issue of decommissioning? If he wants to criticise DUP Ministers, as he has done in this statement today, why does he not have the courage to put a motion before the Assembly to vote them out of office? Let him stop huffing and puffing. Let him put up or shut up.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member’s only reference to my statement was a passing one at the outset to the housing proposal that has come forward from the Department for Social Development. As we said in the statement, until the Executive has had the opportunity of familiarising itself with the policy issues, it will be difficult for us to include the proposal in the programme. We had that difficulty because, while the Minister concerned, or the former Minister, is prepared to come along to this Chamber and make a lot of noise, generating a lot more heat than light, he is not prepared to shed any light on his proposals in the Executive, where it counts.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cupla ceist a chur.

I have two questions to put to the First and Deputy First Ministers. The first one relates to the issue which has just been debated. I find the statement ambiguous with regard to the policies and draft Bills coming from the DUP Ministers. What arrangements, if any, are in place for the scrutiny of such Bills in the Executive before they come before the Assembly?

I would like to put the second question to the First Minister in particular. The Deputy First Minister responded to Mitchel McLaughlin’s point about possible legislation to defer local government elections. I know that that is not within the remit of the Executive, but nevertheless the First Minister touched on the matter. He mentioned the desirability of holding discussions about a review of the administration of the Six Counties. Are such discussions taking place, and, if so, who is involved in them? The suggestion of a review of administration, including local government and whether local government elections now need to be postponed, affects all of us.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Assemblyman for his questions. He made reference to the previous question. I am not sure in which context. I repeat that until we have collectivity within the Executive we shall not be as able as possible to get the cohesion which is needed for major legislation.

Any piece of primary legislation has various stages. It has to be taken through the House and the Committee. It is a fairly arduous task. That point has to be reached, and I want to see this Administration at its strongest when it reaches that point. The policy memorandum that comes to the Executive with any proposed legislation is, by nature, a very short analysis of the policy upon which the legislation will be based. That is required by our regulations. Surely it is much better for a Minister to come to the Executive and say "Here is what my Department wants to do. Here are the objectives." It is that type of approach that surely goes to the heart of it all.

Finally, I will deal with the question, which is legitimate given the airing that it has been given, though I am not sure that it is relevant to the statement about the review of public services, including local government.

That is something that we all agreed prior to the setting up of the Administration. We should all remember the interminable meetings that took place. It was agreed that public services as a whole needed to be reviewed, including local government. It cannot be done quickly or on a scanty basis. There will have to be independent input, there will have to be an enormous range of consultation, and in my view there will have to be a deep consensus for it to work properly.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will not take the point of order until the Minister has finished speaking. [Interruption]

Order. There were many questions raised and even answers given.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

You ruled them out of order.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will take the point of order when the Minister has finished.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I believe that it will have to be dealt with by the political process in general. There is no quick fix. If it is going to be done, let it be done well.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Now the point of order from Dr Paisley.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I thought that this statement today was about how the Government were going to bring in their legislation. Now the Minister is digressing and going on about something that he thinks should be done and should be done well. Well, he is certainly not doing well today with this —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. That is an expression of the Member’s views and not a point of order.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I welcome this statement, but I seek clarification on the Foyle Fisheries Act 1952 (Amendment) Bill. The statement refers to the promotion and development of Loughs Foyle and Carlingford and the licensing of aquaculture in the loughs. Does that mean Lough Foyle or the Foyle system?

Mention has been made of a possible relaxation of planning requirements for housing in rural areas. I urge that any such amendments be not at odds with any efforts that are being made to encourage rural diversification. Planning regulations should not hinder such diversification as may be necessary.

On the penultimate page, reference is made to transport and possible travel concessions. Current investigations are tending to look at the contribution that local government could make to this. There needs to be some uniformity. We should have a uniform state of affairs throughout Northern Ireland and not be dependent on how individual local authorities are prepared to support such a system.

Finally, there is talk of a new legislative framework to support modern and safe rail travel. I support that, but I would give it much greater support if it simply referred to modern and safe travel throughout Northern Ireland. It is all very well to introduce legislative frameworks, but if there is insufficient financial backing, it could become a burden on those who have responsibility for delivering particular services. I hope that the legislative framework has financial backup.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member touched on four matters. First, with regard to Foyle fisheries, the existing legislation enacted in 1952 does not refer to Lough Foyle itself. My understanding is that the proposed legislation is intended to enhance the powers and functions of the Commission so that it can cover the Lough as well as the existing drainage base which feeds into the lough. Part of the reason for doing this is to enhance opportunities to develop aquaculture in Lough Foyle, which would be generally welcomed.

On the question of planning the legislation, it is hoped that when the Bill comes forward, it will strengthen the existing enforcement powers and streamline and clarify existing development control powers. That relates to the procedural aspect, rather than, as the Member said, to the policy that is then going to be dealt with. I hope that streamlining and clarifying control powers will also mean speedy decision making, which is clearly needed in this matter.

Reference was also made to a Railway Safety Bill, and a number of pertinent points were made by the Member about travel generally and the financing of it. As I understand it, we have very little information at the moment on the Railway Safety Bill, part of the object of which will be to update legislation which has remained unchanged in Northern Ireland for many decades. In recent decades, quite a bit of new legislation has come forward in Great Britain which has not been replicated here. While we do not yet have much information from the Department on the content of this proposed Bill, we are told that part of the objective is to update legislation and to introduce here measures that were introduced decades ago across the water.

Finally, the Member referred to travel concessions. He made a very pertinent point on the need for uniformity across Northern Ireland in matters of this nature. There is clearly a need for consistency, there is a need for coherence and there are policy issues behind such a proposal which have to be determined. Those policy issues have not yet been addressed, as far as I am aware, in the Executive, in Committee or in this Chamber, so it is not possible at this stage to make any comment about such legislation. The policy issues have not yet been addressed in a coherent and consistent manner as the Member would like.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I welcome the legislative programme. I want to home in on the public transport area and to pick up on the issue of free travel for pensioners. Pensioners want to see action from this Assembly. I know there is confusion about who would pay for this. There has been a pilot scheme involving Castlereagh and Newry councils in recent times. Pensioners want action. I urge the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make sure that there is a bilateral discussion with the Department for Regional Development to bring this about.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Assembly Member for his comments. I can assure him that pensioners have an abiding interest in this matter. It will be a developing interest as it progresses. The purpose of the Bill will be to introduce free public transport schemes for older people — men and women of 65 or over — and to enable district councils to contribute to the cost of these schemes. This is a Bill that I favour personally for many reasons, but mostly because of the rural nature of Ulster. Most people realise that it is a day’s work for people in rural areas, especially elderly people, to get to the nearest town because of the absence of the type of transport that there is in other places. It will be all the more welcome if this is developed in a way that allows elderly people to expand their interests and their lives. I understand that the Bill will enable councils to enter into agreements with the Department over contributions from the district rate to enable free travel schemes for older people to be administered. It will also enable district councils to enter into separate arrangements with transport operators to enable travel concessions for older people to be given. I welcome it and I think we all hope it proceeds quickly.

This is the type of good news that always comes out of an Administration at some point. We should value these good news stories because they apply to all of us, the entire political process. What we should not do with them is be even tempted to use them for party political reasons.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I welcome the inclusion of the Housing Bill in the legislative programme, and especially the fact that it will introduce regulatory functions for housing associations. We have been concerned that housing associations have fallen between two stools, with neither the housing associations branch nor the Housing Executive regulating them. There is some concern about the effectiveness of the services, which have been delivered by some of them in some places. I welcome clarification on the content of the Housing Bill.

I also note the attack that the Deputy First Minister made on the Ministers for Regional Development and Social Development in the penultimate paragraph of his statement. I thank him for his remarks because he has again demonstrated to the Assembly the First Minister’s inability to deal with facts. Can he reaffirm that DUP Ministers are not sitting in Government with Sinn Féin, as we pledged in our manifesto? Does he also agree that there are a number of Bills from both DUP Ministers in the legislative programme and that there is very firm evidence that they are doing their jobs in delivering services to people in Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that it is a bit rich that the Deputy First Minister to lecture anyone about abstention, given the record of his party over the last 30 years? It abstained from Stormont, periodically from councils, the Prior Assembly and the Police Authority, and, of course, the Deputy First Minister himself resigned about a year ago in a fit of pique. Is this another example of the hypocrisy of the SDLP, or, during the holidays, has the Deputy First Minister been down the road to Damascus on the question of abstention.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the Member’s comments about our being in a new beginning that is different from what happened in the past. I hope that he and his party will play a full part in that new beginning, rather than simply replicating past behaviour.

I heard a sedentary comment from a Member about things that happened in the past, which he disapproved of. Clearly, as far as other parties are concerned, those things are not happening now. That underlines the new beginning that we are representing.

On his substantive question, I was very interested in his reference to housing associations. Having been a member of a housing association, I am aware of the tremendous, positive contribution they have made to the provision of social housing and how important they might be in the future. I listened with interest to the Member’s indications that there would be measures relating to housing associations in the Bill. I cannot confirm whether that is the case. The limited briefing from the Department says that the Bill will provide, among other things, new arrangements for housing regulation, powers to provide serviced sites for travellers, discretionary grant schemes for private rented renewal and measures to deal with antisocial behaviour. The reference to the provision of new arrangements for housing regulation may well involve some reference to housing associations, but I cannot say if that is the case. The Member will have to pursue the matter elsewhere.

I went into detail on that matter because the claim that DUP Ministers are doing their jobs is slightly undermined by the fact that we are not being fully briefed on the content of this legislation. I am quoting from the material available to me. That is pertinent. I would be delighted to hear more about the legislation and that will happen if DUP Ministers do their jobs. Let us be clear about what is and what is not happening. Although DUP Ministers fail to attend Executive meetings, which are important, they go into their offices, sit behind their desks and are therefore part of the Government. They sit down in the Government with other people who are in the Administration, even if they continue to draw the entirely spurious distinction about who or who is not in the same room.

