Northern Ireland Assembly, 25 September 2000

275 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Washington Visit of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on their recent visit to Washington.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Deputy First Minister and I will make a statement on our recent visit to Washington. The Deputy First Minister and I flew to Washington on 12 September. [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I am somewhat surprised that the Member, having returned to the House of Commons, is not aware that the rules of that place also apply in large measure here, not least with regard to the bringing in of visual aids.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I was just trying to be helpful.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Resume your seat.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the subsequent sentences in this statement will be equally warmly received.

We were accompanied on the visit by the head of the Civil Service and other officials. Our purpose in visiting Washington at this time was fourfold: first, to brief President Clinton on developments here; secondly, to invite him to visit Northern Ireland while still President; thirdly, to meet other members of the Administration in order to build relationships in a number of important areas; fourthly, to pave the way for future visits by ministerial colleagues from the Northern Ireland Executive.

On Tuesday 12 September, we met George Mitchell to update him on developments. We had a useful exchange, and he expressed the hope that continuing progress to implement the agreement fully would be maintained so that Northern Ireland might have lasting peace, stability and reconciliation.

Our first engagement on Wednesday was a meeting with the Deputy Secretary for Education, Mr Frank Holleman. This meeting allowed us to express our appreciation for the high level of support and co-operation which Secretary Richard Riley has offered the Department of Education and the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. Both sides wish this to continue and develop. The meeting addressed how the education system could best meet the needs of pupils of all abilities. We also looked at vocational training and noted the importance of partnership with employers in providing young people with the skills needed to find employment in their areas.

We welcomed the invitations extended to departmental officials from Northern Ireland to attend a conference in West Virginia last week on the use of information and communications technology (ICT) in education. Deputy Secretary Holleman thanked the Administration here for the invitation to US experts in special educational needs to visit Northern Ireland this autumn.

On Wednesday 11 September, the Deputy First Minister and I met President Clinton and his advisers. We thanked him for his tremendous input while in office in helping us to make progress here. We drew attention to the growing links between our Administrations, and both sides agreed that these contacts should be encouraged. We briefed the President on the progress that has been made by the new institutions here.

At this point I would like to hand over to the Deputy First Minister.

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

We updated the President on the problems that society here continues to face, including the attacks by Republican dissidents and the senseless and needless violence in Loyalism, which has caused a number of murders. We stressed the need to secure the implementation of all elements of the agreement. Our views on police reforms and the need for further progress with the decommissioning of all illegal weapons were highlighted.

We invited the President to visit Northern Ireland again before he leaves office. He left us in no doubt about his high level of continuing interest in affairs here. He indicated that he would very much like to visit again, subject to finding a suitable time in his diary.

In a useful meeting with the Deputy Secretary of Labor, Edward Montgomery, we discussed a range of important matters, including the desirability of matching skills to the needs of employers, the best way of addressing the problem of long-term unemployment and how inequalities of pay on the basis of gender and disability can be tackled. We noted with interest projects being undertaken in the USA to tackle these and related problems. The importance of developing still better relationships and of learning from best practice in both jurisdictions was stressed.

We also briefed Madeleine Albright’s Deputy at the State Department, Strobe Talbott, on progress since the resumption of devolution, and we had useful discussions with both the British and Irish Ambassadors to the US.

In addition to the joint programme of meetings, the First Minister and I undertook a number of separate engagements.

In summary, both the First Minister and I regard our visit as having been very worthwhile. Besides the President, we met a wide range of influential people interested in the peace process and willing to offer genuine and concrete support. Above all, our visit showed that we can learn from the experiences elsewhere in tackling common problems. The development of our contacts can help us to learn lessons which will help us to meet the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. Increasingly, we too will have positive experiences and programmes to share with others.

The objectives of the trip were met. This was the first time that we had visited the United States as First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the warmth of our reception was testament to the close interest and support for the new institutions which exist in the United States.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The statement by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister suggests that our views on police reform were put to the President. Was that view a concerted one, or, as the press has reported it, were two disparate points of view put forward in something that was more like a schoolyard squabble than the dialogue of statesmen?

I want the First and the Deputy First Ministers to apologise to the taxpayers of Northern Ireland for the Deputy First Minister’s change of coat half way through to take up his role as deputy leader of the SDLP. Instead of representing the people of Northern Ireland, he represented the views of his political party when speaking of police issues to important United States bodies.

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

The First Minister and I are at one when representing the Executive on matters relating to the devolved Administration. On non-devolved matters, there are differences of view on important issues such as policing, but we both accept the importance of a police service which is accountable, widely acceptable to the community and representative of that community.

As Deputy First Minister, I was invited to speak to the National Committee on American Foreign Policy. In New York, I also undertook a number of engagements with the press and the British and Irish Consuls General. Prior to the visit, my office confirmed with the head of the Civil Service that it could be undertaken at public expense. Both the First Minister and I have undertaken separate visits on this basis before.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Was the future of the Walsh Visa Programme raised by the Ministers at meetings with the US Administration?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Yes, we discussed that programme with the Department of Labor and with Mr Walsh himself. The programme has had some teething problems, but there is a strong desire to continue with it.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat. I refer to the meeting that the First and the Deputy First Ministers had with the Deputy Secretary for Labor, Edmond Montgomery. What emerged from their discussions on the problems of long-term unemployment and how to tackle inequalities in society here?

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

We had a very interesting meeting. The Deputy Secretary had a number of officials with him, notably those dealing with both racial and gender inequality. It was interesting to discuss the programmes they have for dealing with those problems. The most interesting thing from our point of view was that the difficulties they are experiencing with their programmes are often the same as we are encountering with ours.

We also discussed the Walsh visas. Among the first people we met at a reception in Washington were eight or ten young people who were there on Walsh visas. The way in which those young people comported themselves was a credit to all of us. They were able to make cases, not just for their own lives, but for all our futures. It is crucial that we maintain this type of contact. On the basis of that discussion, our background information and the meeting that we had with the Education Department — the Minister of Education, Martin McGuinness, has also been there and the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, Dr Farren will go shortly — I have no doubt that there are elements in their programmes that we can learn from. They too are keen to learn from our life here.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for their statement, and I am pleased to hear that they believe that the objectives of their visit have been achieved. This was their first visit as the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and, when such trips are undertaken, it is important that at no time should party politics be seen to intervene. I say so in the interests of the Assembly. As we have already heard this morning, whenever there are disputes and disagreements over sensitive issues and either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister is, for whatever reason, inclined to don his party hat, that in itself brings the Assembly into a certain amount of disrepute. It also —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I must press the Member to put his question. This is an opportunity to put questions, not to make statements.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that this provides the enemies of the Assembly with an opportunity to take out a whip and beat us across the back? Do they agree that, in future, they should be seen to be operating in unison throughout the entirety of their trips?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I think that there is a problem of perception. I can assure the Member that, in the meetings that we had in the White House and with those who have responsibility for labour and education, matters were presented — and this was appreciated by the people whom we met — in the spirit that he mentions. There is no point in meeting people who are well informed and putting up a false front. There are areas where disagreements exist, and that is known. Those disagreements were argued, not in a party political spirit, but in a spirit of informing people of what the position was and what the different perspectives were.

I can appreciate the perception that the Member has, but I believe that that perspective is largely formed by the quality of the reportage in this country, which tended to emphasise the points of difference and did so in a tendentious manner. Many of the people who were with us on the trip will confirm what I have said about the good spirit that existed and that things were presented in a mature and balanced manner.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for their statement and congratulate them on the success of their trip to Washington. I wish to underline the importance of links with the United States and how important it is that we go there and are seen to be there.

With regard to the Walsh visas — and I realise that two questions have already been asked on that subject — can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister explain how the company Logicon, which, I believe, majors more in defence matters, was chosen to co-ordinate the visa programme? Do they agree that insufficient resources were put into training and induction before the young people left for the visa programme? How do they intend to resolve that matter?

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

The first part of the question is a departmental matter, and must be addressed to the Minister responsible. It is not within our remit, but we will ensure that a full reply is given in writing.

With regard to the second part of the question, there have been problems with the Walsh visas; problems that were not of the making of any of the people who were responsible for the programme, and I believe that that fact was recognised. Sometimes things happen that are outside the remit of those who are in control. I believe that those matters will be resolved and that we all know what one of them is.

It is essential that we keep in contact with those responsible for various Departments in the United States and try to ensure that the qualities that those young people showed in Washington are developed. We should not be deterred on this issue, or on any other, by the type of hiccup that occurred in relation to the Walsh visas.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister tell the House if it was during or after their meeting with the President of the United States that he expressed his full support for the implementation of the Patten Report and for Sinn Féin/IRA’s interpretation of it?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I cannot comment on the second point, for I never heard the President use those terms. We had a 45-minute meeting with the President, which went a little over time, as such meetings sometimes do. There is no doubt at all about the extent of his interest and his pleasure at seeing things working here. We were able to give him a full account of the Assembly’s success and the way in which, despite the occasional sour comment from a certain corner of the Assembly Chamber, all of its Members are working hard together in a good spirit and pulling their weight.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirimse fáilte roimh ráiteas na maidine seo. I wish to welcome this morning’s statement. My interest lies in the meeting held on Wednesday 13 September with the Deputy Secretary of Education, Mr Frank Holleman III. This follows on from contacts with the Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, continuing to explore areas of educational co-operation for our mutual benefit. The statement says that the meeting addressed how the education system could best meet the needs of pupils of all abilities. This dovetails neatly with an inquiry into underachievement being conducted by the Education Committee. I should like to hear some further detail of what was discussed.

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

The meeting was extremely interesting, and Mr Holleman was accompanied by a number of officials working in various sections of the US education programme. We discussed how lack of attainment is linked to social or economic deprivation and what programmes can be developed to combat the problem. They had some very interesting things to say. Attainment, especially in maths, is seeping right down into the core of their programme — something from which we could learn. They also pointed out the difficulties of the programme very honestly to us. Secretary Riley was not present — he was, quite rightly, at the hustings — but the effect of the contacts which have taken place between him, the Department here and various people in the Assembly is very important.

We discussed a range of matters, particularly vocational training and arrangements to ensure that students are given the appropriate skills to meet local employers’ needs. We also discussed the good co-operation already taking place, as evidenced by our education officials’ attending a recent conference in Virginia and by US experts’ visiting Dublin to share expertise on autism and dyslexia. Northern experts will also attend that meeting. Of these very positive meetings, this was probably the most interesting, at least for me. As they have been initiated, they should be followed up.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I notice that the First Minister has made no mention in the statement of the party political canvassing on policing engaged in by the Deputy First Minister while they were in America. Is it not a fact that, once again, just as he has been conned by Tony Blair, Gerry Adams, Bertie Ahern and others, the Deputy First Minister — I should say the First Minister — has been conned by the First Minister on this issue of policing? Does the First Minister agree with the conclusions reached in this statement — that the visit was worthwhile and that the trip’s objectives were met? Were the objectives of the trip once more to denigrate the RUC and call on the President of the United States to endorse the changes which the SDLP and IRA/Sinn Féin wish to be made to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill before Westminster? If that is the case, how can the First Minister claim that his party defends the RUC?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Unfortunately that question was largely predictable, although the Member did at times get muddled between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The general sense of these predictable comments came across and has already been dealt with in previous answers.

Quite clearly, the objectives of the visit were achieved. The meetings in the White House and with other Departments were successful. We look forward to a visit by President Clinton, it is hoped before the end of the year, which will be welcomed generally.

On the specific points that he mentions, the key thing is that the agreement, which was endorsed by 71% of the voters in Northern Ireland, be implemented in full. That involves a whole range of matters, including matters of interpretation. However, the important thing is that the agreement is implemented in full, and we look forward to that.

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

Is it in order —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I am not accepting any further points of order.

Civic Forum

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on the Civic Forum.

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

I wish to make the following statement on the Civic Forum on behalf of the First Minister and myself.

We are pleased to make this statement on the Civic Forum. The Forum is one more step in the realisation of the vision of the Good Friday Agreement. The Forum is a unique body with a membership comprising a wide breadth of experience. It is in keeping with the new era in which we are now operating that, through the Forum and the other institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, we embrace these progressive and positive developments in inclusive democracy.

On 16 February 1999, the Assembly approved the proposals set out in our report in relation to establishing the consultative Civic Forum. That report proposed that the Forum would be comprised of 60 members and a chairman. The allocation of places to the Civic Forum is as follows: business 7; agriculture/fisheries 3; trade unions 7; voluntary/community 18; churches 5; culture 4; arts and sport 4; victims 2; community relations 2; education 2; First Minister and Deputy First Minister 6.

The first meeting of the Civic Forum will be on Monday 9 October in the BT Studio in the Waterfront Hall. Future meetings will also be held in venues outside Belfast.

In our report to the Assembly, we identified the organisations that would be invited to develop a nomination process for each sector. Those involved in the nomination process were advised that appointments should adhere to the principles applicable to all public appointments and have regard to equality of opportunity, merit, openness and transparency. They should also seek to achieve balance in terms of gender, community background, a geographical spread across Northern Ireland and age. Each of the sectors submitted its procedures to us for approval and has made its nominations in accordance with those procedures. One nomination, from the agriculture/fisheries sector, remains outstanding. We shall advise the Assembly when the membership from that sector is complete.

Of the six members appointed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, I have made three: Brian O’Reilly, regional president of the Society of St Vincent de Paul, which works at the coalface of poverty; Sharon Haughey, a 19-year-old student who came to the public eye in 1998 when, as a 17-year-old, she shared a platform in Armagh with President Clinton, the First Minister and myself; and Hugh Frazer, director of the Combat Poverty Agency.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I have made the following three nominations: Mr Gary McMichael, leader of the Ulster Democratic Party; Mr Richard Monteith, a solicitor whose clients include Portadown District of the Orange Order; and Mrs Betty McClurg, who is the chairperson of the Southern Education and Library Board.

We would like to pay tribute to all the organisations and individuals that worked so hard to help us achieve our goal of establishing the Civic Forum in what proved to be a very short time. We have now ratified their nominations to the Civic Forum, and we have placed a list of its members in the Assembly Library. The list includes the six members appointed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

We have also appointed Mr Chris Gibson as chairperson of the Civic Forum. He is well known for his business experience, including his contribution to the IDB and the CBI. This knowledge, combined with his work in the Irish School of Ecumenics, makes him a uniquely suited person to hold the chair. We know that his wisdom will help to ensure that the Civic Forum achieves its full potential.

The agreement provides that the Civic Forum will act as a consultative mechanism on social, economic and cultural matters. We anticipate that the Assembly will, over time, develop a constructive relationship with the Civic Forum in order to avail of its experience on social, economic and cultural matters.

As the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, we are required to provide the Forum with its administrative support, and, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we are required — with the approval of the Assembly — to make arrangements for obtaining from the Forum its views on social, economic and cultural matters. We hope shortly to bring forward a proposal for this for approval by the Assembly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Did the Orange Order make nominations to the Civic Forum? Were any of its nominations taken up? It seems strange to me that, in spite of the fact that there was to be equality in the Civic Forum and a cross-community element, one of the largest — probably the largest — organisation in the Protestant community has been snubbed.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

We were responsible for overlooking — or approving, to be precise — the nomination procedure. [Interruption] We ensured that open and fair procedures were established, and we are satisfied, from the information available, that this has happened. There was a sector focusing on cultural matters, from which a number of nominations came. I will not go in to the details, but I think that when the Member looks at the list in the Library, he will find that there is balance. He knows — at least, there are people sitting close to him who can tell him — that Mr Monteith, whom I appointed, also holds office in the Orange Order.

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

I welcome the setting of a date for the first meeting of the Civic Forum. Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that one of the first issues that should be debated is the relationship between ill health and poverty? Do they agree that age and gender balance in the membership of the Forum is essential if it is to be truly representative?

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

The Member is absolutely correct, and I agree with her. There is no doubt that the views of the unemployed will be represented by a number of members. While this is not a direct answer to the question, the relationship between unemployment, poverty and ill health is so stark that we will have to look at it in those terms.

The trade unions have nominated one person with experience of working with the unemployed and those suffering ill health in the Derry Unemployed Centre. Also, one of the nominees from the voluntary community sector comes from the Organisation for the Unemployed in the North of Ireland. A number of people on the list are from the voluntary sector and have a direct interest in health matters.

