Northern Ireland Assembly, 16 October 2000

307 contributions from 54 members. The official report.

The Rt Hon Donald Dewar

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is my sad duty to report to the Assembly the death of the First Minister of Scotland, the Rt Hon Donald Dewar. A motion of condolence has been tabled in the name of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Motion made:

That a message of condolence be sent to the family of the late Rt Hon Donald Dewar MP MSP, as follows:

"We, the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, extend our deepest sympathy on their grievous loss to the family of the Rt Hon Donald Dewar MP MSP and to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament on the death of the First Minister of Scotland, and wish to record our recognition of his devoted service to his country." —[The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister]

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The very bleakness of the weather this morning will, for many of us, reflect our spirits as we contemplate the sad and untimely death of Scotland’s First Minister, the Rt Hon Donald Dewar MP MSP. The most that we can do on this sad occasion is to try to find, in words, some dignified way of honouring Donald Dewar’s memory. Formally, we will be conveying a message of condolence to his family, and to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. But many of us will also want to take some time to reflect on the friend that we knew.

The last time I met Donald was at the Joint Ministerial Council meeting in Edinburgh at the beginning of September, and he appeared to have made a full recovery from his heart operation. Consequently, his sudden, unexpected death brings with it a particularly keen sense of loss.

Like a number of other Colleagues here, I knew Donald Dewar both as a fellow parliamentarian and personally. That he held high office throughout a long and varied political career without making a single enemy stands as an eloquent testament to the man that was Donald Dewar. As many of us know, his life was not without personal disappointment and some sadness. Nevertheless, he bore these difficulties, including his recent illness, with great personal dignity and equanimity.

He was widely respected for the natural modesty with which he disguised his immense intellectual and personal abilities and also for the great personal wit and good humour that he displayed. I recollect many occasions on which he summed up complicated debates at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons, without a note, very sharp and keen in his comments with a full and complete grasp of the matters he was dealing with.

Donald’s great political achievement was to carry through the proposals for a Scottish Parliament, which he steered on to the statute book and then presided over as its First Minister. He deeply believed that the creation of the Scottish Parliament would be a worthy expression of Scottish national identity within a United Kingdom framework, and he was able to see that dream become a reality. It was undoubtedly the crowning achievement of his life.

In the untimely and sudden death of Donald Dewar many of us will feel that we have lost a friend and, institutionally, someone who would have co-operated closely with ourselves and other Administrations. We can do no more than to take some measure of satisfaction that our lives have been enriched by knowing him and that his achievements will live on after him and be a real inspiration to us all.

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

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the First Minister. I was deeply saddened at the death last Wednesday of Scotland’s First Minister, Donald Dewar. I wish to extend my sympathy to his family. My thoughts are with them at this very sad time.

Donald was a towering figure in every way in political life, particularly at Westminster in the course of his long and distinguished career there, and most recently as Scotland’s First Minister in the long-awaited democratically elected Parliament. He had campaigned passionately and tirelessly for devolution. It was fitting that he should be the First Minister of Scotland’s Parliament.

He was immensely proud of what had been achieved for Scotland through devolution. Last July, at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, he said

"I count myself lucky indeed to be playing my part in the hard work of turning a vision into a reality".

It is sad to think now that he will not be there to continue his work as First Minister. I got to know Donald well through our time together at Westminster. He was a parliamentarian of the highest order. My memories of him will be of a man who was universally respected, a down-to-earth politician, yet a learned person with a deep and passionate devotion that he brought to those whom he served and to everything that he did.

He had a unique blend of integrity, sharp intellect, humanity and vision, coupled with a very keen sense of humour. He will be sorely missed, but his legacy will live on in the Scottish Parliament, and his place in history is secure as the architect of that achievement.

"The people know that they have lost a friend."

Those were the words of Donald Dewar at the funeral in 1994 at Cluny Church in Edinburgh of his colleague John Smith. In repeating those words today of Donald Dewar, I can pay him no higher tribute.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I support the sending of condolences to the family of the late Donald Dewar. I also wish to associate my party colleagues and myself with the tributes made by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I knew Donald Dewar for many years, and he carried out all his political business in a straight-talking and straightforward manner. Many politicians who attain high office seem to drift above the rest of their political colleagues, but those of us who knew Donald Dewar recognised that he never lost his common touch. He was very much a man of the people.

I got to know him particularly well when he was the Labour Party’s Chief Whip. I had considerable contact with him at that time, and I greatly respected his sincerity and his determination. That determination was evident in the vigour with which he took forward the project of devolution for the Scottish people. It was also evident in the way he made his own health a lower priority than his duties as First Minister for Scotland.