I wonder whether the DUP members who last Friday were sitting down in the Long Gallery with Sinn Fein recognised their presence there.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It is perfectly clear that this is not point of order but a toing and froing about this political matter.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Is it in order for the First Minister continually to attack DUP Ministers while keeping silent on the abuses of Sinn Fein/IRA?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member knows perfectly well that he has repeatedly used the term "attack". The Ministers have been responding to questions that have been raised. There is time for only one further question, and that will be from Carmel Hanna.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I welcome the proposed planning legislation. We need it urgently. I seek an assurance that we will have clear planning policies, not notes or vision statements, which will ensure sustainable development and give due weight to the views of the public and elected representatives and to the need for legislation to be enforced especially against unapproved development.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Unapproved development is something which has blighted Northern Ireland for a considerable time. You built and then you threw down a challenge to the planning service to enforce its legislation. And how often did it do that? That is almost the ethic that exists in the North of Ireland: build it and you will get away with it, because sooner or later the planning service will give in. This must be looked at very carefully. I welcome what Ms Hanna has said about planning, but I am not convinced that there is an adequate planning policy.

Planning policies are needed, because I am not sure that one policy can be properly applied throughout the North of Ireland and at the same time be adequate for the type of diversity that we have in employment terms, in environmental terms, and indeed in social terms. I make one last observation, which is crucial: the social element of planning has to be very carefully looked at, because it is that which is causing many problems for people who live in urban areas. They are becoming more obvious, and it is not enough just to import bright ideas for physical planning without applying them to the social needs of the area to which they are to relate. If we get that type of approach into planning, it will be less of an exercise and more of a construction between the community and the political process.

Assembly: Ad Hoc Committee on Flags Order 2000

Pauline Armitage (UUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you explain to the House why it is necessary to appoint a consultative Ad Hoc Committee to deal with the flying of the Union flag? I understood —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It would be inappropriate for the Speaker to explain the reasons for a motion. It is for the Member who moves the motion to explain the reasons for his so doing. I cannot accept the point of order.

Pauline Armitage (UUP, East Londonderry)

Well, may I finish what I was going to say so that you can understand it?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No. The situation is quite clear. Motions are moved on the proposal of a Member and the decision of the Business Committee. It is not for the Speaker to intervene.

Pauline Armitage (UUP, East Londonderry)

Thank you.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

This is a business motion about the establishment of a Committee, and I will not permit debate on the content of the issue that is involved. Only debate on the formation of the Committee may take place. There is an amendment on the Marshalled List.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the draft Regulations laid by the Secretary of State under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 and to submit a report to the Assembly by 16 October 2000.

Composition: UUP 2 SDLP 2 DUP 2 SF 2 Other parties 3

Quorum: The quorum shall be five.

Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine.

This is a technical procedure. Members will already have received a copy of the Flags (Northern Ireland) 2000 from the Secretary of State. We need to deal with this as quickly and as efficiently as possible. There are a number of major issues concerning accommodation for and servicing of the Committee, and we need to have the work completed quickly.

Some Members who will serve on this Committee will also serve in other places and may have to try to be in two or three places at once. For that reason — and I know that a counter-proposal has been made that the Committee should have 20 members — this Committee should have 11 members, in accordance with the motion.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move the following amendment standing in my name and that of Mr Ford: Delete from "Composition" to "five." and add

"Composition: UUP 4 SDLP 4 DUP 3 SF 3 Alliance 1 NIUP 1 UUAP 1 NIWC 1 PUP 1

Quorum: The quorum shall be eight."

The first point that we wish to make relates to the regulations under the Order. They are extremely important for the work of this Assembly and are, of course, extremely contentious. Many of us believe that it is a tragedy that we should have to debate the issue of the national flag’s flying over Government buildings in part of the United Kingdom. The reason we are having to debate this is that, in breach of the election manifestos of the First Minister’s party, Sinn Féin/IRA Ministers have been put into positions in the Government, with full executive responsibility. That is clearly where the blame lies for our having to have this debate.

So far as this Committee is concerned it is important that these issues be given the fullest possible consideration. In terms of its make-up, the amendment is based upon the previous make-up of the Ad Hoc Committee that was set up to deal with the future of the port of Belfast. We have a precedent for the make-up of an Ad Hoc Committee, and we should abide by that precedent.

Finally, there are practical considerations to be taken into account. On an issue such as this it will be extremely difficulty to ask the smaller parties somehow to find three representatives to sit on the Committee.

This is clearly an issue in which each of the parties will have its particular interest and point of view. It would therefore be invidious, if not impossible, to come to an arrangement whereby one party gave up its place in favour of another. Since this issue is so controversial and of such importance, and because of the precedent already established, I hope the House will support the amendment.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

A Ceann Comhairle, it is somewhat surprising that such a motion must come before the Assembly, for we understood that the issue was to be dealt with by the Executive. I am not aware that the Executive has concluded its deliberations. Nonetheless, we are being sent regulations by the Secretary of State, and I am sure we can all speculate on the political nature of their timing.

We would have supported the initial proposal by the SDLP that there be a smaller Committee, mainly because of the pressure on Assembly Members, time, rooms and staff, something outlined at recent meetings of the Business Committee. However, it would be somewhat akin to looking a gift horse in the mouth to refuse a proposal from Members from the DUP that our membership on such a Committee be increased. I therefore thank them for that kind offer.

I look forward to sitting down with them in the Committee to debate this issue. We shall approach it on the basis of what was quite clearly said about the new institutions’ flags in the Good Friday Agreement, and not on what follows from the agreement or what others try to interpret from or append to it. We look forward to the debate. We are not opposed to the DUP amendment, the effect of which will be to increase our membership on the Committee, which must be welcomed. Go raibh maith agat.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

This is not something added on to the agreement. It is in breach of the agreement that the flag is not flying.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

If the Member wishes to speak to the substance of the issue, but not to the substance of the Order itself, he may indicate his wish to be called. However, that is not a point of order. The Secretary of State has written to me asking the Assembly to express its views. The Business Committee has taken the matter forward.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

My party will not support the amendment or the initial proposal from the SDLP Member, Dr Alasdair McDonnell. The Northern Ireland Unionist Party will comprise a part neither of the Committee proposed by the SDLP nor of that proposed by Mr Dodds and Mr Ford. Our objection to participating in the Committees is based on the firm belief that sitting on a Committee, be it Executive, ad hoc or otherwise, is unacceptable now that this Assembly has moved from shadow to substance and includes two Ministers fronting a terrorist organisation, which continues to strike fear into the people of this Province. We shall not have any truck with Committees set up under the Belfast Agreement. My Colleague Ms Pauline Armitage is quite right.

At the time of the signing of the agreement, we were told by Mr David Trimble, the First Minister, and by Mr Ervine of the PUP that the issues of our constitutional position and the flying of flags had been resolved. I remember the PUP representative, who fronts a Protestant paramilitary organisation, leading a cavalcade of cars down the Shankill Road claiming victory for the people of Northern Ireland in their defence of the Union and saying the Union was now secure. It is a sad state of affairs that in Northern Ireland today we are talking about forming a Committee to discuss the flag of this nation and Northern Ireland’s position in the United Kingdom, a Committee which would include two members of Sinn Féin, an organisation still in armed conflict with this Province’s forces of law and order and, indeed, with ordinary, decent citizens — both Catholic and Protestant. The Northern Ireland Unionist Party will not participate, and I respectfully ask that my party’s name be removed.

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Can the Member confirm that his Colleague, Paddy Roche, sat on the Port of Belfast Committee?

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

I am quite prepared to deal with that question. I had hoped the Member would understand when I said that the moment the policy changed for the Northern Ireland Unionist Party was when the Assembly moved from shadow to substance — it no longer simply a place to voice one’s opinion. We now have in the Government, and in Committees, people who are armed and fully prepared to use violence.

12.00

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

The Democratic Unionist Party’s position is extremely hypocritical. It made the same pledge as Mr Trimble. [Interruption] Indeed, in Mr Robinson’s own election literature he showed a photograph of Mr Trimble —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It is clear that the Member who is on his feet does not wish to give way, and I would like to remind him to address his remarks through the Chair.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

I will finish by saying that if you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that howls the hardest is the one that has been hit. Mr Robinson’s election literature, like Mr Trimble’s, showed a photograph of Mr Trimble and Mr Adams with the caption "Who will share power with Sinn Féin in the New Northern Ireland Assembly?" Who would have believed that it would be Mr Robinson and Mr Dodds? This rotation of Assembly Ministers’ seats means absolutely nothing. [Interruption] They should do the honourable thing and resign. We will be opposing the formation of this Committee. The Union flag will fly in Northern Ireland —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It is only fair that all Members who rise to speak be heard with reasonable decorum.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The flag will fly in Northern Ireland, regardless of the House’s determination today. Its decision will stand, whether it agrees on the terms of the original motion or the amendment, because people —

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Chairman. As a result of your original ruling that this debate should not be on the flags issue but on the motion to set up a Committee, I had to temper my contribution. That ruling should apply to all Members.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am taking it that the Member is explaining why, despite being proposed for membership of this Committee, he and his Colleagues are not prepared to sit on it, even if it is established. I am not entirely clear whether that means they will vote for or against. I trust, however, that he is bringing his remarks to a close.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

The important identity of any nation is its flag, and I will finish by saying that the Union flag, the flag of this nation, will fly in Northern Ireland —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. At that point the Member has moved entirely over to the content of the consultations and away from the question of the motion. I must rule that that is out of order.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

I finish by saying it will fly as long as people like William Frazer —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member knows perfectly well that that is out of order.