I believe that that area is covered, perhaps not fully, but as fully as possible under a system such as this. The element of initiative that might come from young people in the Forum, and from the involvement of others who deal with poverty on the ground, is also a factor in catering for health.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the setting up of the Civic Forum as recommended in the Good Friday Agreement. It is two and a half years since we signed the agreement, so certainly it is welcome. During the deliberations on the Forum, Sinn Féin flagged up a number of concerns. The party was very unhappy with the proposed format of the representative nominating bodies in the remit.

I must say to Mr Trimble that I am very unhappy with his appointments. The statement says

"We anticipate that the Assembly will over time develop a constructive relationship with the Forum, in order to avail of its experience on social, economic and cultural matters."

How do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister propose to make this happen? What mechanisms will be put in place to bring forward the Assembly’s proposals, and what timescale are we talking about?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

First, we achieved the target that we, with the approval of the Assembly, set for ourselves in terms of having the Forum operating within six months of devolution. That is quite a credit, and I must pay tribute to the staff in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for the work that they have done. It was a very difficult job to deal with a wide range of bodies and to encourage the formation of consortia to make nominations. The persons responsible for carrying it through so successfully deserve our thanks.

In my appointments, my overriding concern was to ensure that there was a balance. Each of the three nominations that I made was specifically to ensure that balance and inclusion did occur. We all want to see — and it is very much a strong theme of the agreement itself — that there is equality and inclusion. Consequently one insured, as far as one could with a limited number appointments, that that was done.

At this stage, I cannot give any detail on the arrangements by which we will obtain the views of the Forum on social, economic and cultural matters, because we have not yet had the chance to consult. It is not appropriate for us to be over-prescriptive at this stage. We will want to meet the chairman of the Forum and consult him. We will want to then consider how best to do this. We will want to consult the Assembly, because the Forum is there to provide advice to the Assembly. It is something which deserves a little consideration. Obviously, arrangements have to be made to enable the Forum to function as quickly as possible, but we need time to reflect on that.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for announcing the names for the Civic Forum. I am not trying to undermine their respective nominations, but do they not agree that this was a lost opportunity to show that Northern Ireland was moving forward in a more cross-community, pluralist basis, rather than to appoint people from their respective religious communities? Had there been a cross-community aspect to their individual nominations, that would have sent a very powerful message to the community. Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister inform me of how many applications were made from the various sectors? I understand that in some sectors there was very little competition. A breakdown of the number of people who applied would be helpful.

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

It should be recognised that the appointments do have a cross-community element. One of the appointments that I have made falls into that category. I agree with the Member on that. I am very pleased that a person of Mr Frazer’s quality and contribution to life in the North of Ireland has accepted the nomination.

I cannot give the exact number of those who made representations. I will write to the Member and inform him. We read them all carefully. Representations were also made verbally. There were substantial representations from various interest groups, sectors within the community and political organisations.

I agree with the Member that the Civic Forum has to be different. It has to have its own mind and it has to bring an independent view to the political process. I hope it will.

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

How did the First Minister arrive at his decision to exclude the Grand Orange Lodge, which has a huge number of members in Ireland, from his nominations while including Gary McMichael of the UDP, particularly at a time when innocent Protestants have to endure untold heartache at the hands of a pro-agreement paramilitary organisation? Will he further tell the House which prominent office Richard Monteith holds in the Grand Orange Lodge, if any?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I want to pick up on a comment made earlier, from a sedentary position, which displayed a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the process. A number of sectors were identified in respect of which applications would be invited. Within that there was a nominating process. It would have been quite inappropriate to give a specific body such as the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland the power to nominate an individual, which seems to be the thought of some Members.

This should not be a surprise to the Member, because the arrangements for the consortia and the sectors were debated in the Chamber and approved by the Assembly. So far as I recall, no point was made in that debate along the lines suggested by the Member. We can examine the record. The decision was made in the Assembly.

As to the particular office that Mr Monteith holds, if the Member asks along the Benches there, he will find someone very well qualified to give him the answer.

Denis Watson (UUAP, Upper Bann)

Following on from that question, does the First Minister agree with me that the Orange Institution has always played an important part in civic society in Northern Ireland? If so, why did he not recognise this when making his appointments to the Civic Forum and ensure that the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland was officially represented, bearing in mind the assurances that were given by the Prime Minister to the Orange Institution some time ago?

Will he tell the House how many members of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland applied for membership of the Civic Forum and were unsuccessful? I can confirm that neither worshipful brother Richard Monteith nor the several other Orangemen who have been appointed will be representing the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland.

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

I am not as well informed on these matters as the Member who asked the question. I understand that the person who has been appointed is the Member’s deputy in one of the areas of —

Denis Watson (UUAP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is not correct.

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

I said "I understand".

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

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

If that is not the case I will withdraw it and apologise to the Assemblyman. It is the advice that I have been given — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

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

As I have already said, I am not as well versed in these matters as many other Assembly Members.

With regard to the nominations, I was surprised that there was not one from the Orange Order. I would have welcomed a recommendation from them or from the Apprentice Boys. I have always held the view — and I expressed it last week — that the Civic Forum is not just something we should feel comfortable with; it is a body that should bring in the total width of views in the North of Ireland. I ask the Assembly to accept that, and if I am wrong I will make the matter right very quickly.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

As a representative of the party that first proposed a Civic Forum, I am heartened to hear that the Worshipful Brothers, and Worshipful Sisters, from the Orange Order were looking for places on it, especially when so much criticism of it came from the DUP in the first instance.

Is it intended that the Civic Forum should set its own agenda and priorities, rather than those matters being decided here? We did not have clarification on the arrangements, and I understand that, but that is my understanding of how it is to operate.

I commend the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for establishing the Forum. However, it is a pity that those who have been critical of it did not take the opportunity to co-operate. I am sure that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would agree that many of the sectors spent over a year, through self-nomination, selection and elections, trying to fulfil the participative nature of the Forum. Will those critics also take the opportunity to congratulate those who established the Forum?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I agree. It is remarkable to see the interest and desire shown in certain quarters in being part of the Civic Forum. This indicates that those evincing that desire wholly approve of the Civic Forum. They are clearly in favour of it, just as in the case of the other institutions of the agreement. One wonders why they describe themselves as anti-agreement when they are clearly endorsing it by their behaviour.

Under the legislation, there is a clear responsibility on us to make arrangements for obtaining the Forum’s views on a number of matters. Those arrangements could take a several forms — they do not have to be exhaustive. It does not necessarily follow that the arrangements made to enable the Assembly to take the views of the Forum cover all that the Forum does. However, the Forum must operate in social, economic and cultural matters. As I have already said, this is a matter where some reflection and consultation would be appropriate. Until now, our objective was to establish the Forum and get the nominations. We had a very tight timetable and we are delighted to have achieved it. We are going to try and achieve other things with regard to the Forum just as efficiently.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Considering the current level of input that all relevant groups already have, do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that the Civic Forum is another level of unnecessary bureaucracy? Is it coincidental that the Civic Forum includes people who failed to gain an electoral mandate for the Assembly?

Will the Minister tell us the cost of each individual’s wages and the overall cost of the Civil Forum? This is especially relevant as more money is required for health, education, roads and meeting the costs that organisations need to look after constituents.

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

The Civic Forum is not part of bureaucracy. The key element is that it is part of the imaginative independent thinking that exists in the North of Ireland right across the board. I hope that Members will look upon it as that. The administrative costs associated with the Civic Forum will not be clear until the Forum is operational. A notional figure of £300,000 has been allocated for the current financial year; it may be more or it may be less. It will be reviewed in the light of experience. The budget for the Forum will cover staff costs, office running costs, members’ expenses, research and the cost of hosting plenary and other meetings.

The post of chairman of the Civic Forum was widely advertised to attract the best possible field of candidates. The cost of advertising was some £10,000. Eight of the nominating sectors placed advertisements in local newspapers to offer the widest possible opportunity to all members of the community in Northern Ireland to apply for the Forum. Those advertising costs amounted to some £40,000.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I note with interest the silence from the Ulster Unionist Back Benches. Perhaps those Members had a rough night on Thursday.

Does the First Minister agree —[Interruption] He cannot take it. Does he agree that never has so much money been spent — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Does the First Minister agree that never has so much money been spent in appointing so many lapdogs in the history of Northern Ireland? Can he confirm that the original estimate for this whole process was £10,000 to £15,000, and that the nomination process for the Civic Forum has increased that by a factor of five or six? This makes the budgeting for the millennium dome look extremely proper. Can he confirm the total cost of the entire nomination process, and can he confirm that, as was shown on Thursday night, this Forum is not representative of the people of Northern Ireland because the majority of people in the Province are opposed to the whole sordid process?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

On the Assembly Member’s first point, he should consider the good manners displayed by all parties here, bar his own.That might lead him to reflect on his own behaviour or his party’s behaviour. I know that outside this Chamber the Member is not as rude as the people who sit beside him.

We very much regret that during the session we had with the Committee of the Centre last week, I said on advice from officials, that the cost of the nominating process was estimated at £10,000 to £15,000. That answer was incorrect, and we have acknowledged that in writing to the Committee Chairman, as the Member knows. The Deputy First Minister has, in his answer, given more accurate information on the costs. It is obviously undesirable that inaccurate information was given. When we discovered that that was the case, we moved, as we have done this morning, to correct that.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

As one who works closely with the victims, and especially people who have suffered so much trauma and so many problems over this past 30 years, I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister why the victims are so grossly under-represented in the Civic Forum. When one thinks of the thousands of people in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years who have been affected by the troubles, it is a shame that there are only two victims’ representatives.

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

The Member will be as aware as I am that the Assembly decided the numbers that each consortium would select. That was a collective decision by the Assembly of which we are all part. The report agreed by the Assembly provided that organisations working with victims should be invited to assist in ensuring that the concerns of victims are represented on the Civic Forum through two nominations. A consortium was established to develop a selection process for the nominations. It represented a wide cross-section of those working with victims, including groups from outside Belfast, groups recently established and those in existence since the early part of the troubles of the past 30 years.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

I would like the First Minister to return to a question raised by my Colleague and deal with the part concerning Gary McMichael. The appointment of McMichael is completely incomprehensible. McMichael represents no economic or cultural body. Not only has he no electoral mandate but his entire party was wiped out in the 1998 elections. The only significant claim to political status that this man has is that he gives political analysis — to use his own term — to a so-called loyalist terror organisation. Anyone who pays a blind bit of attention to anything that he says must be even more politically gullible than he is. However, on a more serious point, in appointing that man, the First Minister has obscured the issue of decommissioning.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member was making a point. This is an opportunity to ask questions.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

I am asking the First Minister to explain clearly to the Assembly why he appointed Gary McMichael.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

As I indicated earlier, the clear intention was to be inclusive. Mr McMichael is the leader of a political party. It is true that his party did not win any seats in the Assembly, but it does hold a number of seats at local government level. I considered it desirable, in the context of inclusion, to give a measure of representation in the Forum to that party. He is not the only councillor in the Forum.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I note the First Minister’s last reply when he said that he intended that the list would be inclusive. Obviously, that does not include the Orange Order, and it does not include many of the people who voted against the agreement. As we look through the list, we can see that it is made up of the membership of the Ulster Unionist Party, political failures, IRA terrorists, and yes-men. Does the First Minister agree that this kind of cronyism is of a kind that would make even Tony Blair blush? What credibility can an organisation made up of cronies, failures and IRA bomb-makers possibly have when it comes to public pronouncements?

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

I thank the Member for the question. I have heard numerous descriptions —failures, lapdogs, yes-men and cronies. I am not sure if we are reading the same list, for when I look at it I see the names of a large number of very independent- minded and strong-willed people. I think that that is good for a body such as the Civic Forum, and I repeat that I welcome the type of inclusion that has taken place. It is unfair to describe people who have made a contribution — maybe we do not like their contribution — to the life of this country as cronies, failures, lapdogs and yes-men.

I make one last point. We should never be comfortable with the Civic Forum. It should be there as an independent place where there is independent thought. Of course, there are those within the political process who are more afraid of independent thought than they are of anything else.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

How can the First and Deputy First Ministers justify these appointees to the crony Forum? The number of trade union representatives is triple the number of representatives of the victims and double the number of representatives from the agricultural community; the voluntary sector has almost double the representation of the combined interests of the business and agricultural sectors; and the number of First and Deputy First Ministers’ appointees is triple the number of those representing victims. How do they justify victims’ having to sit with people like Donncha MacNiallais, who actually created victims in Northern Ireland? What recourse, if any, have victims, the Orange Order, and the other snubbed groups and individuals to appeal those decisions?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I remind the Member that the arrangements for the distribution of members were approved in the Assembly on 16 February 1999 — quite some time ago. The hon Member is a little bit late in making his complaints about these matters.

There is, however, an opportunity for us to review the operation of the arrangements. In the report that the Deputy First Minister and I placed before the Assembly for the debate on 16 February 1999 we indicated that we would review the operation of the arrangements 12 months after the appointment of the Civic Forum. That we will do.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I would like to make the point that there are 22 —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I must draw to the Member’s attention that this is an opportunity not to make a point but to put a question.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

My question concerns the fact that only 22 of the 59 appointees are women. In the spirit of equality, will the First and Deputy First Ministers agree that there should be a 50:50 gender balance in the Civic Forum? Why did they not use their nominations to correct that imbalance?

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

I take the Member’s point. However, she should also recognise that, in our nominations, the First Minister and myself did try to redress that imbalance. I should also point out that decisions of the consortia that chose the Members were greatly influenced by the matter that she raises. We did try to help in our nominations. Maybe it should have been more, maybe next time it will be, but there was a wide field to cover, and we had to make sure that young people, those involved with poverty, those involved with health, those involved with all the different areas were represented. I think, on balance, when we look again at the final list we will conclude that it may not be perfect, but it is as near as possible under the present system.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, that he wishes to make a statement on Harland & Wolff. [Interruption]

The Deputy First Minister on a point of order.

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

It is not a point of order, but perhaps you would indulge me for a second. I am now aware that I gave inaccurate information in response to the question from Mr Watson. I regret it very much. He is someone I have dealt with in very difficult times and in a very honest way, so I apologise to him personally. I also apologise to the Assembly, and I ask that those remarks be withdrawn. I must take more of an interest in those matters so that I will not give faulty information again.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Assembly will be grateful that the Minister has, with such alacrity, moved to correct the matter on the Floor of the House.

Harland & Wolff

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The future of Harland & Wolff has been at the forefront of the news in recent days, and I have been following events closely. I am obviously very concerned about the recently announced redundancies at the shipyard and in particular, the impact that they will have on the livelihoods of employees, their families and the local community. I have already expressed my deep personal regret about that and reiterate it today.

The situation arises as part of an overall re-structuring of the Harland & Wolff group in response to very difficult market conditions. The company has been in private ownership through the Fred Olsen Group for some 11 years now, following privatisation in September 1989. At that time, approximately 2,400 people were employed by the company. My officials continue to do everything we can to assist the company in its search for viable new work. We have already, since I became Minister, acted flexibly and constructively in all our dealings with the company. I have supported the business in a tangible, often imaginative way through stage payment of intervention aid grant for the two major deepwater drill ship contracts and for the conditional contract, as yet unconfirmed, with Seamasters International for four roll-on roll-off passenger ferries, towards which we have made a conditional offer of intervention aid grant at the maximum possible level permitted under EU rules.

Furthermore, Ministers and Departments in Belfast and London have worked very hard and continue to make strenuous efforts in support of the company and its endeavours to seek new work. I must pay tribute to colleagues in the Executive who have been helpful in this matter.

However, contracts are placed commercially on price, competitive and technical criteria. They are subject to the buyer’s ability to structure suitable funding arrangements and satisfy terms and conditions for bank finance. My Department will continue to play our part by providing all the help that we can by way of intervention aid grant for new orders contracted by the company, and in any other way permitted under the terms of the EU Shipbuilding Regulation (EC No 9506/98).

The success of the Harland & Wolff bid to win a recent contract was the results of the efforts that we have made and the unprecedented level of support for the shipyard’s bid to win this contract. Although I was not acting in a ministerial role earlier this year, when the Queen Mary II contract negotiations were taking place, I discussed the project with Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry and with the Deputy Prime Minister, who took a great personal interest in this contract and did a lot of work to secure the order for the United Kingdom and for Belfast. I am confident that the work done by Ministers here and in London will continue. As with any of these deals, it is not simply a matter of IDB assistance, there are huge finances necessary through ship mortgage guarantee schemes as run by the Department of Trade and Industry and, of course, there is the commercial bank sector. So there are three different sectors involved in putting together any order.