I express the condolences of all my Colleagues to his constituents, his party, the people of Scotland, his friends and, most of all, his family.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I would like to associate myself with the comments that have been made. Mr Dewar was First Minister of the Scottish Parliament — a Parliament that he did much to create. He died, aged 63, with the satisfaction of having achieved an outstanding personal ambition. His premature death has deprived the people of Scotland of a great leader, but his place in Scottish history has been assured by that achievement. As Scottish First Minister, he obviously faced problems, but he described the experience as the most worthwhile of his political life. He relished the challenge, despite his health problems.

I met Mr Dewar on three occasions, so I cannot claim to have known him very well. He was described as a witty pessimist, and I cannot help but think that with that characteristic he might have had something to offer this Assembly. He was well known as someone who listened to the opinions of others. He could argue his own point of view but was always willing to admit publicly that others had made a good point. That broad- mindedness is an example to us all.

On behalf of Sinn Féin, I extend condolences to his immediate family, his colleagues and the people of Scotland. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I identify myself with the remarks that have been made. I met Donald Dewar on several occasions and always found him to be a very strong advocate of moderation. He was a Scotsman in the truest sense of the word. It was significant that, after the 1997 general election, he gave up the opportunity of a senior Cabinet post in order to concentrate on Scottish affairs. He realised the benefits of devolution for Scotland, and he also recognised the benefits of regionalism and subsidiarity.

In recent days I have read several obituaries saying that Donald was a shy man. Maybe he was, but at least he got things done and he gave the people of Scotland their Parliament. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I extend sympathy to his family, especially to his son Ian and his daughter Marion, and to the people of Scotland, who will remember him as the person who gave them back their Parliament.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

I associate myself with all the comments that have been made. My party and I have been shocked by the death of a man who might well be described as a beacon of integrity. At a time when politicians do not have a good name, Donald Dewar was a shining light. As the First Minister has said, Mr Dewar went through his political career without making enemies.

I am also conscious of the loss to his family, friends, colleagues and the people of Scotland. When they look back at his achievements in the course of what was, by today’s standards, a short life, they will see the lasting testimony in bright lights. The building blocks of devolution have been put in place in Scotland, and politics has been brought closer to the people. Those are the dreams that Donald Dewar lived for.

We can say wonderful things about the man, and he absolutely deserves them. But what will we say about each other in the future? If there is integrity in politics, it is epitomised by the likes of Donald Dewar. We could do worse than emulate him as we push on with our devolution.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I want to associate the Women’s Coalition with the message of condolence from the First and Deputy First Ministers. Everything that has been said about Donald Dewar has left those of us in politics questioning ourselves. He led the way, and he was regarded in Scotland as a remarkable man for doing so. It is particularly sad that his death should come so soon after that of another great Scotsman, John Smith. His death is a loss not only to Scotland and its parliamentarians, but to Westminster. We have much in common with the Scottish parliamentarians, and our hearts go out to them. It was amazing to watch them in grief; clearly, he meant a great deal to each of them personally.

The director of the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust recently visited Donald Dewar to speak about the work in the communities in Northern Ireland. He was so moved by what Avila Kilmurray told him about what had been done here over the years that he offered, in a personal capacity, to host a meeting for the trust in Scotland in order to enable them to further their work in Northern Ireland. That speaks volumes about what he would have liked to do for the people of Northern Ireland.

We extend our condolences to the people and parliamentarians of Scotland and to his family, in particular his son and daughter. We express our heartfelt grief to those who will miss him most, his immediate family.

Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.

Resolved:

That a message of condolence be sent to the family of the late Rt Hon Donald Dewar MP MSP, as follows:

"We, the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, extend our deepest sympathy on their grievous loss to the family of the Rt Hon Donald Dewar MP MSP and to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament on the death of the First Minister of Scotland, and wish to record our recognition of his devoted service to his country."

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As a mark of respect to the memory of the late Donald Dewar, the Assembly will be adjourned for one hour.

Adjourned at 10.50 am.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I intended to raise this point at the beginning of business, but I did not want to interrupt the message of condolence and the speeches about Mr Dewar.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama is visiting Northern Ireland this week. Considering the outstanding contribution that he has made to world peace and peaceful understanding, will the Business Committee consider, as a matter of urgency, extending an invitation to His Holiness to attend the Assembly and, if appropriate, address it. If the Business Committee is not in a position to do this, will it invite him to visit the Assembly during his itinerary to Northern Ireland?