Pauline Armitage (UUP, East Londonderry)

I am also surprised that this motion is before the House. I understood that in the Belfast Agreement Nationalists and Republicans accepted that Northern Ireland was, and would remain, part of the United Kingdom. If so, why are we now discussing the flying of the Union flag in this part of the United Kingdom? Obviously this is another mishap in the Belfast Agreement.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I would like to put on record that my party voted against this in the House of Commons. A country does nothing for its sovereignty by having to pass a law which allows its flag to be flown on certain occasions. The national flag should be honoured on all occasions.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I must again make it clear that this motion — and the Member referred to voting against this in another place — is not about the content or the piece of legislation. It is a purely business motion about the establishment of a Committee and the proportion of its members. This Committee, if it is established, will have to report to the Assembly, and Members will have the opportunity at that stage to debate the substance.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

When vicious attacks are made on a party in this House, and we have heard one just now, surely I am entitled to defend my party’s record on this issue. This piece of proposed legislation is disgraceful — totally and absolutely disgraceful.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member knows that he is straying on to the substance of the matter to be debated. There will be a time for that in the Committee and when it returns to the House, if the Assembly decides to proceed in that way. I cannot permit debate on the substance itself. Even defending the record of his party or of his colleagues is to stray from the specific proposal put forward by his party Colleague, Mr Dodds.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am trying to talk about why we should have a larger Committee. I am entitled to give reasons for that. This is what this debate is about. There is an amendment to the motion before the House, that was moved by my party and others who have associated with us, which would have the effect of making the Committee larger. I am surely allowed to give reasons for that.

This Committee should be larger because of the legislation it is going to discuss. This legislation is outrageous. Surely every Member in the House should have a say in this Committee. The Secretary of State —

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Member accept that a larger Committee will have more people of the Unionist persuasion on it and that that will reflect the balance of opinion in this country? It is to the benefit of Unionism to have a larger Committee.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Of course it is to the benefit of the Unionism, but the issue here is the Executive. We have been told by Sinn Féin, who sit on this Executive, which my party does not, that this was never dealt with. Why did they not deal with this matter? They did not deal with it because they knew perfectly well that they would not get agreement. Sinn Féin/IRA has already made decisions, which is why we are here today: Sinn Fein/IRA Ministers refuse to fly the flag, in keeping with law, on certain days.

We need a larger Committee — and I am coming back to this larger Committee, Sir, for I do not want you to pull your moustache off, Mr Speaker — because this Bill can get round the question that we are supposed to be dealing with, the flying of the Union flag. The Sinn Féin Ministers think that by declaring that there are no flagpoles on their buildings they can ensure that the Union flag cannot be flown. It is optional in this Bill, and this is a very serious matter. What is more —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Just in case my hon Friend runs out of time — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Gallery will be cleared if there is not immediate silence. [Interruption]

Order. Remove these people from the Gallery.

The sitting was suspended at 12.05 pm and resumed at 12.14 pm.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Members will resume their seats.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

rose.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Will my hon Friend give way?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Does not my hon Friend find the intemperate language used by the so-called leader of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party remarkable, considering one of his colleagues, Mr Paddy Roche, sat with Sinn Féin/IRA on a Committee dealing with the port of Belfast? It is all the more peculiar that he seems to suggest that Sinn Féin/IRA only became bad boys after devolution occurred. I do not know where he was before that. Is it not all the more remarkable considering that Members who are now in the NIUP sat on the Procedures Committee which set up these very Committees? They never objected to the presence of Sinn Féin and never said that they would not be on the Committees, yet they voted for everybody else to be on the Committees. Is that not sheer hypocrisy?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I leave it to the general public to make their own judgement on this matter. This issue is all-important. Already, because of the refusal of the Official Unionist Party to do its duty on the Executive, it has been brought to Mr Mandelson, brought to the House of Commons and brought here. This is another attempt to push Unionism down.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The issue that Mr Paisley refers to was brought before the Executive Committee. I was one of the people who raised the matter. It is not any fault of the Ulster Unionist Party.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Points of order have to be points of order. I assume that Members know what that means. Perhaps we are having difficulty getting back into things after the summer recess. If not, and if it becomes clear that Members press the point, I will be forced to ask Members to declare which Standing Order they are referring to. If Members wish to make political points, which is entirely justifiable, they should ask for the opportunity to speak.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

If the Minister brought up a matter in the Executive, that shows that it was not before the Executive. The First Minister did not bring this to the Executive, and the issue was not voted on. We are here today because of the failure of the Unionist Party to do its duty in this so-called Executive. We are setting up a Committee that is not representative of the people of Northern Ireland. Surely this Committee, given the importance of the issue, should be as representative as the Committee that dealt with the ports issue. This is more important than ports.

This motion should never have been needed. It is needed because the power of Mr Trimble ended when the two IRA/Sinn Féin Ministers rebelled and refused to fly the flag that should have been flying. Because they refused to fly the flag, we are going to have to deal with this matter. My party is not running away from the IRA or anybody else, but we will not sit down in any Executive to govern Northern Ireland with IRA/Sinn Féin. Our position is perfectly clear. Of course, we have sat on councils with IRA/Sinn Féin and fought them, and we have sat here and battled with them, and we will battle with them again.

This motion — I know that you do not want me to mention the contents, Mr Speaker — is a way for the two Sinn Féin Members to ensure that the Union flag will never fly on Government buildings. The head of state down below thinks that, without protocol, she can trip in and out of Northern Ireland. This motion will enable the tricolour to be flown on Government buildings. That is not an option, but the flag of this country is an option in this motion. Those are things we utterly detest. If people are interested, we should have the same type of Committee that we had for the ports.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Ceist ghasta. Will you clarify whether the DUP is prepared to sit on a Committee, even a large one, with Sinn Féin to discuss the future of the Union flag?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

We will be battling with them —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I have been asked for clarification on a point of order. I can only take from the content of the amendment which has come forward in respect of composition that most, if not all, parties are able to be represented, although, as we have heard, not all may necessarily choose to be represented.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The question was for the Member speaking.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Then it is not a point of order. Points of order may be raised only with myself. Of course, Dr Paisley may choose to respond as he brings his remarks to a close.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I have responded. Where Sinn Féin are, we will be battling with them. We will not take sides with them in their diabolical murder campaign in this Province.

Finally, why is this House, which is always boasting that we are all democrats, afraid of a Committee that represents the voters of Northern Ireland in a proper way? Why? Simply because the Official Unionists do not want united Unionist opposition to this disastrous and treacherous proposal.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

This is probably going to be one of the most difficult issues we face, and, Mr Speaker, your decision that we do not start the debate here but keep it for the Committee is appropriate. I stand in favour of the amendment because our party supports a more inclusive make-up of that Committee — the more inclusive the debate the better. We have already heard the diversity of opinion across the Chamber on this issue. It is useful, therefore, that if there are a number of parties who might have been left out of that debate the amendment allows for their inclusion.

This morning in the Long Gallery there was a very good launch of Women Together incorporating People Moving On. The title of the organisation suggests the kind of things that it wants this Assembly to address, and moving on is indeed what we must do. Difficult as this issue is, it is appropriate that the Secretary of State has referred it to the parties. They are the people who must ultimately decide this difficult issue.

The amendment does not refer to that part of the motion which states

"The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine."

Our party is in favour of that too.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Can you give an assurance, Mr Speaker, that, whatever this Committee reports, there will be a full debate on the Floor of the House and that adequate time will be provided for that debate? The Member mentioned something about having it in the Committee. This has to come back to the House, which must have a full and free debate. There are people who will not be on the Committee, and they must have their say on this issue.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I can confirm that in terms of the original motion, or indeed the motion as proposed to be amended, that the Assembly will have to receive a report by 16 October. It will be for the Business Committee to allocate time, and it would be out of order for me to determine matters which the Business Committee properly decides upon in advance of its making that decision.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

It seems that this debate, whether on the original motion or the amendment, has generated a great deal of heat and discussion about something which in the end is really pretty valueless. It is quite clear that any recommendation made by this Committee or the Assembly may be totally ignored by the Secretary of State. He will make his decision in accordance with what he deems to be expedient for British policy in relation to Northern Ireland.

The role of this Committee and the Assembly is of the merest consultative kind and carries no weight of any substance. Therefore whether it is a smaller or a larger Committee is of no great moment.

However, let me point out that neither original motion nor the amendment would result in the inclusion of a representative from the United Kingdom Unionist Party, even though members of that party numbered five when elected by the people of Northern Ireland and before a rather bizarre process of bifurcation, after which Mr Wilson constituted himself the head of a party that many people believed to be a figment of his imagination.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I must ask the Member, in making his point of order, to direct me to the paragraph in Standing Orders that it refers to.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

I suggest that Mr McCartney, UK Unionist Party, would like to take the seat that we refused to take. Is he supporting the DUP’s position?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. A point of order was raised, and I trust the Member wants to hear my ruling on it. It would be entirely out of order if such an amendment were passed, for the amendment as it stands refers to the NIUP and not to the UKUP. In any case, it is not in the gift — [Interruption]

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Perhaps the Member would wait until I have completed giving the ruling.

It would not be in the gift of the leader of the NIUP to appoint someone else to that Committee who was not a member of his party and who shows no indication of becoming a member of his party, even if he were minded to accept the generous offer. In fairness we should move on.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

You might consider it, Bob.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

It is a matter of some anxiety to note the number of utterly bogus points of order that are made in the Assembly. I have sympathy for you, Mr Speaker, in dealing with them. A masterclass for slow learners with regard to what constitutes a point of order should have featured in the legislation for the Assembly. We have just had a demonstration of one of the more bogus points of order that have plagued us since the beginning.