In support of the attempt to win the Queen Mary contract, the First Minister and I met the president and senior executives of Carnival Corporation. I have also written to the Ministry of Defence about bringing forward order programmes and to press for Harland & Wolff’s case to share in future defence work. I stand ready to do everything I can to assist the company to secure new orders from that quarter. There is more that other Members of the House can do in that regard by continuing to lobby strongly with the Ministry of Defence and so strengthen the case for the company.

I also highlighted at ministerial level the difficult and aggressive global market place in which Harland & Wolff is competing, when the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry called together the UK’s shipbuilding forum in early July to discuss the way ahead for the UK industry as a whole. Several topics were discussed, including our ability to help the shipbuilding industry under EU regulations, a range of activities with regard to training and the high-level age profile of the workforce in the shipbuilding industry — the fact that there are not sufficient young people coming in to the industry. The point was also raised that the UK share of world shipping is at an all-time low.

Since coming into office, I have made it a priority to maintain open contact with senior management at Harland & Wolff and with Fred Olsen Energy ASA, as well as with various representatives of the trade union movement at the shipyard. Frequent meetings have been held with all parties in recent months, and that contact will be maintained.

The Department is working closely with the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment (DHFETE) and with agencies and training providers to ensure that suitable job opportunities are identified for those affected by redundancy. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr Farren for his close personal interest in this matter. Colleagues in the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment are standing ready to assist those in the company who may eventually be affected by the current situation and to help with re-training and the identification of other job opportunities where possible.

As an immediate and, I believe, constructive response to the situation faced by the company, we propose to set up a task force representing our two Departments to address three main priority areas. The first of these is the co-ordination of the setting up of a Training and Employment Agency temporary jobcentre to provide advice on redundancy as well as information on retraining and job opportunities. The second is to fully support the company in its search for new profitable work, making use of IDB’s overseas network as appropriate, and the third is to work with the company to examine opportunities for other uses of the manufacturing facilities. Membership of the task force will include the chief executive of the Training and Employment Agency and the deputy chief executive of the IDB. The group will work closely with the Engineering Training Council in carrying out its remit.

Harland & Wolff has a long and distinguished tradition as a shipbuilder and employer in Northern Ireland. It is an impressively well-invested yard with excellent skills and competencies and a large number of talented people with whom to build for the future. We will do everything possible to help sustain that future and assist the company to grow competitively in areas of shipbuilding, heavy industry and offshore construction. In the end, however, that can come only from the company’s bringing in commercially viable new contracts. With colleagues, we stand ready to play our full part and do everything we possibly can to help, both through the work of the task force and in any other way possible. I will continue to follow events in the company and will keep the Assembly informed as and when appropriate.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I want publicly to acknowledge all the efforts that he, as an individual, and his Department have put into dealing with the crisis at Harland & Wolff. Does the Minister agree that time is not on our side and that every effort must be made? It must involve the UK Government to ensure that the potential order for four roll-on roll-off vessels for Seamasters International will be secured. Also, I believe there is a need for an investigation into the operations of Global Marine. Does the Minister agree? We have seen the closure of a French shipyard in similar circumstances, and I think that this matter needs to be looked at very closely indeed.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I agree with the Member that time is of the essence.

The situation is that 613 workers, who have not yet been individually identified, are facing the dole. Those people will have families and friends and also financial commitments. We are dealing with a personal as well as commercial issues.

With regard to the roll-on roll-off ferry order, there has been a tendency in recent months for several newpapers to report that Harland & Wolff has obtained huge orders. I wish to sound a note of caution here as these reports of orders being achieved are inaccurate and misleading. All that has happened is that companies have indicated, perhaps with a letter of intent, that they wish to pursue negotiations towards an order. A letter of intent does not constitute a contract. It merely indicates a degree of interest, and we must not get focused on particular individual contracts. That is where we have fallen down before.

These are commercially sensitive matters, and I cannot get into detail. However, with regard to the Seamasters International contract, the Department, through IDB, has made an indicative offer. Negotiations still have to take place on some matters. The Executive have been supportive. We have put a funding package together which has never been done before anywhere in the European Union, and certainly not in the United Kingdom. We look forward to having the opportunity to complete our negotiations on that. However, it has to be stressed that the key issue is that the company and its customer reach a commercial contract which puts the finance in place. Only at that stage does our involvement become critical. I can assure the Member that we are conscious of the time issue. The company, in its press statement, said that while it was proposing to make 613 people redundant, the security of the remaining workforce depended on securing new work quickly and improvements in productivity. We are not out of the woods yet, and the hon Member knows that.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

To conform with the procedures of the House, I have to draw attention to an interest that I have declared in the Register of Members’ Interests.

I thank the Minister for having kept me informed and briefed on matters relating to the shipyard in which his Department has been involved over recent months. That is both appreciated and helpful. I assure the Minister that I will continue to work with him in attempting to secure more work for the yard.

I have two questions. One relates to training issues and the other to land issues. With regard to training, I am sure that the Minister is aware that when a workforce is reduced to the level of Harland & Wolff’s, many key skills could be lost to the firm, should there be a new order. Can the Minister ensure that there will be proper training to ensure that, if a new order is received, there will be people with the proper skills available?

I remind the Minister that the Training and Employment Agency premises at Dundonald were closed down and that there is a need for more training facilities and funding in east Belfast. I trust that within the task force he can make that a telling point.

With reference to the land issue, I am sure the Minister is aware that there is a suspicion in Harland & Wolff and outside that in the minds of some in the management and ownership of the company there is a more beneficial use for the land.

I have spoken to my Friend, the Minister for Regional Development. Will the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment consult and work with Mr Gregory Campbell to ensure that the two Departments prevent the removal of any land from any present leasing arrangements without its being in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland? There is a fear and suspicion that it could be more financially useful to the owner than the core business of shipbuilding at the yard.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Of course, the Member has been working on the matter for many years as the Member of Parliament for East Belfast, and he knows that, in other capacities, I and other colleagues have been being doing the same. He raises the issue of training and he quite correctly identifies one of the dangers in the current exercise. He may be aware that, through the company development programme, the Department currently has an agreement with Harland & Wolff in which we provide them with financial assistance towards the costs of re-training staff. A budget was available towards the end of last year, an agreement has now been reached and training is taking place. To some extent, that has been overtaken by events.

The chief executive of the Training and Employment Agency is one of the key people in the taskforce. Obviously, some of the ships Harland & Wolff have just completed, and some which are currently being built, are very complicated and highly technical. Significant skills are needed to complete contracts and, therefore, the Member correctly identifies one of the key areas the taskforce must address. The difficulty is that if you are losing more than 50% of your existing workforce, then, by definition, you are bound to have a skills fallout. We saw, in the situation with the Global Marine contract, that large numbers of people from outside had to be brought in, and the management of those people led to some of the difficulties.

I agree with what the Member said and I assure him that one of the key roles of the taskforce will be to ensure that what staff remain are as well trained as possible. The Department will stand ready, through the company development programme, to assist in that regard.

With regard to suspicions over the land, I am as aware as the Member is of the long-held belief that there was another issue around, and it was not simply a matter of shipbuilding. I assure him that I would have no difficulty in working with my Colleague, Gregory Campbell, to ensure that the undertakings we have been given by the company, publicly and privately, are adhered to. The company has undertaken to maintain Harland & Wolff as a shipbuilding and engineering facility. We know it no longer requires part of its land and that that land is being used for property development. I have no difficulty with that; it is the Titanic quarter; it is out in the open; we all know about it, and it is clearly land that is not currently needed. I am not sure what powers I have in the event that attempts are made to move beyond that and to convert the whole area into some kind of property development. Therefore, I am not able to answer the Member specifically on that point. However, if I have the power to prevent a "smash and grab" land deal being done, I will have no hesitation in using it. I would work very closely with the Minister for Regional Development to ensure that does not happen. I will come back to the Member when I have had the opportunity to check my ability to do that.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. There are a number of points on which I would like more information. He has given us three points on the terms of reference for the task force. Are these the only three points or does the taskforce have any other terms of reference? He has mentioned that the chief executive of the Training and Employment Agency is on the task force. Would it be possible to know who else is on it? Is the taskforce to produce a report within a reasonable period of time, and if so, when is the report due?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I have identified the key members of the task force. I have to consult with my colleague, Dr Farren, before finalising the members, but a list can be left in the Library for Members. The points are not intended to be restrictive. I have highlighted the main elements, but any other matter will be addressed if necessary.

A change of membership may become necessary, but that does not matter. We are simply trying to help. There are over 600 families in difficulty, and possibly more. The Government will do anything they feel is required.

There has already been communication between Dr Farren’s Department and mine, and this is not the first attempt at setting up a task force. We are setting it up now, because we want to ensure that there is no doubt that we are co-ordinating all our efforts. It may well be that the Department for Regional Development will have an interest, and I will have no difficulty if that is the case.

Work will begin immediately as there is not enough time to sit for weeks and look over these matters. I fully subscribe to Mr Neeson’s view that these are urgent matters, and I assure him that there will be no delay either in the establishment of the task force or in its work.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the Minister’s statement and the fact that he is trying to save jobs. Is he aware of the financial crisis affecting a much bigger employer than Harland & Wolff? The community and voluntary sector employs thousands of people from both communities and is currently being suffocated by a lack of resources. If he is going to spend money from the public purse on —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Such a question is out of order. Questions to a Minister on a statement must be on the subject of the statement. If the member has a question on the subject of the statement, she should put it.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is not even something that he is responsible for.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member from a sedentary position adds that it is a matter of putting a question to the Minister who has responsibility for the subject of that question. Sometimes I am generous and allow a Minister to say whether he is responsible. Ministers usually give a response anyway. If the Member wishes to put a question on the statement, she is welcome to do so.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I echo the thanks that Mr Peter Robinson has extended to the Minister for keeping local representatives in east Belfast informed about developments at the shipyard and for his involvement since becoming Minister.

At times, the management has not been very forthcoming with the workers and public representatives. The Minister barely mentions the management in his statement, other than to say that he has been meeting with it. Is he happy with how the management has dealt with the situation in the shipyard? I think particularly of chasing new orders and handling existing orders, which seem to have been crisis prone? Is he aware that the workers first found out about the scale of the redundancies from the radio? Will he be taking this issue up with the management at Harland & Wolff? Many people are grossly upset that the trade unions and the workers themselves were not given prior notice of the management’s statement.

Is the Minister aware of the graffiti on the walls in the Short Strand, no doubt put up by Republicans, gloating about the job losses at the shipyard? Does he agree that such sentiments are a result of the sectarian poison that has been injected into parts of our community by members of IRA/Sinn Fein?

12.00

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I deeply regret that such material has appeared, and I would advise such people that what goes around comes around. If any person is losing his job, if any company is in difficulties, that is a negative thing for the entire economy. It is not simply the local people who work in the company who are affected; the surrounding businesses, as the hon Member knows, are affected, whether they be petrol stations, sweet shops, grocery stores or whatever. It is very short-sighted and deplorable if that is the attitude of some people.

As the Member will know, I appreciate his efforts for the company over a long time. I am regularly in touch with the local management but the senior company is also involved here. This means that there is management engagement at two levels, at the level of the local company and at the level of the principal shareholding company. I have had regular contacts with both and in recent weeks a majority of my contact has been with the senior company and with the owner, Mr Olsen, personally. With regard to how things were managed, the Member may know that in August, when I was out of Northern Ireland on a trade mission, I was led to believe that an announcement was imminent and came back from America for that reason. At that moment, however, the shop stewards who were standing by were stood down, and then something suddenly appeared in the press. Notices were given to the Stock Exchange in Oslo, but the workers were not notified and neither was I. I got sight of some of those announcements after they were made in public, so I was not at all times in possession of the information.

However, Harland & Wolff is a private company, and it does its own thing. I agree that the cruellest aspect of all of this is not so much the knowledge that the company has been in difficulty, but that people have had a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, knowing that they might be made redundant. To have that drag on for some considerable time added to the tensions, and then there was the legal dispute over payment. The fact that it had to go to arbitration made it all take much longer than was expected and made the whole thing worse. I am aware of those concerns.

We will have to have an inquest into all of these matters, but the task now is to try to insure the core that remains. The one good thing that has come out of this is that the core still exists; the potential for growth is still there and with the oil price having risen substantially, the offshore market with which Harlands is currently geared up ought to be improving.

An aggressive marketing strategy aimed at that market is the only way forward, and if there is anything this Department can do in that regard we will certainly do it.

I hinted earlier that with regard to Ministry of Defence matters, we may need to make a fresh push. I would certainly appreciate the support of local representatives in that. I understand that the hon Member for East Belfast, Mr P Robinson, has publicly indicated his willingness to engage in that, and that is something that we all could do. That would be positive. Harlands is part of a number of consortia that are bidding for Ministry of Defence work. These are big contracts and they are no longer going to a single yard — they are going to consortia. That is an area where we should have some influence. I hope that we can count on all local representatives to assist in that, and if an opportunity can be created for such a situation then I would be happy to do so.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his statement and for keeping the departmental Committee informed. First, I wish to put my party’s position on record and to express concern about job losses in any sector, particularly when those job losses are major. It is clear that strenuous efforts have been made to keep the shipyard afloat, and that the nub of the problem lies in the lack of current orders for Harland & Wolff. This is due to a number of factors, including global market conditions. It is also clear that hard-nosed business decisions have to be made in respect of the whole issue.

I turn to the creation of this high calibre task force. Given the crisis that faces the textile and bakery industries, the community sector and firms like United Technology Automotive Ltd in Derry, which has paid off over 1,000 workers, will the same level of urgency be given to such matters, and will similar task forces be set up?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member correctly points out that the key issue is the lack of firm orders. If the company does not have business on its books, what the Government do will not affect the outcome.

The task force is not a new concept. At the end of last year, the textile industry went through a particularly difficult patch, particularly in the North Down and Ards areas. I established a task force with the help of Ards Borough Council. The hon Member for Strangford, who is in the Room, will confirm that. It included members of the local authority and IDB and LEDU officials, and was formed because of the number and concentration of redundancies in the textile industry and to see what steps could be taken to help. That task force has been working since, and I am sure that a number of members of Ards Borough Council who are in the Chamber will be prepared to confirm that. The concept is not new.

With regard to the wider issue of textiles, the Department has, after consultation with the industry, appointed Kurt Salmon Associates, not simply to carry out a management consultancy exercise but to work with the industry through workshops and various strategy groups to see if there is a way forward, taking into account what has happened in other European countries. That is another example of action having been taken on the textile sector.

Similarly, I have spoken to the Northern Ireland Bakeries Council and have been keeping that industry under close watch. I have also been engaged in consultations with the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland with particular regard to that industry because, as the Member will appreciate, the difficulty for the bakery industry has been the pressure from the supermarkets to cut prices.

The principle of setting up task forces is well established and is not unique to this particular case. I hope that it is not necessary to appoint any more, but, should the situation arise where benefit can be gained or assistance given, we would have no hesitation in doing so.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement and join with him in his concern for the well-being of those to be made redundant and their families.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, to follow up Mr P Robinson’s question about his power to control any proposed smash-and-grab land deal. Does the Minister have the power to recall any of the grant assistance given to the yard in the past?

Secondly, I should like the Minister to explain why the United Kingdom — and Harland & Wolff — has such a small share of the world shipbuilding industry, particularly in the light of the fact that the Dutch and the French are beating us hands down. Perhaps, after what was said about the textiles sector, we should also employ consultants like Kurt Salmon to look at the future of our shipbuilding industry.

Finally, I should like to ask the Minister if he agrees that we cannot and must not close the door on our shipbuilding industry and the livelihoods of the people who work there. Does he agree that the Blair Government would have been better advised to concentrate their efforts on securing contracts for Harland & Wolff rather than wasting public money on something like the Millennium Dome?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

It seems impossible to have any subject on the table at the moment without its relating in some way to the dome, which, if nothing else, is certainly, as someone has said, one of the few things visible when looking at the earth from outer space. However, a range of issues has been raised about the land. I must, however, put on the record that Mr Olsen and his company have made very substantial sums of money available over the last few months to keep the yard open, not the action of people lacking commitment. Without closing my eyes to the risks, I believe the firm intention is still to keep a core business operating on that site. That is certainly the Department’s objective and my own.