My party may consist of only myself within this House, but it certainly consists of a significant number of people outside compared to the numbers in some other parties who are on the schedule for participation in the Committee. I do regard it as a compliment that I have not been included in the original motion or the amendment. There was no provision for my party to be represented on the Ad Hoc Committee for the Port of Belfast, and there is no such provision for a representative of the United Kingdom Unionist Party to sit on this Committee. That is both an overt and a tacit acknowledgement that the party I lead has been entirely consistent.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important — it is a point of order.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will take your reassurance, but only if you are prepared to identify, at the outset, which Standing Order it comes under.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Mr Roche was appointed as a UK Unionist —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like the record to show that he —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member must understand that if he does not meet my requirements he will not be called to speak on a point of order or anything else.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Not only was that another bogus point of order, the authority for which the learned Member was totally incapable of identifying, it was also evidence that he does not even have his historical facts correct. I am sure the leader of the Alliance Party will support me in this. Shortly after the appointment of Members to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Port of Belfast he told me that no representative of the United Kingdom Unionist Party had been appointed to that Committee. With regard to Mr Wilson’s analysis of the points of order and his historical record, it seems that there is a want of either memory or consciousness on the part of my Friend.

Let me return to the principle. The reason there is a spat between some Members of the House over their virility in opposing any contact with Sinn Féin is that there has been, to some extent, a degree of inconsistency.

My opponents will appreciate that, whatever else can be said about my conduct in this House, at least it has been consistent on the principle of having no contact or association with those parties who are the political representatives of armed terrorists groups, whether they be orange, green, polka dotted or any other colour, real or imaginary, provisional or final. My party has made its position quite clear.

I wish it were otherwise and that I could have some social or other contact with many Members from those parties. However, on the fundamental principle that while they continue to represent terrorist groups in possession of arms, that is an absolute bar, as far as my party is concerned, to having any association with them.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

No.

There are people here who wring their hands and make all sorts of pious statements about their associations and about what they would like to happen. However, they are only here because the godfathers of murderous terrorists operating in the Province sanctioned them to be here. They are only here as long as they abide by the directions of those godfathers.

As far as this Committee is concerned, I am proud that I have not been and will not be nominated to serve on the Committee as constituted either by the original motion or by the amendment. Until the House takes a fundamental stand on the principles of democracy that is absolute and consistent, these difficulties and spats between parties will continue.

So I take no hurt from not being nominated for this Committee. I take it as a matter of pride that at least my opponents recognise, whether they agree with my position or are opposed to it, that at least it is consistent.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

With the exception of Mr McCartney, I am probably the person in the House least likely to be nominated to this Committee so I will not be given the opportunity to reject or accept a place. Like Mr McCartney I hope I can bring a degree of objectivity to the two questions before us. There will be an opportunity at a later stage to deal with the substance of the issue over flags.

The first question raised by the leader of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party, Cedric Wilson, was whether we should have a Committee at all. The second question, which is the subject of the amendment, is the nature of its composition.

With regard to the first question, I share the views of a lot of Members who say that it is a great shame that we must have a Committee because this is an issue which should have been sorted out before now.

It is a sorry state of affairs when there are restrictions placed on the flying of the Union flag. The Secretary of State will be making the final determination on the flags issue and, as Mr McCartney said, it is likely he will ignore what he is told by the Assembly and come to his own conclusion. However, it is vital that the Assembly gives its view on the issue.

While the Committee may well be consultative, it is important that it be established. If the Secretary of State reaches his own conclusions regardless of the Assembly’s wishes, he will clearly be seen to be doing so against the will of the people of Northern Ireland as represented through the Members of the House. We will then be able to expose him on this issue. Therefore it is important that we have a Committee.

Regarding the composition of the Committee, we are constantly being lectured — particularly by the SDLP, who, I note, are taking a very contrary view to the amendment — that the Assembly is all about inclusiveness and inclusion. Those seem to be the sacred words of the New Northern Ireland Assembly and the supposed new dispensation. However, today we are being told that a number of smaller parties will be excluded from the Committee dealing with the vital issue of flags.

As happened before in respect of the Port of Belfast Committee, we ought to be looking for a Committee that reflects as widely as possible the views of the Assembly. There will be diverging views on the flag issue. The united Unionists will put forward one view, and the Women’s Coalition, I assume, will take a very different view. While we have Standing Committees, which reflect the balance of the Assembly, we have had the precedence of the Port of Belfast Committee, which indicated that the widest possible representation on a Committee is beneficial and will lead to the most divergent views being represented.

I take exception to some of the remarks made by Dr McDonnell in opposing the amendment. He said that a problem would arise due to the workload of Committee members, and that there would be a danger of Committee members being on two Committees at the one time. That would be serious if we were dealing with a Committee that was going to sit for the lifetime of the Assembly. However, we are dealing with a Committee that will be due to report to the Assembly in a month’s time — a very short time. Under those circumstances it should not be beyond the ingenuity of Members to organise Committee meetings so that they do not clash, and in so doing we can ensure that we have a proper debate and an informed report on the flag issue.

Therefore I urge Members, in the spirit of inclusiveness, to support the amendment because it offers a better procedural way forward than the initial motion.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I disagree with some of the remarks made by the proposer of the amendment. I am sure Mr Dodds would be disappointed if I did not disagree with some of his opening remarks about Sinn Féin. Nonetheless, I welcome the new commitment to inclusivity, which has been demonstrated this morning by the DUP. This came as a shock to some Members.

Those of us who are members of Antrim Borough Council saw this inclusivity demonstrated at the annual meeting in June. The Ulster Unionist Party made its traditional attempt to grab all the committee chairs despite the fact that it represented half of the council membership. However, by dint of an agreement between the DUP and those normally regarded as opposition, we were able to ensure some more balance and fairness. Perhaps this is a sign of DUP conversion to inclusivity, and I welcome it. I am delighted to support those parts of Dr McDonnell’s speech.

However, I was surprised at the way in which he put forward this resolution in the first place. For 30 years the SDLP has talked a lot about equality, fairness and inclusivity. However, in the Business Committee the SDLP, by procedural means, railroaded through the motion in the form in which it first appeared. That did not cause any difficulty to the larger parties but it excluded some of the smaller parties. If we are talking about inclusivity, then that is not a very realistic or fair way to proceed. Dr McDonnell thinks that there would be difficulties for the larger parties in staffing a committee, yet it was raised in the Business Committee that we could have a weighted voting system as, for example, the Business Committee and the Commission.

The SDLP would not be required to have four people sitting in the Committee at all times, and they could still cast their votes. Unfortunately inclusivity seems to have switched from the parties currently to my right to the parties currently to my left. I hope we can introduce the idea all round the Chamber.

Mr McCartney, who unfortunately is not here — and he tells us a lot about good manners — to listen to the winding-up speeches, said that today’s procedure was valueless. It may or may not be valueless. We will know when we see the report and how the Secretary of State deals with it. Today’s debate will be very valuable if it emphasises that this Chamber can start to agree on what inclusivity means. So far as I am concerned, we are here to work for a pluralist society, not the kind of dualist society which seems to be the preference of some sections of the SDLP. As long as they cobble together a deal with the Ulster Unionists, the rest of us can fall in with it. The only way we can work towards a pluralist society is if every party in the Chamber is properly represented on special Committees like this.

I do not have a problem, so far as my party is concerned, if there are only three seats for the parties other than the four largest and if we, as the largest section of that group, have one of them. As Mr Weir has said, there are difficulties with expecting people to represent others. I have managed to co-operate on certain practical issues with members of the other smaller parties, but I do think it would be fair to ask Mr Watson to represent me on the flying of the Union flag, unless his views have changed a lot recently.

If we are to be inclusive, if we are to get balance, fairness and openness, we must have a large and inclusive Committee. We already have the precedent in the Port of Belfast Committee. There is no excuse whatsoever for narrowing it down. That could only be seen as an attempt to diminish the rights of smaller parties in the Chamber. I urge Dr McDonnell to listen to the views which have come from this end of the Chamber, to accept the amendment and to let us see a bit of inclusivity all round after today’s debate.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I have always treated Mr Ford with respect, courtesy and kindness, but in view of his brutal attack on me and my views, I may have to reconsider that. However, I am happy to accept the amendment.

The SDLP was not going out slashing at people and trying to exclude and marginalise them. The motion was worded as it was quite simply in view of a number of the items that were brought to the Committee on Tuesday. There are considerable problems in the House at the moment in terms of staff, space and function. Our concern was driven merely by the fact that a bigger Committee would be harder to work with, but in the interests of inclusivity I am very happy that it should be larger.

I could answer many things that have been said, but it would be superfluous. I regret that what was purely a piece of technical business here this morning has resulted in much ugly washing of dirty linen among some of the smaller Unionist parties and the DUP. If we in this House want to be taken seriously, we must get beyond the inconsistencies and take ourselves seriously on these issues on which we disagree.

There are a number of points, particularly one made by Mr Weir about what I said. The reality is that many Members have to double up and do some of the work that Mr Weir has opted out of. That is why some people have to serve on two or three Committees. I am quite happy to accept the amendment and allow it to become the substantive motion.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

While the mover of the substantive motion has indicated that he is prepared to accept the amendment, it is in the possession of the House and we have to proceed a decision on it. If it is passed, it will become a part of the substantive motion.

Question

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the draft Regulations laid by the Secretary of State under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 and to submit a report to the Assembly by 16 October 2000.

Composition: UUP 4 SDLP 4 DUP 3 SF 3 Alliance 1 NIUP 1 UUAP 1 NIWC 1 PUP 1

Quorum: The quorum shall be eight

Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine.

(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Water Supply: Cryptosporidium

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Information about cryptosporidium and its effects is in the public domain. However, I would like to explain briefly the nature of cryptosporidium, outline the history of the present outbreak and explain the way that the Department has been working with the Eastern Health and Social Services Board in responding to the outbreak. I also want to assure Members of the seriousness with which I and all involved regard this present problem and express my sympathy to all those affected.

Cryptosporidium is a parasitic organism which can be water-borne and is resistant to normal disinfection processes. Cryptosporidium can cause serious ill health, although normally in humans it is self-limiting and clears within two to three weeks. For those people whose immune systems are weakened or compromised, it can be much more serious. The first reported UK outbreak associated with public water supplies was in 1988. Following a further outbreak in 1989, the Government appointed a group of experts, who reported in 1990 and in 1995 on measures to mitigate the risk of cryptosporidium in the public water supply. Their recommendations were adopted by the Water Service.

The group further reported in 1998 and made over 50 revised recommendations, one of which was that water utilities carry out risk assessments on all their supplies. In early 1999 the Water Service assessed the risk of contamination at all 59 sources then in use in Northern Ireland. The methodology used was based on models used in England, Wales and Scotland and developed in consultation with the Northern Ireland drinking water inspector.

This assessment identified the Silent Valley as the only source with a risk factor that indicated the need for continuous sampling and analysis during the spring, which is the highest-risk period. A further 22 sources were identified as having lower risk factors, but at these sources it was considered prudent to undertake single 24-hour sampling of both raw and treated water in both spring and autumn of each year. Similar 24-hour samples of both raw and treated water are taken at the remaining sources each spring. I must emphasis that the risk assessments are based on the protocol used in Scotland and that the associated testing regimes are fully in line with those required by cryptosporidium regulations in England and Wales and by direction in Scotland. These arrangements have been agreed by the drinking water inspector and the chief medical officer.

Having given Members the background information, I would like to turn now to the recently detected outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in the Lisburn and Poleglass areas.

During the week beginning 21 August 2000 the Eastern Health and Social Services Board became aware of a number of cases of crytosporidiosis in the Poleglass area. By 25 August there were more than 20 confirmed cases, and an outbreak control team had been established. The outbreak control team is chaired by the consultant for communicable disease control (CCDC) and includes representatives of the Water Service. Investigation and control of the outbreak is the responsibility of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board. The Water Service role is to assist the CCDC in every possible way, taking steps to identify any possible contamination of the public water supply and measures to limit the impact on the community. In accordance with established procedures for dealing with major incidents, the Water Service set up control teams in eastern division and at head office.

The Water Service began sampling for crytosporidium oocysts at Poleglass reservoir on 22 August. Although by 25 August there was no test evidence to link the outbreak to the public water supply, the CCDC decided to issue a precautionary notice advising the elderly and those suffering from serious medical conditions to boil their water before consumption. A press statement to this effect was issued on 25 August.

Continued sampling of water from the reservoir, in the period 25 to 29 August, revealed increasing levels of cryptosporidium in the water supply, and the outbreak control team, acting diligently and methodically in accordance with agreed protocols, decided on the evening of 30 August 2000 that a "boil water" notice should be issued to customers within the Poleglass reservoir supply zone. The CCDC, on the morning of 31 August 2000, issued a press statement to this effect and later that day Water Service staff hand delivered 17,500 "boil water" notices to affected households.

By 31 August the Water Service had established that a number of the confirmed cases lived in the supply zone served by the neighbouring Northern Service reservoir, and the decision was taken to issue "boil water" notices to all remaining customers supplied with water from the Forked Bridge treatment works through the Lagmore conduit. These were delivered the following day.

Approximately 28,500 "boil water" notices were delivered to households, schools and industrial and business premises in the Poleglass, North Lisburn, Twinbrook, Dunmurry and surrounding areas. An estimated 90,000 people were affected by the notice. Water Service and Eastern Board customer help-lines have been in place since the start of the outbreak to provide information to members of the public who have concerns about the "boil water" notices or any other matters. The Water Service has provided bottled water, on request, to nursing and residential homes. Bottled water has also been provided to schools by the education and library boards.

Water Service investigations of possible sources of contamination concentrated on the Lagmore conduit — a brick conduit approximately seven miles long. This conduit, which is 110 years old, carries water from the Forked Bridge treatment works to the service reservoirs. Detailed investigations of the conduit, including using CCTV in a section pinpointed by bacteriological sampling, confirmed that there had been ingress and contamination of the treated water. Further investigation revealed that the conduit had been damaged when an outfall was being laid from a private septic tank attached to a property built in the last few years. This damage has been repaired and the conduit sealed at this point. However, investigations will continue until the Water Service is satisfied that there are no other sources of contamination.

Consistent with the need to maintain the water supply at all times, an intensive programme of cleansing the service reservoirs is underway. This is a huge task — for example, the Poleglass service reservoir holds almost 10 million gallons. It is 16 ft deep and the size of one and a half football pitches.

As part of the ongoing programme to replace and upgrade ageing infrastructure, work commenced in April this year on a £2·5 million contract to replace the entire brick conduit with a modern ductile iron pipeline. The new pipeline was programmed to be brought in to service in November, but it has been decided to utilise a section of it to provide a bypass of the suspect area of the existing conduit. This bypass should be completed by the end of this week.

I now move to the removal of "boil water" notices. It will be for the outbreak control team to decide when the notice may be lifted. This decision will be informed by test sample results and geographical analysis of clinical evidence from the affected areas.

I am fully satisfied that all involved in controlling this outbreak and investigating its cause have acted correctly, swiftly and in accordance with agreed protocols. In less than a week from the initial indication that the water supply was implicated, the entire system had been thoroughly investigated, a source of contamination had been detected, the conduit had been repaired and sealed, reservoirs are being cleaned, and works are ongoing to link the old conduit to the newly constructed pipeline.

I pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of staff in the Water Service, other Departments and agencies and, in particular, the consultant for communicable disease control, the Chief Medical Officer and the members of the outbreak control team. The way they have handled the enormous workload arising from this incident has demonstrated their great commitment and service to the community.

My officials will continue to consistently work with the other members of the team to take every possible step to enable the "boil water" notices to be lifted and normal water supply to be restored to our customers at the earliest possible date.

I described earlier how the Silent Valley had been identified as the source which was at highest risk of contamination by cryptosporidium when the risk assessment was undertaken last year. The Silent Valley reservoir serves approximately 250,000 people.

To protect the quality of water entering the public supply from this source the Water Service, earlier this year, temporarily excluded sheep from its land, which includes the catchment area, as spring is recognised as being the period of greatest risk. The temporary exclusion period was subsequently extended.

A further review of the management of the Silent Valley catchment has shown the need to continue to exclude the sheep, and I therefore had no alternative but to announce last week that the exclusion must continue. I understand fully the difficulties this will cause for local farmers, and I sympathise with their position. My officials have been liaising and will continue to liaise with officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to establish what measures can be taken to assist those farmers. I regret having to take this decision, but it is unavoidable owing to the interest in public health. Who in this House would do otherwise?

On completion of the new £35 million water-treatment works for the Silent Valley, the position regarding future grazing will be reviewed. This is scheduled for completion in the financial year 2003. That investment, coupled with the ongoing £32 million replacement of the Mourne conduit, which carries the water from the Silent Valley, demonstrates the Department’s commitment to continue the delivery of wholesome drinking water to our customers.

Finally, the provision of adequate water and sewerage services is important to everyone in Northern Ireland, whether a domestic consumer, a commercial or industrial user, a farmer, a fisherman, an environmentalist or someone concerned with public health issues. The Water Service has suffered significant underfunding over the last 20 years. On the basis of assessments derived from an asset management plan completed in 1993, the Water Service needs to invest approximately £3 billion over the next 20 years to replace out-of-date infrastructure, meet the needs of new development that satisfies public health requirements, and comply with European directives on drinking water and waste water.

Recent events, including the flooding in Belfast, have confirmed just how essential it is to raise the funding of the Water Service to levels which will enable the provision of a service that meets the requirements and needs of all our customers in the twenty-first century.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Quite a number of Members have indicated that they would like to question the Minister on this subject. We have set aside one hour for the debate, which will bring us up until 1.45 pm. I must ask Members to be as succinct as possible in their questioning.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

The Regional Development Committee and the Health Committee had detailed briefings from the Water Service and —

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should you not call the Chair of the Committee first?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Yes, that is certainly appropriate, and I ask the Member if he will give way to the Chairman, Mr Alban Maginness.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I welcome the Minister’s thorough and detailed statement in relation to this very serious problem that has affected the people of Lisburn, Poleglass and Lagmore, and I want to thank him for the detailed and frank way in which he has dealt with this issue. At my request he willingly arranged for an official to attend a Committee meeting and present a very thorough and detailed report. I am sure that all Members are very mindful of the suffering, distress and worry caused to those affected by this outbreak, and the House should extend its sympathy to all of them. It is particularly worrying for parents of small children and for those with elderly relatives, and I am sure all Members would agree that we feel deeply for them.

The report from Mr Robert Martin was very detailed.

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Loath as I am on this occasion to rise against the Chairman of my Committee, I must draw attention to your reference to the limited time scale for this matter. Many of us wish to ask questions. Can Members be directed to ask questions rather than make statements?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Thank you for that point. Yes, it would be preferable if questions were put to the Minister.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

In relation to the overall problem, can the Minister assure the House that he believes that the Department’s officials acted as promptly as they could, given the circumstances of this outbreak?

From reading the press and listening to local reaction, I know that members of the public felt that officials could perhaps have acted earlier. I would like the Minister to reassure the House that they acted as promptly as they could, given all the circumstances.