With regard to grants recall, I must point out that the IDB assists Harland & Wolff — and, indeed any other shipbuilding industry, were there more than one company — in a unique way. It is not through selective financial assistance, the normal mechanism used by the IDB, but through another called intervention aid grant , designed specifically for shipbuilding. Money is granted to a specific project. The grant goes on the construction of a particular vessel, not on a general sum of money for a company to employ a certain number of people. The grant is totally focused on a particular project. That is governed by the EU Shipbuilding Regulation (EC No 9506/98), in which the sums of money which may be given are specifically set out. There is no question of grant recall. However, bearing in mind that we have been paying grant in arrears by stages, if there is any flaw in the contract, or the company does not deliver what it is supposed to, grant could be withheld. Intervention aid is contract-related, so the IDB has no right to recover grants where the contract is completed. It would only have the right to withhold money if the contract were not implemented.

There is a shipbuilding market of approximately 2,500 vessels per annum. The Koreans are able to snap up perhaps 400 to 500 of those, leaving the rest of the world about 2,000 vessels. There are currently 15 vessels under construction in the entire United Kingdom. I have mentioned the Dutch experience before the Committee. They currently have 246 vessels under construction, but they cover many different types of vessels, such as those used on the Rhine. They would not necessarily be vessels you or I would recognise as such, for the name covers a vast variety.

As regards our competitiveness with the rest of Europe, our costs are approximately 7% higher than the European average. There are also problems with the labour force. If you look at the graph you will see that a large number of people working in shipbuilding are in their late ’40s and ’50s. There are not nearly as many in the lower age bracket.

The Government have established a shipbuilding forum, on which Harland & Wolff is entitled to have representation. This forum is looking at a range of problems. The purpose of the meeting we had with the Deputy Prime Minister in July was to look at the way ahead, consider the progress of that forum and bring forward proposals and ideas to modernise and sustain.

The House needs to be aware that, as things stand, we will not be able to offer any intervention aid grant after 31 December 2000, unless a decision is taken by the European Union, in negotiations to take place in November, to extend that deadline. The unanimous view of the July meeting was that that should happen. After 31 December 2000, if I am correct, we will not be able to pay out any intervention aid grant for shipbuilding. Members need to get their heads around that, because it is a significant development.

We will be lobbying strongly — and I am in regular contact with Stephen Byers — that we are of the view that we should be permitted to continue to offer intervention aid grant. There is a general feeling that there is not a level playing field in the world market. The Koreans are buying to capacity, going for growth and subsidising their production through various means. That is the opinion held throughout the UK shipbuilding industry.

As far as closing the door is concerned, I assure the hon Member that whatever else I maybe guilty of, I am not trying to see the demise of this industry. I am doing everything possible, but we have to understand our limitations. The key issue is for the company to find a client capable of providing the finance to construct vessels and get them to sign a contract. In the absence of a viable contract, there is nothing that anybody in this House can do that will matter, and that has to be borne in mind.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for the work he is doing in to try to safeguard these jobs. Despite his good work, we are now facing over 600 lay-offs, with no guarantee for those who are left.

Can the Minister gave us the state of play on the four roll-on/roll-off ferries? What are the chances of getting those contracts, and what help can his Department give? Does the Minister agree that there is a real concern that Harland & Wolff has been unable to gain orders world-wide for either oil drilling rigs or cruise liners? This flies in the face of the real upturn in demand for those, and it begs the question: why is Harland & Wolff management seeking orders for windmills? They are like Don Quixote — chasing windmills instead of building ships. This makes a great many of us concerned.

In the light of the very real concerns that the workers and elected representatives have, does the Minister agree that we need a public inquiry into the management of Harland & Wolff? Many of us are trying to understand what is happening. In his reply to a question from Peter Robinson, the Minister mentioned re-training. Many Harland & Wolff workers live in the Strangford and Ards Borough Council area —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. This is an opportunity for Members to put questions, not to make expansive speeches.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Minister intend to focus the retraining on the people who are losing their jobs rather than on the area of east Belfast, thereby missing many who are losing their jobs?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I assure the Member that the focus will be on the individual and not on east Belfast. We intend to set up a temporary job centre in the yard, where individuals threatened with redundancy can be advised or counselled on redundancy. The job centre will bring with it the demands from the labour market for skilled workers and a number of companies are currently looking for skilled workers. Therefore, I hope that a significant percentage of those who are made redundant will have an opportunity to get new jobs.

Clearly, this is a different proposition from the one that the hon Member for East Belfast (Mr Peter Robinson) made earlier, when he referred to the remaining workforce. The part of the workforce that leaves will be offered training and retraining — that is a key issue. Every person will be dealt with on a personal basis, and a package will be developed for the individual. It will not only be an area issue. It will focus on the person.

With regard to the oil industry, I agree with the Member. There is great potential at the moment. I am encouraged by Mr Olsen’s announcement that a second rig will soon arrive in the yard for assessment. That could produce some work. One rig is already being surveyed and examined. We await the outcome of the survey to find out what further work will need to be done. At the moment, the contract is to survey the rig and to assess its condition. Mr Olsen recently purchased a second rig, which will undergo a similar exercise. Work may be generated when those two vessels and rigs arrive.

The question of windmills does sound a bit off beam, but it is not necessarily a bad idea. Mr Olsen’s business is energy — his company is called Fred Olsen Energy — and it can take different forms, such as oil, gas or wind. He foresees the development of large offshore wind farms, which will fulfil future energy needs.

Several sites have been identified in the British Isles. These windmills are substantial structures made mostly of steel and the process for constructing offshore windmills is complicated and technical. A licence has been granted for a test area to be developed about two miles off the west coast of the Republic. If the initial project is successful, another licence will emerge.

There have been similar proposals for other offshore sites in the Irish Sea. These are very substantial structures and there could be a long-term future in them. The recent oil crisis has resulted in President Clinton releasing emergency oil stocks in the past few days. That situation has not occurred for many years.

The training will be focused on individuals, and I agree with the hon Member that there ought to be potential for developing the offshore industry.

This a private company, so inquiries into its operations are limited. What can be enquired into — through the Enterprise Trade and Investment Committee — are matters which relate to the use of public funds in the area of development. However, ultimately it is a private company. As I indicated, intervention aid grant is paid to a specific project and not to the company in general.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will take two more questions on the statement.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I congratulate the Minister for attempting to save jobs in the yard and elsewhere. I commend his visit to America, with my colleague Pat Doherty, to investigate further opportunities for employment. I too declare an interest. It is, perhaps not as beneficially weighty as Peter Robinson’s, but my great-great-grandfather was building ships on the east side of Belfast Lough before Harland & Wolff bought them out. That is my interest in the shipyard.

May I mention Mr Sammy Wilson’s reference to the graffiti in the Short Strand area of East Belfast? That community has suffered from unemployment over the years and also from what they perceive as discrimination in unemployment. When the shipyard was the goose that laid the golden egg, they never really shared in that golden egg. However, I would be disappointed to learn — and I shall check it out — that that community, which has suffered so much, is gloating over anyone else’s losing their jobs.

If the Minister is working with Mr Sean Farren on training and on other issues relating to, we hope, the future development of the shipyard, will he ensure that there are equal employment opportunities in the shipyard? As a trade unionist, I share Mr Peter Robinson’s and Mr Sammy Wilson’s concerns over the intentions of Harland & Wolff’s owners and their equivocation about the future of the yard. There is a perception abroad in the general community that they are not serious about ensuring that there is a viable industry within the confines of Harland & Wolff. Perhaps they see greater financial reward from going in other directions.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I presume that the Member is referring to the Workman, Clark and Co shipyard which existed in the city some years ago.

With regard to the Short Strand, I said in response to Mr Sammy Wilson’s question that I deplore the graffiti in that area. It is an immature and short-sighted attitude to adopt, because, to use an awful pun, rising tide will lift all boats. It is in everybody’s interest to ensure that as many jobs as possible are protected.

On the issue of equal opportunities, the Member will be aware that, along with every other company in Northern Ireland, Harland & Wolff has to comply with the legislation. In the past few years, it has been making significant efforts. Some of the Members’ party Colleagues have, at the invitation of the shipyard, visited it in their capacity as Belfast City Councillors on more than one occasion to see the facilities for themselves. The company has taken an interest in them and explained what was going on. Whenever opportunities were created, I understand, Harland & Wolff was represented on road shows that went to schools in west Belfast. It held fairs and took part in public events in the likes of the Waterfront Hall in order to be available to any labour force.

However, the reality is that there is a contracting workforce, and, therefore, the opportunity for such people to gain employment in the company will come only if it is successful. That is the direction in which we should be going.

As for the intentions of the owners, I said earlier that if I were interested purely in a land deal, I would not do what Mr Olsen is doing. I would not do what Mr Olsten did throughout the summer when he put large amounts of his own company’s money into the shipyard. I am talking about large amounts — not nickels and dimes. While there will inevitably be a property dimension to all of this, and he and the company made that clear in their statement, they also made it clear that they were committed to maintaining a core shipbuilding and engineering facility on that site.

I take their word at face value, and if I and other Members are being misled, I will take a dim view of that.

With regard to the matter that the hon Member for East Belfast (Mr Peter Robinson) raised when he referred to the Minister for Regional Development, we have in this Assembly, in our own hands, the ability to more or less resolve this issue, because when the issue of the privatisation of the port is dealt with, the issue of the land and who holds the leases will be also. The Assembly has the power to decide what happens. There is normally a user clause that specifies what you are allowed to do with the land that you lease. This land clearly is for shipbuilding and engineering. If you wish to change to some other activity, that requires you to get the permission of the landlord, and large sums of money normally are extracted if user clauses are changed.

When a recent lease was altered to allow the Titanic Quarter to develop, the Harbour Commissioners came to an arrangement with the company to share the profits from that. If we deal with the land issues surrounding the port, the House has the power to deal with that and settle it.

I am working on the assumption that I am being told the truth and that the company means what it is saying in its statements. I am proceeding on that basis. I would be greatly distressed to learn that something else was the case.

Tom Benson (UUP, Strangford)

The question that I wished to ask has already been dealt with.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member is to be commended. Not every Member admits that his question has been answered; most ask the question again.

New Deal Programme

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to review the New Deal programme to tailor it to the needs of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland.

The Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee is grateful for the opportunity to debate this matter. The Committee was agreed that the subject of the New Deal was of sufficient concern to be brought to the House at the earliest opportunity.

I will begin by laying out some broad principles. There are some good developments in the Northern Ireland labour market, notwithstanding the subject of the previous ministerial statement. Members will know from the recent announcement that the unemployed claimant count is down and has been declining for some time. Unemployment rates are at historically low levels — average rates are lower than the European Union average. Six thousand persons came off the claimant count, off benefits and into work in 1998-99.

As Chairman of the Committee, I recognise that commendable efforts have been made by those in the administration of the New Deal scheme and by those who implement it on the ground. Some of them deserve special commendation for efforts above and beyond the call of duty in the attempt to bring people out of a benefits culture and into the world of work.

Nevertheless, in spite of all those bouquets, there are still deficiencies, and these matter because there is a tragically large pocket of long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland. According to some indicators we may be moving back towards full employment, at least as defined in the technical sense, where the supply of those readily available for work roughly equates to the types of labour that are in demand.

The purpose of the Committee motion is to be constructively critical. There are feasible changes to the New Deal scheme that would yield positive results. Many of those changes would not incur large costs. A recurrent theme throughout the debate will be the point that the New Deal scheme was designed in London and may not transfer well to the different conditions that exist in the local labour market. For example, in Northern Ireland, as a percentage of the total labour force, we have more older long-term unemployed, and some of our long-term unemployed have been out of work for a considerable numbers of years.

The Committee supports the Minister in efforts to change the New Deal at UK level. It recognises that there are limits on the autonomy and freedom of action of the Stormont Executive because it is a UK-wide scheme. We also recognise that the funding for New Deal is ring-fenced money provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer so we do not have the option, even if we wished to take it, to move money to other parts of the Northern Ireland block.

The Committee has reflected on the evidence presented by five New Deal providers and consortia on 7 September 2000. It has also considered the many evaluative studies of New Deal. Most of those relate to Great Britain but some relate to Northern Ireland. There are many interesting lessons.

New Deal has some strengths. Its aim is commendable — to take people off welfare and put them into work. In the long run, its success will have to be judged alongside other Labour flagship policies, such as the minimum wage and the working family tax credit. Commentators who praise the New Deal often stress the role of the personal advisers who are supposed to work alongside the long-term unemployed to direct them appropriately through the various options contained in the scheme. That is good practice if it works well. However, there are situations where some of the personal advisers have very heavy caseloads, in some cases between 120 and 130 individuals. That issue needs to be looked at.

Unfortunately, many weaknesses have become apparent at both the UK and Northern Ireland levels. There is evidence that New Deal participants are often moving out of the scheme, and that if they do receive a job it is only of short-term duration. In England the phenomenon of the revolving door has been noted — individuals leave the scheme, return to unemployment and after the due period come back on to New Deal. They move round and round without progressing permanently into the labour market.

We need a better system of tracking what becomes of those who graduate from New Deal. Such tracking is required both in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. Frank Field MP noted the latter point in a letter to ‘The Times’ on 14 July 2000.

We would like to know more about the extent of so-called dead weight in the Northern Ireland scheme. These are cases where New Deal participants would have found employment, even if the scheme did not exist. We note with concern estimates that have been made for various New Deal options in Great Britain which suggest dead weight figures of between 60% and 80%. That means that most people coming through the scheme would have found work anyway, indicating a waste of public money.

It is clear that there are huge benefits to the individual and to society from improvements in training. In that regard, the Committee is concerned about perceived inflexibility in the regulations of the New Deal scheme. It may be more perception than reality. If that is the case, there is a need for the Training and Employment Agency to improve the information provided to participants and the consortia. On the one hand, the New Deal may not be facilitating the progression of a high-flyer who wants to take qualifications beyond NVQ2 or NVQ3 level. However, on the other hand, in many cases there has been a failure to recognise and tackle the absences of the most basic and vital skills — literacy and numeracy. That point was well made by the Education and Training Inspectorate’s report on New Deal options in south and east Belfast.

As ever in government, it is important to lead by example. How many New Dealers, we wonder, are currently employed by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. In Great Britain the figure is about 1.2%, with a target of 2%. What is the record in Northern Ireland?

The Committee is pleased that the Minister has provided suggestions to the relevant Minister at Westminster, Tessa Jowell, on how the overall New Deal scheme might be altered. We particularly commend a longer so-called intensive activity period — 26 weeks instead of 13 — in the New Deal 25-plus. This matters because Northern Ireland’s long-term unemployed are often from the older labour force.

We also commend the application of the £750 training grant to the 25-plus group. There should be a reduction in the eligibility criteria for 25-plus from 18 months of unemployment to 12. Alongside that, there should be stronger sanctions with respect to withdrawal of benefits at 25 weeks.

Reform of the New Deal as a UK-wide policy could be the subject of meetings of a joint ministerial committee bringing our local Minister together with his counterparts in Edinburgh, Cardiff and London.

I repeat that the Committee welcomes this opportunity to debate what is an important subject for many people. Long-term unemployment is a human tragedy because of the waste it involves. A former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, once said that for the person or individual who is unemployed, the unemployment rate is always 100%. Our priority today is neither to praise New Deal nor necessarily to bury it; it is to suggest sensible reforms to make it work more effectively in Northern Ireland’s labour market circumstances.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have a list of Members who want to speak. Taking that into account, and to give an opportunity for the Minister to respond and for Dr Birnie to wind up, and to allow a short break between the end of the debate and Question Time at 2.30, I will restrict all Members, except the Minister and Dr Birnie, to five minutes.

Mervyn Carrick (DUP, Upper Bann)

The performance of the New Deal thus far can be measured in a number of ways. We could look at the statistics; there are ample statistics in the KPMG report. There has been plenty of press coverage, and we could make our judgements according to that. I want to base my comments on the experiences of the participants. Those are the people at the coalface. There are probably few of us in the Chamber who know anything about the indignity of long-term unemployment and the despair of the continual unsuccessful search for a job.