Can the Minister confirm if the contamination source is human? Is he satisfied that the septic tank referred to in the report is the source of contamination, and the only source of contamination? Is he satisfied that all possible remedial work has been carried out in order to provide a safe water source for the people living in the Lagmore, Poleglass and north Lisburn areas? Finally, as regards funding for the Water Service, what measures, in relation to the Executive, has the Minister taken to rectify this historic underfunding so that the people of Northern Ireland will have an up-to-date water service adequate to meet their needs?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

There was a range of questions, and I will endeavor to deal with each of them. Mr Maginness, the Chairman of the Committee for Regional Development, offered his sympathy to the people affected. I have already done that, and I repeat my sympathies to them.

The first question referred to satisfaction with the way officials acted and the speed with which they acted. Given the complex nature of this problem and the length of time it took to establish that there was a possibility that the public water supply was the cause of the problem, my officials acted very speedily. As I said in my statement, it was on 31 August that the outbreak control team directed that a "boiled water" notice should be issued, and within hours of that notice being issued copies were was being hand delivered to 17,500 homes.

The other issue concerns how I and my Department are dealing with funding to ensure that we have a sufficient water supply that can deal with the problems that Northern Ireland is faced with in the twenty-first century. I referred to that towards the conclusion of my statement, and the bids that we have made, and are making, will reflect that. We hope that we can address those problems.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Has the source of contamination been identified as human or animal?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

A possible source has been confirmed as being human. At this stage it is not possible to be absolute, to be positive beyond any doubt, about the only source. However, we have established that there is a human source.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

From what we know about the source, a developer, or someone, breached the outer skin of a Victorian pipe carrying this water and removed bricks to provide a better angle for an outflow from a sewerage system. I understand that the pipe is marked with ventilation shafts, so there is a degree of surface visibility.

The question is whether the developer was aware of what he had come across and what he was digging into. Or did he know what he was doing and proceed anyway?

Should there be a better system for marking the pipeline by including some sort of warning notice? Given the likely end cost of this in human terms, in medical terms — and I am talking about the cost of hospital services — and in terms of Water Service costs, can the Minister give any indication of how much this will cost and whether anyone will be held accountable?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Mr McFarland’s question is a difficult one, in that there are many legal issues involved, particularly in relation to the developer to whom he referred. The Water Service is anxious that no inference should be drawn as to any individual and that no household or dwelling should be identified as being in some way responsible for the problem. There is no evidence that this was anything other than an accidental ingress.

The hon Member also talked about identifying the route of the conduit. For precisely those reasons — and clearly I will have to go into this in some detail with my officials — I believe that the Water Service would not be of a mind to do that. It could add to the possibility, for example, of some type of terrorist attack or some type of deliberate, malicious or malevolent intent to interfere with the public water supply. While I understand the rationale behind the hon Member’s thinking, I hope that he will understand the complex issues surrounding this matter. My officials are looking at ways and means of ensuring that nothing like this ever happens again.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As a public representative for the Lagan Valley and Lisburn Borough Council areas, where most of the contamination occurred, I have had to deal with angry constituents — elderly people as well as those with young children — who have been infected by cryptosporidium. The extent of the community’s anger at the fact that their water system could be contaminated in this way should not be underestimated.

The Minister has now given us the relevant facts, and it appears that this problem was imposed on the Water Service in that it was caused by an ingress into its water system by an outside party. What parts have the building control division of Lisburn Borough Council and the Department of the Environment Planning Service played in relation to this problem? Also, is there any connection between this outbreak and the cryptosporidium outbreak in May, which came about as a result of contamination by sheep in the Silent Valley?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am conscious of the nature of Mr Poots’s concern and want to assure him and his constituents that at the conclusion of this major incident my officials, in conjunction with health officials and, where relevant, Department of the Environment officials, will be looking at all aspects of it to see what changes, if any, can be introduced to prevent recurrence.

Let me give some idea of the scale of this problem.

At the time of identifying the Lagmore conduit, my officials initially walked the entire line of the seven-mile conduit, examining the air wells along it and taking bacteriological samples. They identified samples where there was bacteriological contamination and used this information to identify a specific stretch of conduit, which was then examined by closed-circuit television. There followed a series of consequential actions.

At the close of this outbreak, my Department will liaise with every departmental official necessary to try to ensure that this does not recur. If there is a possibility that public health officials at Lisburn Borough Council could be of assistance, they will liaise directly with them.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Like other Members, I welcome the Minister’s statement and the chance to put one or two questions to him. Is it not true that, but for the diligence of a local GP and the actions of the consultant for communicable disease control, the outbreak of cryptosporidium would not have been discovered, given that, as late as 25 August, the Water Service still refused to accept that it was at fault? Can the Minister outline what steps will be taken to ensure the future monitoring of the water supply, since, according to a number of reports he mentioned, Lagmore was at lower risk than Silent Valley, in spite of the fact that there were outbreaks in both? The Minister assures Members of the seriousness with which he takes this issue. However, comments in the weekend press belie this. I ask the Minister to reassure my constituents, as he did those of Mr Poots, by confirming that he will meet with Sinn Féin representatives from that area to discuss this issue.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I should like to outline once more the response in the specific time period referred to. In the week beginning 21 August the Eastern Health and Social Services Board became aware of a number of cases of cryptosporidiosis in the Poleglass area. On 25 August there were more than 20 confirmed cases, and at that stage an outbreak control team had been established. That control team is chaired by the consultant for communicable disease control, which is not the responsibility of my Department.

Conducting an investigation into the outbreak is the responsibility of the Eastern Health and Social Services Board. My role and that of the Water Service is to assist the outbreak control team in every possible way. It was only on 31 August that a "boil water" notice was issued on the direction of the outbreak control team. On that day my officials were hand delivering the request to 17,500 homes. I hope that gives some indication of the sequence of events and the speed with which the officials dealt with the matter.

Last week, on an approach from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I requested that my senior Water Service official, Mr Robert Martin, go to the Executive Committee to give a comprehensive briefing on this issue. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must have been aware that my election manifesto commitment meant that I would not be at that meeting myself. It is impossible for them to have been unaware that that was the case.

I am prepared to come before the House to make statements and answer questions. In addition, I have offered myself to the Regional Development Committee for further presentations, as the situation develops, and to respond to further questions. In the minds of most people I am offering full, frank and co-operative consultation with all Members of this House. However, I will not respond to or engage in party politicking on this issue.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Madam Deputy Speaker, will you ask the Minister to answer my second question?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Supplementary questions can be put to the Minister. Will you repeat the question that you believe was not answered?

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

It concerned the future monitoring of the water supply.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Currently, very rigorous monitoring of the public water supply is in place, and this will continue. At the conclusion of this outbreak there will be a review of that monitoring process to see if it has been sufficient. I will report subsequent to that review.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his statement, particularly the penultimate paragraph. The name of the bug may be cryptosporidium, but the cause of this parasite getting into our water supply can only be put down to a mixture of carelessness, negligence and complacency on the part of the Department. I welcome the fact that the Minister has recognised that, to a degree, in his penultimate paragraph, where he refers to the underfunding of the Department over the past 20 years and the fact that the infrastructure is out of date. Only a complacent, careless or negligent Department would permit a 110-year-old conduit to continue to exist.

Under the Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, there is a duty on the Department to supply water that is wholesome at the time of supply and also to keep itself informed about the wholesomeness of the water supply. At this juncture the Department has failed in that respect.

As one who lives in the area I am expressing the view of a number of people who are extremely concerned. They are concerned at the length of time —

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you instruct the speaker to ask his question and stop making a statement?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I ask the speaker to question the Minister. That is the purpose of the statement.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I will pass those comments to the Speaker on the appropriate occasion.

The questions I have put — and I will re-emphasise them — are to seek an assurance from the Minister that the Department has failed and was negligent or complacent in the fulfilment of its duty under the Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 by not supplying a wholesome supply of water to my constituents.

The other point on which I want to seek assurance from the Minister is that there was a degree of what verged on a cover-up in the length of time it took for information to be passed to our constituents. It has been known since early this year that there was a potential problem. Sheep and the poor farmer, rather than the bug, were being blamed.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I do not understand the gist of the question. Please get to the point of the question you are putting to the Minister.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

To be direct, why were people who became ill with the bug cryptosporidium directed to take a water-only diet when it was the very water that was causing their illness? Patients in a particular home became very seriously ill as a result. I put it to the Minister that if the information had been presented earlier the outbreak would have been prevented.

Finally, does the Minister agree that the extra expense incurred by my constituents in Lagan Valley through having to boil water, or acquire bottled water — and where the amount of bottled water being consumed is 180 times the normal amount — should be rebated through the rates? Does the Minister agree that water and sewerage account for approximately 30% of the regional rate and that as the regional rate constitutes two thirds of the overall rate, there is a perfectly logical argument that my constituents should receive a rebate?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I refute the accusations of carelessness and negligence. There was a wholesome supply of water. The problem in relation to Lagmore conduit was as I have outlined. My officials have done everything possible; they continue to do everything possible; and they will in the future do everything possible to ensure that there is wholesome drinking water for the public.

Mr Close referred to the rates element. Any rate rebate — and I have seen that referred to previously in the public domain — is not a matter for the Department for Regional Development. Rating issues are the direct responsibility of the Department of Finance and Personnel and, therefore, ought to be directed to them.

The problems faced by Mr Close’s constituents in the Lisburn area are ones that all of us identify with. The issue has to be speedily resolved, and we are currently doing that. Later this week, I hope to be in a position to announce the tie-up of the new connection to the Lagmore conduit to ensure that the bug is eradicated from the system. The new conduit, which is currently being laid, will be linked up within the affected area to ensure that wholesome supply of public water in the Lisburn area.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I welcome the good work done by the Department in getting to the source as quickly as it did. However, I have immediate and local concerns about the latter part of the Minister’s statement concerning a ban on grazing in the Silent Valley catchment area.

Can he tell the House what is the acceptable level of cryptosporidium in the water supply? Will he specifically tell us how many instances there were in the survey — and in the ongoing surveys — where the level was exceeded in the Silent Valley catchment area? Can he also tell us by how much the level was exceeded? Will he tell us whether those samples — and I am talking about the Silent Valley again, not the most recent outbreak that my Colleague asked about — contained infection from a human or an animal source?

Will he also tell us whether these samples identified — and I refer here to the Silent Valley — contain infection from a human or an animal source, and if the actual source of this contamination can be identified? Will he also tell us why, since he has decided to ban grazing in this area, he and his Department are not prepared to pay compensation to those farmers who are already in straitened circumstances — perilous as Dr Paisley described it earlier — because of the state of the industry and who will, as a result, lose their winter fodder through no fault of their own? Did he consult with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development on the impact of such a decision and on the implications of the timing of the decision on the farming community in the Mournes?

Finally, why will he not do the responsible thing and sit down with his Executive Colleagues in health and agriculture and work out a sensible solution to all of the aspects of this crisis and not give the impression that this decision was nothing more than a political decoy, taken to save the DUP’s face and shift the blame to someone else in order to cover up the incompetence of the policy of rotating ministerial posts?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

There are a number of issues here with which I will attempt to deal.

With regard to compensation to the farmers in the Mournes, the legal advice to the Department is very clear. Grazing rights on these lands, which are owned by the Department for Regional Development, have traditionally been reviewed on an annual basis. The contract confers rights to grazing only and not possession of the grazing land itself. The legal advice is that we can discontinue the practice of granting grazing rights, regardless of how many years this practice has been in existence. I know and fully understand that this will come as a great disappointment to the farmers, but I must have regard for the legal position.

I have asked my officials — and I hope this will answer the other question about agriculture and rural development liaison — to continue their liaison with Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials to establish what measures, if any, can be taken to assist those farmers affected.

Mr ONeill also asked about the acceptable levels of cryptosporidium in the water. I will provide him with written specific details of the acceptable level, the level beyond which a "boil water" notice is issued. However, may I say to him that if there had been a breach of that level, which is accepted throughout the United Kingdom and is enforced in Northern Ireland, in the Silent Valley, a "boil water" notice would have been issued. It would not have been the responsibility of my Department to issue such a notice, as I have made clear in my response to previous questions.

I am disappointed with the Member’s last question. I have endeavoured at all times through these problems and dilemmas — as I have with others — to deal with the subject matter efficiently and as effectively and impartially as possible. I have not and will not take party political advantage over such an issue as this. In this respect I find the question —

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Before sitting down will the Minister give way?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I find it an unfortunate intervention that relates to participation in the Executive Committee when the Member knows that I stood on an election manifesto commitment which precluded my participation in an Executive in which there were members of an organisation linked to a paramilitary group. That continues to be my position.

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I would like to thank the Minister for his statement and also for his reply to me last week. I may be breaking into the ambit of the Health Minister, but perhaps Members will bear with me.

In relation to the timing of the outbreak, it has been brought to my attention that on 25 August the public water supply was highly suspect, but the Water Service refused to acknowledge this. One of the doctors told the Health Minister when she visited Dunmurry last week that it would be foolish to underestimate the seriousness of the outbreak. However, only a few months before this a spokesman for the Eastern Health Board said that there was no reason to be unduly worried. Can the Minister confirm that there were sheep or cattle in the Silent Valley reservoir in May? Can he tell us — or find out — whether, in the various strains of this bug where people have been confirmed as infected, slurry has been confirmed as the problem? This has been identified as the cause in one case in Lisburn. Finally, does the Minister agree that it is extremely important to review the procedure so that information can be circulated to the general public more quickly?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Mr Davis has raised a number of issues. In relation to timing — and I thank him for that information, which we will follow up — the clear indication was, as I mentioned in my statement, that a risk assessment was done for Northern Ireland’s water supply. The conduit, within which a breach has occurred, was not identified as high risk. I am satisfied that the risk assessment, which was undertaken by the Water Service, has been diligently carried out in accordance with the national standards. However, it would help to improve public confidence in the water supply if there were an independent review of these risk assessments. One possible approach might be a review undertaken by the Northern Ireland drinking water inspector. I have briefly mentioned this to the Minister of the Environment but need to speak to him further on this issue. The public can be reassured that every possible step will be taken to protect the public water supply.

Mr Davis referred to the possibility of sheep in the reservoir. Since the notice was issued to remove sheep from the lands surrounding the reservoir a small number of sheep have re-entered the reservoir. Steps have been taken to have them removed. I am not aware of any further information in addition to that. I have no information regarding the slurry. My officials will pursue this and will respond in writing to Mr Davis.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I congratulate the officials at the Department for Regional Development, and those working in and under the authority of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, for their response to this crisis. The Minister will want to take make it clear publicly how scandalous, inane and scurrilous the comments by the deputy leader of the Alliance Party and by the Member for South Down from the SDLP were. To suggest that he denies his — [Interruption]. The Member will get plenty of questions.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

We have only five minutes left for this subject. For the remaining four questions will Members please be very succinct in both questions and answers.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

On a further point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not common practice that the debate and questions last for an hour after the Minister has finished making a statement? The Minister finished at one o’clock. You declared that this debate would finish at quarter to two, and I notice also that the clock has not been set for the one-hour period.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Thank you for that point of order. It was agreed by the Business Committee that there would be one hour for this debate. I am just checking Standing Orders to see if it is one hour following the ministerial statement. It is up to the Speaker to determine. The Business Committee has said one hour. That said, while we may try and go a little over the time allocated, I would prefer it if everyone could be succinct.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I can assure you that I will not take longer than Mr Close did to ask his question.

Does the Minister agree that it was scurrilous to suggest that he, his officials or the Water Service were responsible for a third party reaching the water system? Is Mr Close suggesting that there should be some monitoring so that the moment a cryptosporidium enters the water system, the Water Service should be aware of it? To help Members understand how absurd that suggestion is, perhaps the Minister will confirm that a cryptosporidium oocysts is one two-hundredth of a millimetre long. The length of water pipes and conduits in Northern Ireland is about 15,000 miles — more than the distance from here to Australia. It is just conceivable that an oocysts could enter the water supply via a third party. Should the criticism not therefore be of the contractor, or of the Planning Service for allowing it to happen, or of building control for not supervising it properly, instead of attempting to blame those hard-working officials in the Department for Regional Development?

Does the Minister recognise that the crisis that we have seen over the last number of days is such that the people in Northern Ireland will want from him a clear indication that we can have full confidence in the public water supply? Will he ensure that proper steps are taken to change the enquiry forms that are sent to the various Departments and agencies by Planning Service so that this kind of issue is taken into account? Planning decisions should be taken so as to ensure that no houses are built close to or beside the main water supply, especially if they have septic tanks.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I take this opportunity to refute again the terms used by Mr Close. The terms "carelessness" and "negligence" were totally inappropriate. The only issue on which I concur with the Member — and I expect and hope for his support — is the continuous underfunding of the system for almost 30 years. If there is a semblance of an issue arising from Mr Close’s question with which I concur, it is that.

I thank Mr P Robinson and agree with him. It may be possible to address planning issues. I will consult with the Department of the Environment, and my officials will look at any possible measures that would preclude this from occurring again in close proximity to a dwelling.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

There are five more Members who want to ask questions. I am aware of the time and also of the need to break for lunch. Therefore I ask those Members to put only one question each.

Pat McNamee (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his statement. I want to ask a couple of brief questions. The first one concerns the report from the expert group on cryptosporidium —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I have asked that only one question be put to the Minister.

Pat McNamee (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It will be one, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The expert group on cryptosporidium appointed by the Government made a further report in 1998 with 50 revised recommendations. Has the Water Service adopted and implemented those 50 revised recommendations?

The other point of clarification concerns the test evidence. On 25 August the Water Service was reluctant to accept that the public water supply was the cause of the outbreak of cryptosporidosis because there was no test evidence available. Can the Minister say if the results of the samples taken on 22 August were not available? Did the present test procedure fail, or was there no evidence of cryptosporidium in the samples? In the case of the latter, is the Minister satisfied that the present test procedure is adequate if it failed to detect cryptosporidium in the samples that subsequently proved to be infected?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I will deal with the issue of the recommendations arising from the original report. All 51 recommendations have been adopted, and implementation is ongoing.

I will return to the dates lest there be any doubt regarding the sequence of events. On 21 August — and only on 21 August — the Eastern Health Board became aware of a number of cases of cryptosporidiosis in the Poleglass area. There was no indication on 21 August that that could be traceable to the public water supply. By 25 August there were 20 confirmed cases, and an outbreak control team had been established.

Continuous sampling took place between 25 August and 29 August, and on the evening of 30 August the control team agreed to issue a "boil water" notice. That was issued on the morning of 31 August, by which time my officials were in the process of hand delivering 17,500 "boil water" notices. I hope that clarifies the speed, nature and chronological sequence of events that took place from 21 August to 31 August.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement, and we join in his praise for the Department for Regional Development officials on their actions, given the logistics that they presently operate under. However, I trust that a review of this particular incident will lead to more efficient methods of dealing with incidents of this nature in the future.

In his presentation, the Minister stated that 22 sources have been identified as having lower risk factors. Indeed, the incident occurred on one of these sources as a result, admittedly, of an external incursion into the system.