From the evidence presented to the Committee, it is all too clear, according to the providers, that in order to be relevant to the long-term unemployment situation, New Deal requires to be revamped or, in the words of the motion,

"tailor[ed] to the needs of the long term unemployed in Northern Ireland."

That conclusion is derived from a series of experiences across Northern Ireland of those who operate at the coalface. The complexity of the administration is highlighted in the KPMG report. That is the view of personal advisers, but the providers confirmed it in their evidence:

"There was too much paperwork and administration in some cases with a perceived lack of administrative support, and … much of the paperwork was unnecessarily duplicated."

Responding to a question on the bureaucratic structure of New Deal, which involves the Training and Employment Agency, the Social Security Agency, consortia, lead partners, members, associate members, providers, personal advisors and participants, one witness felt that the programme could be streamlined to provide a better service. The referral system, or entry requirement, for the New Deal programme requires modification to enable it to be more effective in Northern Ireland. In the 25-plus category, the eligibility threshold should be reduced from 18 months to no more than 12 months, and the intensive activity period increased from 13 weeks to at least 26 weeks. There are also difficulties with the voluntary sector and environmental options. There is no real split between them. Participants are doing the same work in both cases.

Although New Deal was not introduced as a replacement for the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme, it was nevertheless made clear by the Government that the training elements of ACE could be incorporated into New Deal. Indeed, this was one of the selling points when the ACE schemes were vigorously lobbying for retention. However, despite the demand in Northern Ireland for environmental work and other social support work involving tradesmen’s skills and care programme disciplines, there is insufficient flexibility in the New Deal programme to facilitate such training. In addition, the lack of referrals to the voluntary and environmental options is leaving providers in the unenviable position of having to shut up shop because the enterprise is no longer viable.

Not only is this detrimental to the voluntary organisation, but it causes yet another gap in the social development of the community. It is therefore imperative that New Deal be tailored in such a way that is flexible enough to provide training opportunities in all those environmental skills, household skills and a whole range of social activities with a measurable economic output.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

One important fact to emerge from this report is the degree of illiteracy among young people. If the report is to serve a useful function, we have to establish why so many young people are slipping through the education system and leaving school with serious learning difficulties which may haunt them for the rest of their lives. Surely, in the developed world, it is totally unacceptable that it is left to training organisations to pick up the pieces of so many who go through school only to leave with undetected problems such as dyslexia and other learning disorders.

All of those problems can be remedied if the skills and resources are available at school level, but quite clearly they are not available. Members will agree that the most critical evidence from the inquiry was the startling revelation that so many young people cannot read or write. They spend 12 years of their lives going through the education system while coping with serious literacy and numeracy problems. Even when they leave school there are no records of these problems available to the Training and Employment Agency, so that they can be helped. That was backed up by evidence given by the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce to an Assembly Committee last week.

Is it right that a society that prides itself in standards of excellence, which many of our centres of learning are renowned for, should have this problem? Where do these unfortunate young people figure in those wonderful league tables that occupy so much of our newsprint? They are nowhere. That must change. Such people cannot enjoy the fundamental right of being able to read and write. We need to know why this state of affairs exists, and we need to know what can be done about it.

We know from research that overcrowding in classrooms is a fundamental cause of low levels of attainment and that, when classes are smaller, children progress more rapidly. Why do we train teachers to the highest levels in our universities and training colleges, only to discover that they cannot obtain jobs in the profession that they were trained for? Surely, it is reasonable to ask why we are getting such disturbing evidence about the lack of basic skills in reading and writing when — and I know this from personal experience — many of our young and talented teachers are unable to find jobs in schools and are on the dole.

For many years, our education system, at all levels, has been treated appallingly by successive Government. Our teachers have been crucified by a system that seldom appreciated their work and always failed miserably to provide the necessary resources.

It is to be hoped that, with the publication of this report, the past will really be the past and we can wipe the slate clean and make a new beginning where every child will be treated as an individual. Let us make it a fundamental right of every child that his or her special needs can be met. Let us ensure that factories do not have to take on the job of teaching the basic skills of reading and writing after young people have left school.

The present training programme, as Dr Birnie said, has many defects, but many of the recommendations in this report are worthy of consideration. Those employed on the programme are grossly overworked and do not have the resources to do the job properly. We were told that in the Committee time and time again. They are most certainly not equipped to do the job of specialists trying to find out why individuals are finding it so difficult to get permanent jobs, when such people are holding a personal secret — the secret of being illiterate. In a world of technological change, which increasingly demands that people be able to demonstrate the basic skills of literacy and numeracy, there is no place for serious flaws in the education system.

For whatever reason, thousands of our young people are released into the world with one of the heaviest burdens anyone can be asked to bear. Something must be done about it. If we do nothing, it matters little how good the training is. The trainees will simply go back to the unemployment register to begin the whole fruitless process of training again and again, without resolving the critical issue of the fundamental right to be literate and avail oneself of lifelong learning — one of the high ideals set by the Assembly.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The motion calls for a review of the New Deal programme to tailor it to the needs of the long-term unemployed. However, one wonders if New Deal can be tailored to anything, as the little evidence available from its inception suggests that the garment was fatally flawed at the design and cut stage. We could argue that New Deal is yet another import from across the water that has not worked here.

When the British Government first introduced New Deal, it was seen by the community as another scheme to take people off the dole register. The criticism then was that New Deal was not really new but the Welfare to Work scheme talked up, and that the finer details had not been worked out. That criticism still stands.

The second criticism was that the British Labour Party, no doubt expounding social democratic values, had fallen into the old Tory trap of believing that there were two types of people, namely those who wanted to work and those who did not. It is this rationale which still underpins New Deal. It is clear that the New Deal programme has not addressed the needs of the long-term unemployed in the north of Ireland.

Indeed, as the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has heard from the limited evidence given so far, the New Deal programme makes dismal reading. The picture presented shows the long-term employed doing menial work, receiving little support and being involved in a situation of forced labour. As one witness to the Committee said, if someone is forced into a programme, they will not go. Members of the consortia are seen as enforcers and, because of that, New Deal is becoming a revolving-door scheme with participants completing their options, going straight back to unemployment benefit and re-entering some months later.

The problem for us, and the unemployed, is that we have no way of measuring the extent of this dismal picture of New Deal. We have no up-to-date data on how well New Deal is performing. What little evidence we have suggests there is an east/west split in opportunity for the long-term unemployed in training and in jobs.

Apart from the east/west difficulty, New Deal is not a good deal for women, but that is not new either.

The official figures available, issued in January this year, referred to the period up to the end of October. That data gave only Job Centre figures for New Deal without telling us how many unemployed, either short or long-term, were in each area, how many access work through New Deal, what type of work it is, and so on. That situation is compounded by the failure of the Department to produce statistics due in July and August of this year which may have helped to determine whether New Deal was a viable scheme for the long- term unemployed, even if it were reviewed. Indeed what is available from a plethora of groups from economic experts, to lead partners and consortia, suggests that the whole New Deal scheme is not working. The Minister and the Training and Employment Agency will argue that while there are problems — indeed, Mr Farren has sent suggestions to the British Government on proposed changes — New Deal is working and should not be written off. They will say that the group known as the long-term unemployed has reduced substantially over the last two years so things are happening, people are getting jobs and moving off the register.They do not deny that the element of compulsion for the 18-to 24-year-olds has caused problems from the start. But, they state, it is British Government policy and it does not allow for much flexibility, even though the unemployment situation here is different and more acute than it is in England.

What is worrying, however, is that the Training and Employment Agency states

"There are people who are more job-ready and there are others who are more difficult to place because of related problems".

They include in that low achievers and people who have problems associated with drug and alcohol abuse. New Deal has almost abandoned these people. However, they do not tell us that, in most instances, the real difficulty for the long-term unemployed, whether we review New Deal or not, is that there is no work for that group to go back to. According to KPMG Management Consultants, the general impression of the over-25 group living west of the Bann was that job placements were not available.

There is also a gender split. The eligibility criteria excludes women who are not on the register but who may want to return to work. This is further exacerbated by the New Deal programme for lone parents which, rather than provide opportunities for education and training places the emphasis —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I must ask the Member to bring her remarks to a close.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

It places the emphasis on directing lone parents into jobs which are often low paid and insecure. I do not believe that imposing benefit sanctions on the over 25s will produce a better deal for the long-term unemployed. I do not believe —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I must ask the Member to finish. She is well over time.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Those with fond memories of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue will remember that one of the major issues tackled was the transition from ACE to New Deal. In fact, the Chairman of the Committee on Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment was an adviser to the economic committee of the forum on that and other issues. I hate to be one of those people who says "I told you so", but when we were dealing with the introduction of New Deal we said that one of the major problems was that New Deal did not relate specifically to Northern Ireland.

That is why New Deal is such a failure. I firmly believe that the destruction of the ACE schemes took away a great deal of very worthwhile community service and community care. One of the strengths of the ACE scheme was that it went straight into the community and helped the most vulnerable people.

The introduction of New Deal has seriously weakened a number of local enterprise agencies in Northern Ireland, because a major element in many of them was developing training within ACE itself. New Deal, as it has been implemented in Northern Ireland, does not really recognise community needs. However, there is one big difference between the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Forum on issues such as New Deal: the Assembly has the powers to deal effectively with such issues.

Interestingly, one of the main issues emerging in the work being carried out by the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee on ‘Strategy 2010’ is the need to develop skills relating to the needs of the new industries coming into Northern Ireland. With that in mind, I see another weakness in New Deal, because it will be necessary to get people into situations where they can take advantage of the training required for those new industries.

I welcome the fact that the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment is working very closely with Sir Reg Empey in Enterprise, Trade and Investment. There is a strong link between skills development and the creation of employment opportunities in Northern Ireland. Last Monday’s announcement concerning New Deal 50-plus was very welcome. While New Deal has concentrated largely on the 18-25 age group, there are major opportunities for people who feel that once they have reached the age of 50 their chances of getting new employment are remote. I believe opportunities are being provided. I welcome the fact that there will be a review of the operation of New Deal. It is necessary to look at the effectiveness of the project as it is presently operating. It is crucial that there is a monitoring process to find out what happens to people after experiencing six months of New Deal. It is important to gauge just how much New Deal is targeted towards social inclusion and for that reason I ask the Assembly to review the use of the Robson Index for establishing deprivation in Northern Ireland. Many areas of Northern Ireland are suffering because of that.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

This debate is timely, as we need to reflect on the fact that a huge sum of money is being allocated to this programme. It is probably more than some of the Departments have to allocate — £140 million. We will not have the opportunity too often to have such a large amount of money allocated to the long-term unemployed.

There are some things to be commended in the programme. I have heard the providers who are dealing with the disabled and lone parents commending the changes that it has made in terms of the employability of these categories of people. However, I agree with the Chairman of the Committee, who said that it catered for the circumstances of the long-term unemployed in England. We know from all of the research on unemployment in Northern Ireland that the case is different here.

I am concerned that 30,000 of the 90,000 places allocated to the programme have been given to Northern Ireland. We will have a great many problems changing the current rules in order to make it a more flexible programme to enable us to meet the needs of those 30,000 people.

I am very concerned about the lack of data currently available. To know if this programme is working, we need the statistics which will tell us about the performance outcomes. What I have got to date is extremely limited. The programme has been running long enough, and if Great Britain is able to produce this data, then Northern Ireland must not lag behind.

Secondly, I am concerned about the providers and trainers. Many of these people gave evidence to our Committee, and over and over again they advised us that they were being tied up in doing manual administrative tasks. The computer system which would have enabled them to do their job much better and provide the Committee with much better information was not available. Those are huge criticisms which I have to direct at the programme.

We need to clarify the role of the personal advisers; they are overworked and suffering from stress. We are asking them to do far too many things. Anyone who has been a personal adviser to an unemployed person knows that you have to develop a relationship with that person. We are dealing with a human being, not a number on a page. To give a personal adviser 120 people to deal with is outrageous. It is little wonder that people do not get the advice and support they came for. That is not a criticism of the personal adviser; it is directed against the resources. We know that a great deal of money has been allocated to this programme which gave 120 people to one adviser. We need also to get clarification of the role of the personal adviser and the providers. Whose job is it to try to place this person?

I am concerned about the information I have received on targeting social need. From the data provided it seems to be creating even greater differentials between areas with the highest social need and those with the least. The most recent data suggests that that changes somewhat, but we need to know why that is the case. Here is a programme targeted at social disadvantage, which is about job placement, not job creation. ACE was abolished due to the fact that it did not have a sufficient element of job creation, and yet we are all aware of the enormous benefits of the skills and personal development unemployed people gained from that programme. Yet ACE was abolished to make way for this scheme. This is continuing to create a disadvantage between areas that have job placements and those that do not.

I am therefore going to be critical of the suggestion that we should have benefit sanctions for the over-25s — simply extending the 18- to 24-year-old group. The programme is also meant to benefit those in the west, but what happens there? People have to move out of the area to get job placements, and if they stay, we are going to sanction their benefits. These people have families and children.

I am also going to be critical of the fact that 88% of those on the New Deal for the over-25s are men. Are married women not considered to be eligible? There is more concern about getting people off the register than helping those who are unemployed. We know that women are discouraged from registering and are therefore not eligible. Finally, the public sector ought to be looking at job placements. The programme needs to be more flexible and we need to get back to our strategic vision of what we would like to do in relation to the long-term unemployed.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the New Deal scheme and highlight the need for some improvements. First, I would like to highlight that New Deal is a UK-wide scheme, whether we like it or not. It is ring-fenced national money coming into Northern Ireland and Members should bear that in mind when commenting on it because there are restrictions on what can and cannot be done to improve it.

There is an obvious need to improve New Deal, to tailor it as much as we can, nationally, and locally if possible, to meet the needs of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. Some have belittled the New Deal scheme. I would simply ask those people what are they proposing as an alternative to it and where the money for that alternative would come from. From what budget in the Northern Ireland block grant would they take that money? You have to work with a scheme and try to improve it.

New Deal has its faults, but it is providing £63 million of additional money this year for training and assisting the long-term unemployed, encouraging them to take up training courses and work placement. There is clearly a social responsibility to assist the long-term unemployed get additional further education and employment opportunities. In that, I welcome the New Deal scheme.

I note that the KPMG research paper said that personal advisers are handling a far too heavy workload, which does not allow them to sufficiently interact with the long-term unemployed. I would like to highlight a situation in my own constituency where, initially, New Deal in the Carrickfergus area was provided with totally inadequate office space. I appreciate that that has now been put right. Will the Minister advise whether that situation pertains to other areas? It is scandalous that there was not sufficient space for New Deal advisers to locate in the building. In fact, the area was operating under its quota. Is that happening in any other parts of Northern Ireland?

On a positive note, the new facilities provided are much more professional. People are being treated with much more dignity. The atmosphere strikes me as being more like a recruitment agency than a cross-examination chamber. I hope it will assist people to find suitable training courses and employment.

What happened in Carrickfergus has actually been mimicked in Dungannon and Lisburn where the Training and Employment Agency and the Social Security Agency pilot schemes have been successful. They have worked together, pooling their information for the benefit of the long-term unemployed and assisting them into the world of work. That is being introduced in the Carrickfergus area where both agencies are working closely together. Are there further plans to copy this scheme? It is actually known on the mainland as the One scheme and it introduces a single system, co-ordinating benefits and training in employment assistance. Is the Minister planning to introduce the scheme in other parts of Northern Ireland? In particular, is he proposing to introduce it into areas of long-term unemployment in Belfast and Londonderry where it would appear that it would have potential given the success indicated in Lisburn and Dungannon?

Turning to improving the New Deal scheme, I agree with some Members that the 13-week placement period is inadequate, and should be extended. I am also concerned that only 20% of New Deal people are moving into long-term employment having gone through the scheme. We need clear information as to what is happening to everybody else. Why are more people not successful in gaining long-term employment?

The 18-month qualifying period for the long-term unemployed is too long a time to spend out of the world of work. There are also concerns about the low levels of attainment and the lack of skill acquisition. I agree with many others who claim that New Deal is simply picking up where the education system has failed. Approximately 10% of young people leave school without qualifications and that does not help them to find jobs or take advantage of other opportunities that exist.

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

We should remind ourselves that we are asking for the programme to be adjusted to fit the special circumstances here in Northern Ireland. It is important to examine what New Deal means. It must represent a new chance, a new beginning for the long-term unemployed. There are two types of participant; one being those who left school with virtually no qualifications and very low self-esteem. Such a training scheme must give them a new opportunity—something that is meaningful and real. The requirement for participants to be unemployed for 18 months is no good. 18 months is too long a time. It merely adds to the sense of despair felt by applicants for training schemes. I hope this will be examined in the review being carried out by the Minister.

The majority of those who have been unemployed for many years feel almost worthless to society. They feel let down by society. They need a new beginning that is meaningful and offers them a real training opportunity. I therefore concur with Monica McWilliams and others who have said that the lack of real information is a big handicap to us. Not many participants in the training scheme are gaining real qualifications. I ask the Training and Employment Agency to update its systems and make sure that there is better tracking.

The consortium, the local training partnership, which is supposed to co-ordinate training opportunities at district council level, must be examined. There may be too many providers, especially in the voluntary and community sector. Participants in a training scheme need to know that they are going to get something real and meaningful out of it. They need to be doing something that is purposeful and will enable them to get a real job in the future.

It is disturbing that the New Deal scheme is not working out as well as it should do in counties Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh, areas of high unemployment. This is largely because there are far fewer training opportunities in "on-the-job" schemes, and this must be examined. If there are not enough placement opportunities with employers, the Training and Employment Agency needs to examine ways of providing meaningful places for training.

The primary objective of the scheme should be to provide a pathway into employment. The "revolving door syndrome" is creating a sense of unease among people who have been on a scheme from which they feel they have gained nothing remarkable.

The east - west disparity is a concern to people in Omagh and Strabane. New Targeting Social Needs objectives are a major challenge for everyone, and it is to be hoped that these objectives can be applied in the review of New Deal to make it a meaningful training exercise for the future. The New Deal has been of some success, but we are charged with making sure that those who have not benefited from mainstream education or training, can derive something meaningful from it.

I agree that if we are going to work successfully with people who have been unemployed for many years, we need personal advisers who can devote more time to helping those people into a training option and a job.

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

The protection of the rights of the unemployed to obtain work and regain dignity and financial security is highly relevant at present — it is timely for the Assembly to be debating this motion on New Deal. In spite of the volumes of public relations material produced under direct rule to accentuate the success of New Deal options in meeting the needs of the unemployed, the scheme has fallen short of many of its claims. It has failed singularly to dismantle the barrier of the long-term unemployed. In reality, the intensive activity period has reinforced the habit of many of its participants to return, after the obligatory 13-weeks attendance, to the obscurity of their unemployed status until they are contacted for further referral. Having said that, line managers in the Training and Employment Agency would be the first to concede — off the record — that New Deal has greatly reduced the numbers obtaining benefit illegally while working. If the New Deal had had this as its main objective, it could be heralded a success. A careful scrutiny of the failure to attend of participants referred for interview by the Training and Employment Agency to the consortia-led partners is evidence of this.

There are aspects of the New Deal that represent a good beginning in the Province. The variety of options represents a platter of opportunities for participants. However, because most of the options fail to offer any financial incentive to the participants, they have been given a cold reception. It is only since the Social Security Agency introduced the withdrawal of benefits that many participants have now been able to overcome their reluctance to attend and participate in options. The environmental, intensive activity period (IAP) and employers’ options are exceptions to this.

Two observations must be made at this point. First, many of the options shadow the opportunities offered on job skills programmes, except that the financial rewards for job skills candidates are absent from New Deal. Secondly, the New Deal age categories seem to have replaced the former ‘adult’ category of the Jobskills Scheme. This needs some review. New Deal can learn a lot from the structure of the Jobskills programme in the sense that modern apprenticeship frameworks are pro-active in realising employment opportunities. Sadly, there is no structure whereby New Deal participants who have completed their NVQ Level II can go on to the Jobskills modern apprenticeship scheme. If this were possible, further training to level III, with employment, would become a reality and lead to full employment.

Currently, level II New Deal participants are unable to progress to a modern apprenticeship programme on entering full-time employment. The modern apprenticeship scheme would make employment more attractive to participants and employers. I urge the Minister to review the arrangements to make the employment option more popular to employers. This would involve lengthening the period of employer support and tightening the lines of communication between the Training and Employment Agency — the training provider — and the employers. The concept of partnership needs to be articulated more thoughtfully, in terms of structure and incentive.

I also call on the Minister to review the Training and Employment Agency’s management of New Deal. From the time of its introduction, New Deal officers were relocated from Social Security Agency offices, and many had little training or careers advice until after they had begun advising on New Deal. The resultant high levels of stress and sick leave among Training and Employment Agency personal advisers did little to promote the reputation or the effective running of the New Deal options. I support the call for a review of the New Deal programme and its options.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion, and I want to give a trade union perspective. Although they have broadly welcomed the deal, the trade unions have a number of concerns, mainly in relation to the first option. What kind of job placements will there be under the employer option? Will there be the possibility of job substitution? Will those in New Deal be entitled to trade union membership and the same terms and conditions that apply to other workers? Will they be subject to the same health and safety regulations and equality of opportunity that apply to other workers?

These problems, a Cheann Comhairle, are endemic in the short-term employment nature of the New Deal. However, if New Deal is to make an impact on changing the situation on the ground, it has to take into account local characteristics — that goes back to what other Members have said about taking into account the existing situation in the North of Ireland. The programme must fit in with existing local mechanisms of regeneration. It has been designed very much as a national programme and it fails to acknowledge the local opportunities or civil society in the North of Ireland.

As regards the programme’s delivery mechanisms, the question must be asked: are the consortia separate from the local area and, if so, will they have an impact? Questions also arise in relation to those over 25, as already mentioned, who are considered to be long-term unemployed. This group has been regarded as being a residual issue in the Welfare-To-Work programme. New Deal is not yet structured enough for those over 25 years old, however, it is hoped that continuing discussions will change the focus. If not, the whole programme, a Cheann Comhairle, will be discredited.

The test of the value of New Deal will surely come in the longer term. How will the Government ensure that the private sector is able to relate specifically to local areas? How will we create a dynamic between employers and local partnerships? The opportunity is there for the private sector to play an energising role, and New Deal could be used as a beginning, a first step, to develop these relationships.

When considering the issues of unemployment and poverty, there is always a fundamental assumption that people are the problem. If New Deal is to make a significant impact on the economic and social waste of unemployment, the following questions and points must be addressed: how do we ensure that New Deal is targeted effectively at the most disadvantaged groups? How do we ensure that the people who are the most difficult to reach are not sidelined in favour of the most accessible groups? If New Deal does not take into account all of the local characteristics, it will fail abysmally; if it fails to link up with local partnerships and mechanisms, again it will fail, because it will not have been integrated into the community it is supposed to serve.

I will finish, a Cheann Comhairle, with this quote:

"The unemployed have both the willingness and the right to work — they should not be exploited for either political or financial gain. The Government are asking the unemployed to make a giant leap of faith into the New Deal, but after decades of mistrust, we are demanding a safety net be erected first. The fact that benefit sanctions have been intensified to those failing to take up one of the four options would certainly indicate the Government’s intentions to implement New Deal at all costs. This compulsion, or work for benefit, is not then Welfare to Work but Welfare to Workfare!"

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

Although supporting the motion, the Committee has had length deliberations on the whole issue of New Deal. It has been critical of it but also constructive in its attitude, and we must congratulate the Minister who knows the issues that surround it. It is more difficult for him than for others, because New Deal is a national programme, and the policy has been that it is limited in its flexibility at a regional level. That causes problems for the Minister.

As I said in my earlier remarks, we must be critical of, but also constructive about, the New Deal. There is certainly still confusion among participants in the programme. We find it difficult to get hold of statistics. For example, does the huge cost of New Deal represent value for money? Secondly, how many young people does it return to the dole queue? How many young people who do not meet employers’ needs fall back into benefits dependency after finishing the programme? These are all vital questions which must be answered if we are to set about trying to improve New Deal.

We all remember the old Action for Community Employment (ACE) scheme, which was reasonably successful in the training and employment of young people. The ACE scheme also showed people, such as senior citizens and those not so well off, that they were getting something on the ground, and it could be seen to be so doing. When that finished, it was a devastating blow for many people. Unfortunately, we now have the New Deal, which we must all try to turn to our advantage.

There are many problems in the programme. Gateway and its follow-through do not explain what New Deal is all about, and there are high caseloads in personal assistance. Another issue, brought up by the people to whom we spoke, was the high level of paperwork and its duplication by employers or whomever was involved in the scheme. Many employers were put off by New Deal’s requirement that they pay for or provide a day’s training away from work, and they would have preferred people over 25, whom they did not have to release.

As a Committee, we should try to identify where the major problems are, how we solve them in the long term, and how we can tailor the New Deal to meet the needs of young people and the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. It is for all of us on the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee to work with the Minister and see how we can help him. We must still be critical of the programme, but, as the Committee Chairman said, we should also be constructive. We are not critical of the Minister, for we say to him, "We may be at one with you on this issue." If we can provide back-up to him in trying to change certain aspects in the programme, we should do so.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I am very pleased to have such an early opportunity in the new session to debate issues relating to the New Deal. When the Chairman of the Committee, Dr Birnie, recently wrote to me saying how anxious he was for this debate to take place, I was very pleased. I encouraged its scheduling for an early date, for we are at a critical stage in reviewing progress of the New Deal. Indeed, as the Committee Chairman said in his opening remarks, the Department and I have already passed on to London our recommendations on how the New Deal programme should be modified.

Today’s debate is a welcome contribution to that process. As the Chairman indicated in his opening remarks, this process might well form part of an agenda for discussion in the intergovernmental conference or Committee — bringing together the Government in London with the devolved institutions and Executives in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff. I too would be anxious to have this issue addressed in that forum. The experiences of other places, together with those here, and our reflections on those experiences, will lead to the kind of modifications which will address, as effectively as possible, these points. They may be at the more general level or, in respect of flexibility and modifications, they might be adopted more appropriately for the particular regions.

The motion focuses on the needs of the long-term unemployed, but as the debate has demonstrated, Members concerns’ extend beyond the long-term unemployed in that they want to address the needs of those who are unemployed at age 18. I want to stress that, in contributing to the discussion, I do not intend my remarks to be in any way conclusive. I am indicating our current thinking and taking on board your thinking. It is important that I try to cast the focus of the motion in the wider context of the whole of the New Deal Programme, as Members have done.

As Members are aware, the New Deal programme was introduced in April 1998. It is delivered by the Training and Employment Agency, in partnership with the Department for Social Development, and is aimed at increasing the employability of the unemployed in society, by helping them enter or return to work. New Deal is one strand of the wider Welfare to Work initiative, which also includes such measures as the national minimum wage, working families’ tax credit, the national childcare strategy, and it also complements other agency programmes, such as Worktrack. When taken together these represent significant steps in assisting people to enter into and remain in employment.

My Department has been allocated £163 million throughout the life of the present Parliament, from the windfall levy imposed on the privatised utilities. This is to fund the New Deal programme for the unemployed, and other New Deal programmes for the disabled, over-50s, lone parents and partners of the unemployed. The resources provided from the windfall levy, as several Members noted — some critically — are ring-fenced for New Deal purposes. New Deal is a national programme, and it has been implemented consistently across the regions of the United Kingdom.

The delivery of New Deal in Northern Ireland is very much on a partnership basis. There are 26 New Deal consortia, mainly comprising training organisations, further education colleges, voluntary sector and environmental organisations, working together to a common purpose. This is a very important feature of the delivery process. Some Members seem to suggest that there is very much a top-down delivery in operation here.

The delivery is taking place within the context of consortia that are locally focussed and locally drawn in terms of membership. They are intended to create real working partnerships. If there are difficulties with respect to the partnerships — and some comments suggest this — then undoubtedly we need to hear about them. Delivery is intended to be as close as possible to those whom the New Deal programmes are designed to serve. That is a very important feature.

Some Members may be familiar with the situation, either through direct participation in some of those consortia, or close delivery within particular consortia, because where they operate may depend on the area they represent. Consortia and New Deal personal advisors based in the network of Training and Employment Agency job centres work together to provide opportunities for training and work experience placements for the unemployed in their local areas.

The implementation and monitoring of New Deal delivery is overseen by the Northern Ireland New Deal taskforce — a widely representative group. This taskforce is investigating aspects of New Deal with a view to improving its operation, and it is in this context that the ongoing monitoring of the delivery of New Deal takes place. The taskforce provides to my Department and, therefore, to me a considerable amount of information, opinions, comments and indeed recommendations for improvement, and I will advise Members of progress so far, and of future plans.

When New Deal was first introduced, unemployment in Northern Ireland stood at 7.6%. By August 2000 this had reduced to 5.2%, partly due to the impact of New Deal. The increased employment opportunities in the local economy have, of course, also been a major and, perhaps, overriding factor, although New Deal is generally not given the significance it deserves for effecting some of these changes.

Some comments have been made in the context of the situation which existed at least five or six years ago, but fortunately, we are in a rapidly changing labour market situation. I acknowledge that this situation is not the same in all areas. There have been greater improvements in some areas than in others. Overall, however, there has been significant and positive development.

The decrease in unemployment represents over 13,000 in the number of registered unemployed people during the period referred to. In the two main categories of people eligible for New Deal, the numbers registered as unemployed have declined by over 12,000 since the programmes began. This decrease represents over 90% of the total reduction in unemployment over the period.

By contrast, the level of unemployment among those who did not participate in New Deal has remained virtually static over the same period. That is one of the most important illustrations of the contribution that New Deal has made to unemployment rates. New Deal has proved very effective in helping the unemployed to return to work. Of the 12,000 people who left the register, over 10,000 found new jobs. Several Members commented that these jobs may not provide the level of career satisfaction that is necessary. I acknowledge this — some of them have obtained jobs at a lower level than we would have liked.

Therefore we need to reflect on this matter in the context of the outcome of the New Deal experience. Indeed, that forms part of the ongoing monitoring and tracking of those undergoing the whole programme.

The work experience and training afforded in the context of placements in voluntary and environmental projects have benefited the New Deal participants, the organisations involved and the communities they served. Again, I acknowledge Members’ comments, contrasting the voluntary organisations’ experience of New Deal and ACE. There is a much reduced pool of unemployed labour now available from which to attract participants into the voluntary organisations that are so anxious to avail of this kind of support. If we have a smaller pool, the difficulties in filling the kind of places that might be made available — and indeed by comparison with the past, were available — is evidently a considerable problem. However, we are trying to work with voluntary organisations to address that issue.

The New Deal programmes continue to evolve and develop in the light of experience. Following the end of the current New Deal 25 plus pilot scheme in March next year, a revised programme for that group will be implemented.

My Department has recently conducted a wide ranging consultation exercise involving, among others, a New Deal taskforce, personal advisers, the Education and Training Inspectorate and those organisations involved in the 26 delivery consortia.

Given our experience in running the largest New Deal 25 plus pilot scheme in the UK, I have recently written to Tessa Jowell, the British Minister responsible for the Welfare to Work programme. I have recommended enhancements to the revised New Deal 25 plus programme, which will lead to better tailored provision for the unemployed in Northern Ireland. These recommendations, together with those for the 18 to 24-year-olds, can be summarised as follows: for the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, we are recommending the introduction of a more flexible programme that will more adequately meet the individual needs of young people. Several Members stressed the need to ensure that programmes were tailored as individually as possible. We are recommending an increase in the percentage of output-related funding, currently devoted to a successful employment outcome, to provide a stronger incentive. We are recommending a more flexible follow-through provision to allow those who would benefit to take up a different New Deal option if they have completed one option and have still not gained employment. We are also recommending an extension of short vocational courses provided during the initial, or gateway, period from the current two weeks to four weeks.

I am particularly concerned — as was highlighted in Mr Dallat’s remarks — about the problems of literacy and numeracy encountered within New Deal. I should already be at a meeting with members of the basic skills committee, which was established at the end of last year. They are reporting progress on how they are addressing that particular scourge — it probably deserves such a strong term — which afflicts so many. They are making several recommendations, one of which will involve ways in which they can work closer with New Deal providers in order to address this particular need.

I trust we will be able to see much more progress in addressing that problem in the context of New Deal and in further education provision generally. I share Mr Dallat’s reflection that a lot of questions have to be asked why there are such high levels of illiteracy and innumeracy among young people emerging from our educational systems.