Will the Minister undertake to identify the other 21 sources and give the House an assurance that there will be an upgrading of risk assessment methodology? I would not expect that to be done today, but perhaps in writing at some later stage to the House.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for the succinct nature of his question; I will endeavour to be equally as succinct.

I want — and I am sure the Member will agree — to ensure that nothing is said that will lead to an increase in fear and suspicion among the public regarding the public water supply. While I take his point that the ingress occurred on one of the 22 sources identified as being lower risk, I would not want to publicly identify the other 21. I will undertake to write to the hon Member indicating measures that we can take in relation to the assessment of risk once this issue has been dealt with and is over.

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his frank and honest statement. I too join in the thanks to Mr Martin and his colleagues for their very swift and professional reaction to the present outbreak. Is the Minister content with the communications between his Department and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes, there has been comprehensive liaison. It has been instructive and very helpful in dealing with the problems. I am perfectly content with the relationship and hope that we can learn from this and build on it for the future.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. As the Silent Valley has been identified as the source with the highest risk of contamination, does the Minister agree that the 2003 timescale is totally inadequate? It is putting at risk the health of 250,000 people as well as placing a financial burden on sheep farmers. Does the Minister agree that, while an investment of £32 million to replace the conduit is welcome, to wait until 2003 for completion will put a terrible strain on the 250,000 people who expect to receive pure water? Given that funding should take priority over other matters, does the Minister agree that in the interim, compensation should be given to farmers? There is talk of farmers receiving some compensation for this year, but there is no mention of 2002 and 2003.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Murphy.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

There is another part to the question.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Mr Murphy, I asked that Members put only one question.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

It is very unfair. Like everyone else, I am entitled to ask this question, and I want it answered.

With regard to the outbreak in the Lisburn and Poleglass areas, what financial assistance will be given to those who have suffered from the financial strain, especially those in receipt of benefits who have had to buy bottled water, incurred higher electricity bills, and so on?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

With regard to compensation I have already said that legal advice is of a particular nature and therefore precludes me from making any assurance on those grounds.

With regard to the Silent Valley, there is a proven risk of contamination to the public water supply from livestock grazing in reservoir catchment areas. There was an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in the Manchester area last year, and it was linked to sheep grazing around a reservoir.

The risk assessments carried out on the Water Service reservoirs have shown that the Silent Valley is particularly at risk due to the lack of a satisfactory level of treatment. The system to provide that level of treatment is in place, but it cannot be completed before the 2003 financial year. That is why sheep have been excluded from the area surrounding the Silent Valley. Any other measures taken by the Water Service to protect the wholesome water supply derived from there will be taken. However, a more categoric assurance can be given with regard to the completion of the treatment works in the reservoir area. They cannot be completed until the 2003 financial year.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

My Colleague Mr ONeill adequately covered most of the problems pertaining to South Down. According to my notes he asked eight questions, but I picked up on only two answers. I will have to wait until I receive Hansard tomorrow to see all the answers.

I am disappointed that the Minister did not attend the Executive meeting on this specific issue. I am disappointed that he put party before people. It was his one chance to meet with the Executive and not have to make any excuses for doing so.

My question refers to compensation. Some farmers have to sell stock due to the lack and loss of grazing. When the funds from such sales are put into the bank they are not put into deposit accounts — the bank will keep the money. Meanwhile, three or four years of inflation will occur. Will the Minister introduce a subsidy scheme, or some form of financial assistance, to help farmers restock in three or four years time, bearing inflation in mind? The money farmers would receive by selling stock now will not be enough to purchase stock in three or four years’ time. Will the Minister put in place a scheme that would adequately fund a restocking scheme in three or four years’ time? Let us be hopeful that the farmer will get back to grazing the land.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am sure Mr Bradley will appreciate that his latter point would be more appropriately made to his Colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. I await that Department’s response to those comments. The Member would not expect me to comment on them.

Mr Bradley raised the issue of my non-attendance at the Executive Committee. This matter required immediate action — not prolonged discussion — and that is what I undertook.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Are there other similarly constructed water conduits in Northern Ireland, and can the Minister assure the House that, as a result of lessons learnt from the outbreaks of cryptosporidium in Lisburn and Poleglass, this type of outbreak will not happen elsewhere in the Province?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The problem in relation to Lagmore was not in the intrinsic nature of the conduit. There was a third-party breach of the conduit. It was therefore a difficulty caused more by others than by the fact that the conduit was 110 years old. Up until this ingress there had not been incidents of this nature.

The sitting was suspended at 1.58 pm.

On resuming —

Education: North/South Ministerial Council Sectoral Meeting

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I have received notice from the Minister of Education that he wishes to make a statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council held on 3 July 2000.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With permission, A LeasCheann Comhairle, I will make a statement about the second sectoral meeting on education of the North/South Ministerial Council held in the Manor House at the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum, Cultra, on Monday 3 July.

Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Sir Reg Empey and I attended the sectoral meeting of the Council. The Irish Government was represented by Dr Michael Woods TD, Minister for Education and Science. This statement has been approved by Sir Reg Empey and is also made on his behalf.

The main objective of the meeting was to review the progress made by the working groups which we agreed to establish at the first meeting on 3 February in relation to educational underachievement, special education needs and teacher qualifications. These working groups will bring forward to the next council meeting in the autumn proposals on the priorities which they have identified, delivery measures which might be adopted and suggested timescales for addressing the range of issues involved.

We also noted that a contract had been agreed by my Department and the Department of Education and Science in Dublin with the Centre for Cross Border Studies in Armagh for the conduct of an evaluation of the range and effectiveness of current initiatives on school, teacher and youth exchanges. The study will also make recommendations to a steering committee, representative of both Administrations, on the possibilities for a coherent, integrated strategy for the future. The study is scheduled to be completed by 31 October this year.

The council also noted a range of recent co-operative ventures in the field of education since its last meeting. These included the very successful Doors project, which was a celebration of lifelong learning through performances involving over 1,700 young people at four locations on the island — Cork, Dublin, Belfast and Derry City — and the conference, Education — the Challenges to 2020, which was held at Stranmillis University College on 30 May. This was a very significant conference, which was attended by Minister Woods, Minister Farren, the United States Secretary for Education, Richard Riley, and myself.

Finally, against the background of EU programmes, the council noted with satisfaction the significant co-operation between the two Administrations in the past and the opportunities for further collaboration under the new round of EU programmes, particularly through the Peace II operational programme. The council agreed a range of priority areas in both education and the youth sector that might be supported through that programme.

In addition, the council noted that 2001 has been designated as the European year of languages and agreed that a joint conference would be organised to address issues of common interest in the area of language learning. The next meeting of the council is planned for 24 November in the South.

The council agreed that text of a communiqué which was issued following the meeting. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful for the opportunity to ask some questions. The Minister has sold the virtues, whatever they be, of North/South co-operation, yet he steadfastly refuses to co-operate in the investigation of the Omagh bombing and the apprehension of those responsible for it, in spite of knowledge undoubtedly in his possession. He would therefore have to accept that his efforts in North/South co-operation are meaningless.

When does the Minister intend to inform the Assembly Education Committee about the detail of the issues raised at the second sectoral meeting on education, particularly given our stated interest in underachievement?

What, if any, progress has been made by the steering groups? I find that both the statement made today and the communiqué lodged in the Assembly Library are very short in detail in all those matters. The remarks I made at the outset are crucial.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I remind Members that these are questions on the North/South Ministerial Council. The reference made by Mr Kennedy in his opening remarks does not need to be responded to by the Minister.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle, for pointing out that the first issue raised is not within the purview of the North/South Ministerial Council.

There have been a number of briefing sessions between my officials and the Education Committee to inform the Committee about these matters. My officials are quite within their rights to inform the Education Committee of the details of the conduct of the North/South Ministerial Council meetings. If there is dissatisfaction about that level of contact, obviously it is my responsibility to investigate with my officials whether or not questions that have been asked about the conduct of the North/South Ministerial Council meetings have been adequately answered. I will ensure that they are, because I am very much in favour of a good working relationship between the Department and the Education Committee. I will endeavour to ensure that whatever information is required is made available at the earliest possible moment.

Quite a number of the working parties have been established. They are made up of civil servants from our Department and from the Department of Education and Science in Dublin. The information regarding that will be made available to the Committee at the earliest opportunity. I do not have the names before me, but I will endeavour to ensure that the names of all the civil servants, North and South, who make up the joint working groups will be sent to the Committee as a matter of urgency.

It is also important to point out that all the papers from the North/South Ministerial Council meetings on education went to the Executive, including the terms of reference of the steering groups, before the North/South Ministerial Council meeting. It is not a huge issue for me. People are entitled to information. I will ensure that the fullest information about the composition of these bodies is sent to the Committee.

As for the issue of special educational needs, this is a very important area of our work. My Department believes it is absolutely vital that we deal with the issue of educational underachievement. That is going to be a huge issue for us. The issues of attendance, literacy and numeracy, and child protection are also vital. They are key areas for us, and we are endeavouring to push forward work in all of them as a matter of urgency.

Regarding EU support, everyone will be aware that funding will be available under Peace II.

At this stage it is difficult to be precise. Officials have only recently received the European Commission’s comments on the draft programme which was submitted earlier this year. These comments will be negotiated with the commission over the next few weeks. Once these are concluded and a programme is agreed, applications for funding will be invited. I would expect that funds will not begin to flow until early next year.

The new peace programme will be the last time that we have a special funding package from the EU. The programme will operate North and South. We have to use the funds available to the best advantage of our young people. That is for sure. We are particularly keen to support initiatives that address educational disadvantage and promote social inclusion. Measures which help and encourage young people to remain in education and improve basic skills which will help them gain employment will be particularly important.