Returning to New Deal for 25 plus, we are recommending an extension of the intensive activity period element from 13 weeks to 26 weeks. Many Members should welcome that recommendation, given the emphasis the issue has received in many of their remarks today, in Committee, and elsewhere.

The intensive activity period provides participants with an individually tailored programme consisting of work experience, job-focused training and supervised job-search activity aimed at helping them into employment at the earliest opportunity.

We are also recommending the introduction of a £750 training grant, similar to that within the 18 to 24 New Deal scheme, for those who wish to gain a vocational qualification during the intensive activity period or while in subsidised employment. The intensive activity period is to be re-named as "Paths to Employment", giving a much clearer indication of its aims and objectives.

We are recommending the retention of the education and training opportunities included in this New Deal programme that provides up to 52 weeks’ NVQ level training. In our view, this facility has been particularly beneficial here.

We are recommending early entry to education and training opportunities for certain groups who do not meet the normal eligibility criteria, for example, women returning to work, and those suffering the effects of large-scale redundancy, such as the unfortunate event last week at Harland & Wolff. Redundancy has also affected several sections of the textile industry — a point highlighted by Mrs Nelis. We are recommending a reduction in the eligibility threshold from 18 months’ unemployment to —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister because he is responding to questions, but I must ask him to draw his remarks to a close.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I need just two minutes, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your indulgence.

We are recommending a standardised policy on benefit sanctions within both New Deal programmes.

With respect to the New Deal for Lone Parents programme, we are recommending that the facility allow lone parents on income support to access those opportunities available within New Deal that are currently targeted at those in receipt of jobseekers allowance.

I am confident that these recommendations will receive full consideration and I look forward to a positive response.

In conclusion, I would like to place on record my personal thanks to the New Deal personal advisers, many of whom I have met on my visits to jobcentres. They have played, and continue to play, a pivotal role in the success of New Deal. We are moving to reduce the numbers of people advisers have to deal with, and I appreciate that those high numbers are a matter of concern; they are a matter of concern to me. I hope that we will be able to take action on that very soon.

Those delivery organisations working in partnership through the consortia arrangements are also to be commended for their professional and committed work in helping the unemployed to gain the skills and attributes necessary to get back into the labour market. The members of the New Deal taskforce who recently provided me with their programme of work have been instrumental in ensuring that the views of employers and other interested parties are brought to the fore. They have continued to fulfil a valuable role in overseeing New Deal implementation.

I thank all the Members who have contributed and I assure them that if I have not had the opportunity to address the particular issues they have raised, I will do so either in Committee, at an early stage, or by correspondence.

I assure Members that I too am deeply committed to ensuring that we have the most effective means possible of providing training for the unemployed, whether they are on the register or not. Some are not on the register and that is an area that we did not mention, but I do not have time to go into it now. For those who are interested in that, I invite them to read ‘Young People and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland: "Status Zero" Four Years On’. This report was published by my Department during the summer. It is a study of the circumstances of young people who cannot find work — those on the furthest margins of our society. We must have a deep concern for these people, and I hope that we will soon be able to address that concern in a cross-departmental, multi-agency way.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I too thank those who participated, including the Minister. All agreed that long-term unemployment is unacceptable, especially in those cases — a sizeable proportion of the total — where the individual has not chosen the position. Rather than going through the rigmarole of listing individual contributions and summarising them, I will focus on what most agreed were the pressure points and difficulties in the current system.

First, there is a problem with basic skills acquisition. It is unfair to lay this at the door of Minister Farren, but this Department has to deal with the products of other Departments. There is an important issue here concerning literacy and numeracy — or the lack of it.

There was agreement about the inadequate duration of placements for trainees on New Deal. It was also agreed that the personal advisers were often seriously overcommitted, and this was reducing the level of individual one-on-one contact that is necessary to bring somebody out of a situation of long-term unemployment.

The lack of office space for the programme was mentioned. Further development is needed of data on what is happening to people who go through the programme and on what happens to them afterwards. There was much recognition that the training standards set for New Deal are too modest. That touches on a much broader issue concerning the adequacy of training and skills levels in the Northern Ireland labour force.

There were differing views expressed about the benefits, or otherwise, of the element of compulsion in the New Deal programme. Mr R Hutchinson rightly made the case for that element of compulsion with respect to encouraging people to move from benefits to work.

With regard to the Minister’s comments, the Committee welcomes his efforts, to date, to secure change in New Deal at the UK-wide level. It also welcomes the commitment that he repeated today to continuing the partnership approach between the Training and Employment Agency and the locally based consortia.

The Minister rightly referred to the decline in the headline unemployment rates from approximately 7·6% to 5·2%. The Committee members and Assembly Members welcome that. However, there is, as the Minister noted at the end of his speech, a problem of inactivity. Some people have totally withdrawn from the formal labour force and none of us can be complacent in that regard.

This afternoon, we have had a series of suggestions and recommendations about how New Deal can be fine-tuned. We are not planning to destroy the system but to carry out wholesale reform. Some of those changes can only be made as part of a UK-wide change; others can be made through local initiatives. We are confident that, if there are such changes, New Deal will not simply be a new deal but what we really want: a fair and square deal for those who suffer from long-term unemployment. I urge the House to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to review the New Deal programme to tailor it to the needs of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland.

The sitting was suspended at 2.00 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair) —

Finance and Personnel

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what consideration he has given to introducing an alternative to the domestic rate.

(AQO 65/00)

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to proceed, bearing in mind that the Minister is not due to answer questions at this time?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

It is in order for the Minister to proceed.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I intend to review the rating system in Northern Ireland, and I will be considering the terms of reference for that review later in the year. The continuing use of rental values as a basis for the local taxation of domestic properties will be considered in the review.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s announcement that the topic is under review. However, I am a little concerned that he appears to be talking solely about a variation of the rate and is being unclear on the subject of possible improvements in local income tax, site value rating or any other number of current proposals. Is it not somewhat unfortunate, that in the new dispensation and arrangements here, we cannot look beyond the old system with slightly more enthusiasm?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The question obviously related to whether we were considering an alternative to the domestic rate. I have explained that we will be reviewing the overall rating situation, and that will obviously include questions related to domestic and non-domestic rates. Let us be clear, however, that when we are reviewing the rates, we are looking at a property based taxation system. The forms of taxation to which the Member is referring are obviously different from that and would have to be considered in a different and wider review. That is a point which we previously dealt with in this Chamber.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have a further question in regard to the rates and the review. Given the difficulties we have had in the past, when reviews had not been conducted for many years, can the Minister assure us that there will be an attempt to institutionalise the reviews on a limited number of years, to guard against past difficulty with the rates relief system?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member is not so much referring to the review of the overall rating policy and processes that we are talking about, but rather to the question of revaluation. We announced last week that a revaluation of non-domestic properties is to take place. We are now doing precisely that to avoid what happened at the time of the last revaluation, when it had been a couple of decades since one had been done. When that revaluation took place, there were some significant swings, and some found themselves badly caught out and badly affected. That is why we are revaluing non-domestic properties on a more regular basis. It has been a very long time since the last revaluation of domestic properties, and I have concluded that it would be inappropriate to open up a revaluation of domestic properties until we have seen the work taken forward on the overall review of rating policies and procedures.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to update the Assembly on the four European Community initiatives: (a) LEADER, (b) INTERREG, (c) URBAN and (d) EQUAL.

(AQO 73/00)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Progamme proposals for EQUAL were submitted to the European Commission on 15 September by the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department for Social Development and the special EU programmes bodies are preparing programme proposals for LEADER, URBAN and INTERREG respectively. These proposals will be submitted to the European Commission by the following dates: LEADER 17 November; URBAN 18 November; and INTERREG 22 November.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

The Minister will be aware that there have been rumours about reductions and, perhaps, increases in the amount of money in some of these initiatives. Can he indicate to the Assembly the amounts of money, and if there are reductions, can they be made up?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Changes in the figures may be related to the fact that some indicative figures were previously given, particularly when the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and I visited Brussels in relation to bring forward work on the community support framework. The community initiatives were also discussed, and at that stage a total of £67 million for community initiatives was suggested. We are now looking at £75·8 million. If we were to retain the 25% minimum for match funding, that would give us a total of £100 million.

However, in relation to two of the initiatives, INTERREG and URBAN, the indicative figures we looked at earlier in the summer have now been reduced. Instead of £11 million for URBAN, we are now looking at £6·7 million, and at £51 million for INTERREG, where previously we thought we were expecting £59 million.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to explain the impact of the miscalculation by Her Majesty’s Treasury of almost £70 million on the Northern Ireland block and to detail how this situation can be rectified.

(AQO 49/00)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The over-allocation of £23 million per year in the year 2000 spending review is to be corrected through adjustments to end-year flexibility, so that the immediate effect on the Executive Committee’s planning is kept to a minimum. In the end, over the next three years our spending power will be in line with the region’s entitlement through the Barnett formula.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Can the Minister confirm that, although the miscalculation in Treasury moneys was announced earlier this month, it was known about in July, days after his public announcement on spending? If so, why was nothing done at that time to inform the public about this miscalculation? Was he, or the Treasury, sitting on this information?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The error emerged at the end of July, and we contacted the Treasury to seek further consideration of the matter. In a situation like this, we had to accept the principle that mistakes, when they are shown, must be corrected. However, this was a Treasury mistake in figures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House. We made it clear to the Treasury that, if its chosen method of dealing with the apparent over- allocation had been to take it out of the end-year flexibility, we would need to be upfront when presenting figures to the House — and it should be remembered that we have not previously presented figures — or to the Committee. This is not the only issue consequential to the Chancellor’s announcement, on which there has been ongoing contact with the Treasury. We do not have the full and final picture.

Danny O'Connor (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Antrim)

Can the Minister assure us that the use of the Barnett formula does not close opportunities for the Executive to influence how much is received from the Treasury?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Barnett formula imposes on Northern Ireland serious difficulties, because expenditure allocated to us is effectively tapered on a per-capita basis, so we, in Northern Ireland, do not get the same benefit of increases announced across the water. We see that, particularly, in some of those programmes which were the subject of major headline announcements in the 2000 spending review.

However, the fact that we have the Barnett formula does not, in itself, limit scope for discussion on how the formula is applied. The outcome of the last spending review was significantly improved thanks to representations to the Chief Secretary by the First Minister, the Deputy First Member and myself. In particular, a correction in the treatment of VAT in the formula and the extension of the formula to cover expenditure on London Underground together produced an additional £40 million per year for Northern Ireland.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if, in considering the possible relocation of Government offices, he will favour relocation to those constituencies which currently have the lowest numbers of civil servants.

(AQO 39/00)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Work is currently underway to develop a Civil Service office accommodation strategy, which will include a review of the current policy on job location. It would be inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of that work. The current number of Civil Service jobs in an area, in proportion to the local workforce, is one of a number of relevant factors to be taken into account.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Given the low numbers of civil servants employed in East Antrim and the congestion on the A2 Carrickfergus-Belfast road and the A8 Larne-Belfast road, does the Minister agree that it would make more sense to actually locate the jobs in the constituency? East Antrim has the third-lowest number of Civil Service jobs.

Secondly, will he undertake to review the figures quoted in his answer to a question I asked earlier? It appears that, with only 233 Civil Service jobs in Larne and Carrickfergus, he has included the entire borough of Newtownabbey. East Antrim may actually have the lowest number of Civil Service jobs of any constituency.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question. If there has been a map reading error in any previous figures, we will look at that, try to confirm the proper figures and make any necessary corrections.

It would be inappropriate for me to be drawn on any specific location. We want to make sure that this review is founded on premises to which everyone can adhere and which everyone in this House can recognise as proper. We cannot do a review that has, as a starting point, particular fixed locations to which we want to relocate jobs. In any review of policy, and in any new location policy that might emerge, numbers of existing Civil Service jobs relative to local workforce would be one of a number of factors to be taken into account. Other factors would include new TSN indicators, regional planning strategy, the effects on equality of opportunity in the Civil Service, and, not least, service delivery, business efficiency and cost.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Minister has just answered my question.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

That is the second time today that a Member has been kind enough to concede that.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what plans have been made to distribute the extra funding that has recently been made available for Northern Ireland by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

(AQO 64/00)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am currently drafting budget proposals to be presented to the Executive Committee very shortly. This draft budget will reflect the outcome of ongoing discussions with ministerial colleagues and the priorities developed by the Executive Committee in the Programme for Government.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he assure us that the Assembly itself will be consulted on that spending? Will he also assure us that the Assembly will be kept up to date with whatever progress is made? Thirdly, will he tell the Assembly whether this extra funding will have any impact on the proposed privatisation of Belfast harbour, bearing in mind the delay of schemes because of disagreement on the way forward on that particular issue?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On the first point about keeping the Assembly informed, I will present a draft budget to the Assembly in mid- October, after the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have presented the Programme for Government. The Assembly and its Committees will then have to consider that draft budget. My Department has been in discussion with the Committee of Finance and Personnel, and others, to try to optimise the opportunity for the Assembly and its Committees to give proper and due consideration to the draft budget.

A vote needs to be taken on the draft budget, and we hope that it will be agreed by mid-December, so that all the secondary budget holders will know what they are getting and can plan accordingly. On the question about additional money, the Chancellor’s announcement indicated an increase in funding for Northern Ireland — a total of £2.1 billion for the next three years, covered by the spending review, including an additional £1 billion in the third year. I hope, however, that the Assembly’s interest, and that of the Executive, will not be confined to that notional extra money. We need to look at the total picture, the total spend and the total quality of that spend. That will certainly be the case in the context of the developing work on the Programme for Government.

With regard to Belfast harbour, nothing in the current spending plans, or in the estimates previously presented, is predicated on the sale of the harbour.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The questions down for answer by the Minister must be adhered to, and at the set time. As Mr Close and Mrs Bell were not here — and Mrs Bell is still not here, —I have to suspend the sitting until 3 o’clock, when Ms de Brún will answer questions on the Health Service.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not possible to move to the next set of questions?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

We have seen two instances where people have not appeared to ask their questions. This might be repeated if we depart from the rather formal time allocation of half an hour for each Minister to answer questions. To set such a precedent might be dangerous, so if the Member does not mind, we will suspend the sitting.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Deputy Speaker. Is it reasonable to exclude Mr Close’s question, given that the Minister of Education was to answer questions first? Mr Close was, therefore, not entirely at fault for not being in the Chamber.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The Member will find that in the Order Paper, the Minister of Health follows the Minister of Finance.

The sitting was suspended at 2.48 pm.

On resuming—

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what action will be taken to alleviate the shortage of trained nurses in Northern Ireland, and if she will make a statement.

(AQO 61/00)

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Le do chead, a Leas Cheann Comhairle. Ní ba túisce sa bhliain d’iarr mé measúnú práinneach ar líon na n-áiteanna a choimisiúnaíonn mo Roinnse ar an chúrsa trí bliana Dioplóma san Altranas in Ollscoil na Ríona, Béal Feirste.

Ós rud é go n-aithnímid an bharrthábhacht a bhaineann le hearcú altraí agus á gcoinneáil sa tseirbhís, tá 100 áit bhreise á gcoimisiúnú gach bliain feasta go ceann trí bliana. Beidh athbhreithniú rialta ann le fáil amach an mbeidh gá lena thuilleadh áiteanna.

Cuireann mo Roinnse maoiniú ar fáil fosta le haghaidh cúrsa traenála ar leith d’altraí cáilithe a bhfuil tuilleadh traenála uathu le cuidiú leo pilleadh ar an obair. Cuireann trí chuibhreannas oideachais inseirbhíse an traenáil seo ar fáil saor in aisce. Táthar ag dréim leis go mbeidh 107 altra san iomlán ag críochnú cúrsa traenála faoi dheireadh na bliana.

Earlier this year, I asked for an urgent assessment of the number of places my Department commissions on the three-year diploma in nursing studies at Queen’s University, Belfast. In recognition of the fact that the recruitment and retention of nursing staff is crucial, an additional 100 places have been commissioned for each of the next three years. The need for further increases will be kept under review. My Department also provides funding for a "return to professional practice" course for qualified nurses who require additional training to enable them to return to nursing. Three in-service education consortia provide this training free of charge, and a total of 107 nurses are expected to complete training by the end of the year.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

We welcome and pay tribute to the many visitors and workers who come here from all over the world. However, does the Minister agree that, over the years, the authorities have not encouraged local students to enter the profession. Rather they may have discouraged them from doing so because of the unattractiveness of salaries and conditions? Does she agree that the authorities have allowed nursing professionals to take up more lucrative positions outside nursing?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I acknowledge, as the Member has in his question, that we are not just talking about the training of nurses, but about the retention of nurses. We want to ensure that nurses, and other staff, want to join health and personal social services (HPSS) and stay there. My decision to commission the additional 300 student places over the next three years was influenced by a number of concerns expressed by trusts and the independent sector. These include the level of unfilled posts, the difficulties in recruiting and retaining newly qualified nurses, the age profile of the nursing workforce, and the need to recruit nurses from abroad. We are exploring ways of bringing nurses back into the workforce as well as increasing the number of nurses being trained and whether they wish to remain within the service once they are trained.

Queen’s University is currently gathering information on the employment destinations of newly qualified nurses. The Department intends to look carefully at the question of the HPSS workforce with a view to informing future commissioning arrangements. A new HPSS human resources strategy is being worked out in conjunction with the trade unions, and that will include elements to ensure that those working in the service will want to stay here.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Minister now accept that training has been adversely affected by her decision to allocate and waste £25,000 per annum on her selfish promotion of the Irish language through her Department? Does she recognise that these resources could be used to pay for the training of nursing staff in Northern Ireland? Is she aware of my constituents, Mr Watt and Mrs Gregg, who wrote to her on 3 August and 8 September respectively, imploring her to use the £25,000 on operations for which they had been waiting several months?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

We are looking at the matters of training and retaining people in the service. I have not refused to put in money. I have, in fact, commissioned an additional 300 student nurse places — 100 places for every year over the next three years. That clearly shows how committed I am to ensuring that places are provided. I have also stated very clearly that the Department is looking across the HPSS workforce with a view to informing future commissioning arrangements on the number of necessary places involved. Clearly, I am treating this issue with the importance that it deserves.

Our society is made up of a variety of people; they vary in community background, in social class, in need, and in language. Any decent Minister would recognise, as I do, that any modern service must be able to cater for the whole of this range. The suggestion that one section of that society should be penalised, illustrates the political bigotry which exists in some sections of the House. All sections of society deserve to be treated well, and, in my view, they will be treated well.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

We all welcome an increase in the number of nurses and the Minister is right in saying that there is a necessary training period for staff. We welcome the original question on the current shortage.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

May we have your question, please.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

The Minister has given a commitment that hospital waiting lists will be shortened. Given the importance of nurses in the treatment system, how does she intend to address the scandalous rise in numbers of those awaiting treatment?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Clearly, as I said when I first announced the additional 100 student nurse places over the next three years, this is a key point in addressing some of the difficulties that are leading to longer waiting lists at the moment. Let me emphasise that recent surveys — the last one was in June — have shown an improved situation with regard to recruitment and retention.

For example, trusts were asked to report specifically on nursing posts which have been unfilled for six months or so. One particular trust is a real cause for concern at present — it has an aggressive recruitment strategy and it is in the process of recruiting more qualified nurses. Some new nurses will come from abroad, and others will come back into the workforce from other posts.

On the wider question of waiting lists, I have set out a clear framework for action as part of which I expect the boards to bring forward detailed action plans. These matters are being addressed at present, and the seriousness of the situation has been taken on board. People throughout the service, at board, trust and departmental level, are doing their utmost to seek answers to the challenges that face us.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

We had a wonderful example in the last series of questions. All the questions were answered, and we had a 15-minute break. Now we are still on the first question. Will the Minister please be more succinct?

Danny O'Connor (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Antrim)

While the extra 100 nurses to be provided over the next three years are welcome, does the Minister not agree that this is merely a drop in the ocean, that there is a real haemorrhaging of professionals out of the service and that more needs to be done, in terms of job-shares and part-time work, to attract people back?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Please be more succinct.

Danny O'Connor (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Antrim)

Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister assure us that active steps will be taken to recruit more nurses rather than administrators?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I refer the Member to my previous answer. I outlined actions that are being taken on recruitment and also the health and personal social services human resource strategy. I believe that this will ensure that staff will want to join and stay.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what measures she intends to implement to ensure that the treatment of intractable epilepsy in Northern Ireland, using the proven concept of vagal nerve stimulation, is allowed adequate financial resources and staffing, and if she will make a statement.

(AQO 41/00)

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Tugtar an chóireáil seo in Ospidéal Ríoga Victoria amháin. Ionchlannaítear gléas leis an néaróg vagach a spreagadh. Cuireann na boird roinnt othar go Baile Átha Cliath le haghaidh cóireála. Ceapadh an 5ú néarmháinlia comhairleach chuig an Ospidéal Ríoga i mí Bealtaine, ach tá líon na ndaoine ar na liostaí feithimh don chóireáil seo doghlactha ard. Tá mé i ndiaidh a iarraidh ar fheidhmeannaigh an scéal a fhiosrú agus scríobhfaidh mé chuig an Teachta faoin ábhar a luaithe is féidir.

This treatment, which includes and involves the implant of a stimulator of the vagal nerve, is carried out only at the Royal Victoria Hospital. Boards also send some patients to Dublin for treatment. A fifth consultant neurosurgeon was appointed to the Royal in May, but waiting lists for this treatment remain unacceptably high. I have asked officials to investigate this situation, and I will write to the Member about this matter as soon as possible. I thank the Member for his question.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful for the answer. I did not understand all of it, particularly the early part. Evidently "epilepsy" is not a word that translates into Irish.

I implore the Minister to extend this treatment beyond the Royal Victoria Hospital to other centres of excellence, particularly where that will assist constituents in the Newry and Armagh areas. I ask that urgent consideration be given to ensure proper staffing and funding.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

While it is clear that some of the difficulties that have arisen, such as ensuring that people are not waiting lengthy amounts of time for this treatment, have been addressed, I wish to ensure that officials investigate fully the reasons for the unacceptable length of time that patients have been waiting for this procedure. When I receive the report, I shall consider what further action needs to be taken.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail her assessment of the need for equality in appointing members to the Acute Hospitals Review Group.

(AQO 48/00)

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

10. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to explain why she appointed to the Acute Hospitals Review Group two members who were involved at management level in the DHSS and the Southern Health and Social Services Board and one member who was previously involved in local government.

(AQO 42/00)

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

11. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety which individuals and groups she consulted in regard to the appointment of the Acute Hospitals Review Group.

(AQO 43/00)

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

16. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she will make a statement on the involvement of the Government of the Republic of Ireland in the review of acute hospital services in Northern Ireland.

(AQO 40/00)

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

20. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she will make a statement on appointments from the Republic of Ireland to the Acute Hospitals Review Group.

(AQO 45/00)

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Le do chead, a LeasCheann Comhairle, tógfaidh mé ceisteanna 3, 10, 11, 16 agus 20 le chéile ós rud é go mbaineann siad uilig leis an athbhreithniú ar ospidéil ghéarmhíochaine. Tá sé barrthábhachtach don phobal uilig go soláthrófar seirbhísí sábháilte agus éifeachtacha géarmhíochaine ospidéil; seirbhísí ar féidir teacht go réidh orthu. Tá sé sin ar cheann de na tosaíochtaí is mó atá agam féin. Ba mhaith liom gluaiseacht chun tosaigh a ghaiste is féidir, agus is é sin an chúis ar choimisiúnaigh mé athbhreithniú gairid neamhspleách ar gach ní a mbaineann leis an ábhar seo.

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall take questions: 3,10, 11, 16 and 20 together since they all relate to the review of acute hospitals and the make-up of the review group.

The provision of safe, effective and accessible acute hospital services is of vital importance to the whole community. It is one of my top priorities. I want to move forward as quickly as possible and that is why I have commissioned a short, independent review of all of the issues involved.

Roghnaigh mé baill an ghrúpa athbhreithnithe ar bhonn go bhféadfadh siad a chur leis an obair thábhachtach seo agus ar an bhonn sin amháin. Tá mé sásta go bhfuil an t-eolas agus an oilteacht atá riachtanach ag na baill a roghnaigh mé agus go mbeidh siad in ann an tsainchomhairle oibiachtúil atá uaim a thabhairt domh. Tá mé sásta fosta go bhfuil gach ball abálta tuairimí gach earnáil den phobal a chur in iúl, mar atá déanta ag a lán acu cheana agus mar a dhéanfaidh siad go leanúnach feasta i rith a saoil oibre. Creidim go mbeidh baill an ghrúpa eolach go maith ar na ceisteanna difriúla atá ag cur isteach ar dhaoine taobh thiar agus taobh thoir den Bhanna, mar shampla, nó ar cheisteanna a bhaineann le pobal uirbeach agus le pobal tuaithe, nó ar an dearcadh ghairmiúil agus ar an dearcadh thuata maidir le seirbhísí ospidéil.

Maidir le ceist an Uasail Birnie, tá súil agam nach bhfuiltear ag rá go bhfuil amhras ann maidir le hionracas, eolas nó oilteacht duine ar bith den ghrúpa. Má tá tuairim ag an Teachta go bhfuil amhras ann maidir le duine ar bith den ghrúpa, tá súil agam go gcuirfidh sé an t-eolas sin faoi mo bhráid.

I selected members for the review group solely on the basis of the contribution they would be able to make to this important work. I am satisfied that the members I have chosen will have the necessary knowledge and expertise and that they will be able to provide me with the objective expert advice I need.

I am also satisfied that they can reflect the views of all sections of the community, as many of them have done, or are continuing to do, in their working lives. The group will be very much aware of the different issues affecting people east and west of the Bann — for example, issues relevant to urban and rural communities, and the professional and lay perspective on hospital services.

In the case of Mr Birnie’s question, I hope there is no suggestion that there is any question mark over the integrity, knowledge or expertise of any individual on the group. If the Member is suggesting that there is such a question mark, I hope he will bring it to my attention. I assure the Member that my door is always open.

As to the members from the South, both have much relevant expertise in hospital services, which will be of benefit to the group. Mr O’Shea was involved in similar work reviewing acute hospital services in the North Eastern Health Board. His experience there, where many similar problems exist, will be invaluable to the group. Mrs Ryan has worked in senior positions in hospitals, both North and South, and she will bring a wealth of experience to the group. The Irish Government has not been involved in the review.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I heard some of the reply but I did not understand other bits. It seemed to go on longer in the language which I cannot understand. Does the Minister agree that she received a detailed letter from me, dated 10 August, setting out a number of my concerns about this review group? To date, I have only received two acknowledgements, neither of which addressed any of my queries or concerns. Is the Minister satisfied that this is a competent way to deal with replies to an elected Member of the Assembly? I received acknowledgements on 29 August and 12 September. I do not feel that that is satisfactory. Is the Minister satisfied that, as well as professional competency, there is equal representation of members of the different religious and political communities in Northern Ireland and a good representation of women? Is she satisfied that there has been equality proofing?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I did indeed receive a very detailed letter from the Member.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There was no answer.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

It has gone to the Member today. It was a very detailed letter, and it has received a very detailed answer, just as the Questions here today have received very detailed answers. On representation, I am absolutely satisfied that the people I have chosen reflect the views of all sections of the community. Many of them have done so, or continue to do so, in their working lives. All those on the review group, who are from here, have worked in situations where they reflect the views of the entire community, and where they are seen to be working for all sections of it.

To date, there has been no question mark over any of the members or their ability to work for the whole community. The question arises as to whether this Question is, in fact, directed at the make-up of the review group and the people involved, or is a way of directing yet another question at a Minister with a different political viewpoint. The people involved can and will represent all sections of the community. Had I found, when looking at the review group’s make-up, that those debating acute hospital services all came from east or west of the Bann, or that the faultlines followed the division between lay and professional, or between nurse or general practitioner and consultant, I would indeed have been worried that it might not have been able to do the work I had asked of it.

I believe that the representation is sufficient —

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr Deputy Speaker, I must protest that we have not had an answer to my question.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Your written correspondence has received a reply, and I do not envisage any further profit from continuing to pursue the matter.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Can I withdraw my question because it is not being answered?

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for her part answer to my question but I still have to ask how she proposes to handle the question of conflicts of interest of members of the review group, in light of their previous positions?

Also, why does the group include somebody who does have clear experience of the set-up in the Republic of Ireland? It would have been more natural to include someone who has experience of the set-up in Great Britain, in light of the current UK-wide NHS national plan, which will have a huge bearing on what happens to acute services within Northern Ireland.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I find it difficult to understand why Mr Birnie wants to balance out someone who has experience of the set-up in the South of Ireland, but does not want somebody who previously worked for the Department and clearly has a knowledge of the set-up here.

This does not take away from his question of why I included someone who was involved in the Department of Health and Social Services. One of the reasons is that they do have a detailed knowledge of the situation here. They also have a detailed knowledge of other work and are highly respected within the community, as a former ombudsman, and in other positions. I was delighted that Maurice Hayes accepted my invitation to chair the group and I am confident that his leadership will command widespread respect. He will bring an informed and independent eye, as well as a rigorous approach to the important work.

The health and social service board is not represented, but Fionnuala Cook, as you will know, is a member of the Eastern Health and Social Services Council, who represent service users in the area. This relates, as I answered previously, to the different balance between those who have professional experience within the system and lay people who can bring the views of service users. Nobody is on the group to represent a particular group.

Therefore, on the questions you ask about each person involved, two are former ombudsmen and, presuming you are talking about Mrs Fionnuala Cook, one works for the Eastern Health and Social Services Council and not the Eastern Health and Social Services Board.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her acknowledgement of my question in her answer. I note her assertion that the Government of the Irish Republic is not involved in this review. If the Minister has tasked Dr Maurice Hayes specifically with looking at cross-border co-operation on acute hospital provision, how can this be satisfactorily conducted without some reference to the Department of Health in the Government of the Republic of Ireland?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

There is already a great deal of cross-border co-operation in hospital services. If we are reviewing acute hospital services, it would be useful for the group to look at and build on that existing work, particularly on the work of Co-operation and Working Together, which was established in 1992. A lot of this work goes on in the boards, between the boards and through the Co-operation and Working Together initiative. That initiative, and the work building on that, will feed either into the acute hospital review, the North/South Ministerial Council or into reports between the two Governments, if needs be. The acute hospital review will build on that work.

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to quantify the provision of community care that is likely to be required as a result of the 10 fewer surgical and four fewer medical beds in the new Causeway Health and Social Services Trust Hospital in Coleraine.

(AQO 75/00)

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Níl líon na leapacha míochaine á laghdú in Ospidéal nua an Chlocháin, Cúil Raithin. Ach beidh athrú ann sna socruithe maidir le leapacha máinliachta. Méadófar líon na leapacha lae máinliachta óna 12 mar atá anois ann go dtí 22. Dá thairbhe seo, beidh sé ar chumas an ospidéil cóireáil lae máinliachta a thabhairt do 50 othar sa lá. Ar an ábhar sin, beidh 15 leapacha máinliachta níos lú de dhíth agus ba chóir go mbeadh seirbhís níos éifeachtaí agus níos éifeachtúla á soláthar. Ní bheidh tionchar díreach ag an socrú seo ar sheirbhísí cúraim phobail.

The number of medical beds in the new Causeway Hospital, Coleraine, is not being reduced. That is not accurate. There will be a change in the configuration of surgical beds. The number of day surgery beds will increase from 12 to 22, allowing for 50 surgical procedures a day. That will reduce the need for in-patient surgical beds by 15, and should deliver a more effective and efficient service. This configuration will have no direct impact on the delivery of local community care services.

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Minister provide a definite date for the opening of the new facility at Coleraine? Uncertainty over this prevails.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I expect the main contract work to be completed in October, and the facility should be open in April 2001.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what priority is being given to the development of primary care services.

(AQO 63/00)

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

12. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to indicate what plans there are for the future of the five primary care commissioning pilots established in April 1999, given that funding runs out in April 2001, and if she will make a statement.

(AQO 47/00)

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Minister, you have a perfect right to speak Irish, but it does take time out of your half hour. Any eliding you can do will be gratefully received.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

If I have the right to speak Irish then I also have the time, unless someone provides simultaneous translation.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

You have half an hour, as with all Ministers. If a lot of it is spent speaking Irish, then that is time taken out.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Orders inform us that we can speak in a language of our choice.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I am conscious of that, yet there is a courtesy to this House which should be supported by Ministers.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I want an answer.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Yes, he is waiting for his answer.