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

That is not a point of order. However, if the Member so wishes, he can refer the matter to his party Whip who could raise it with the Business Committee. It is not a matter for the Assembly to decide.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill: First Stage

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

The next business is the Second Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill. I call the Minister Ms Bairbre de Brún.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that due to the non-attendance of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety this business now falls? If it does not fall, what happens to it? It is on the Order Paper as the next item of business. I would be grateful for clarification.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

The business now falls, and it will go back to the Business Committee for a decision as to when it will return to the House.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Members who have a strong interest in this piece of legislation and are ready to make a contribution on it will be very concerned. In view of the unexplained absence of the Minister, Members no longer have an opportunity to make their contributions, and the Assembly cannot progress the business set down in the Order Paper. That is shameful, and it highlights the attitude of Sinn Féin/IRA Ministers to the House.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

It will go to the Business Committee which will decide when it will come before the House again.

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

I am sure that there is a good reason for the Minister’s absence. Is it in order to ask for a 10-minute suspension?

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

That is out of order.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I disagree with the Member. The motion should fall. The Minister has no vision and no strategy. She has only reviews. Her absence is blatant ignorance.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

That is not a point of order.

Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill: Second Stage

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

That the Second Stage of the Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill (NIA 5/00) be agreed.

This Bill will provide a modest extension of a landlord’s liability for a failure to repair defective premises. It implements the recommendations of the Law Reform Advisory Committee contained in its report on the subject, which was published in 1998. The committee, in that report, noted that its objective in this reform was to remove a gap in the law with regard to injuries which occur on dangerous premises and, in particular, to remove the perceived immunity which a landlord of such property currently enjoys. It is a general rule of negligence that a person must act with reasonable care to ensure that his acts and omissions do not cause injury to those who may foreseeably be affected by such acts or omissions.

In relation to the occupation of land and buildings, a principle has arisen which provides that an occupier of premises must observe a common duty of care. In other words, an occupier must take such care as is reasonable to see that his or her visitors will be reasonably safe in using the premises.

One major exception to this principle of care is to be found in relation to tenanted property. A landlord of dangerous property remains favoured by an historical immunity dating from a decision in an early twentieth century House of Lords case, Cavalier vs Pope. While the law has developed to a certain extent in this area, the last relevant reforming legislation was section 4 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act (Northern Ireland) 1957. In its report, the committee felt that the landlord was still unduly favoured by the current position. In 1972, the legislature in England and Wales acted on the anomaly by the introduction of section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, which extended the responsibility of a landlord to cover those

"who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects in the state of the premises."

It focused on the contractual obligations owed by landlords to their tenants and materially widened the ambit of their liability. While the rest of the Defective Premises Act was mirrored in the provisions of the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, the section relating to a landlord’s liability was not included. Ministers omitted this because of the high number of bomb-damage properties and derelict buildings at what was a time of severe troubles in the early to mid 1970s. To impose an extra burden on a landlord then was considered to be too onerous.

12.00

However, the Law Reform Advisory Committee, in its report, expressed the view that that rationale no longer had the force that it had had in the 1970s. Circumstances have changed, and the threat to property from terrorist bombing is no longer of the same degree as it was then. Housing conditions have improved considerably. There has been redevelopment in poorer areas, principally undertaken by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and there is the continued availability of grants to improve housing. Those were among the factors that led the committee to recommend a change in the law.

I now turn to the main features of the Bill. I have shown how section 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 extended a landlord’s liability to include those who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects in the premises. The committee was content with this wording and commended it in its report. The draft Bill therefore contains a similar provision in clause 1(2). This provision will replace the limited statutory claim available under the Occupiers’ Liability (Northern Ireland) Act 1957 and will, in effect, extend the ambit of the landlord’s liability.

This new duty of care owed by the landlord will apply if he or she knows of the defect or if he or she ought to have known of it in all the circumstances. In some ways, it is devised to ensure that rogue landlords take precautions to keep their properties in good repair. The duty is extended further by the removal of the requirement of an obligation to repair by providing that the landlord is under a duty, either where he has undertaken to do repairs or where he has a right, express or implied, to carry out maintenance and repairs.

The committee was, however, conscious of the fact that there remain in this jurisdiction differences in rent law which do not lend themselves well to a carte blanche change. Several consultees — in particular, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive — expressed concerns that liability imposed on certain tenancies would be onerous. The committee, on balance, accepted those concerns, and the Bill reflects its recommendation that landlords holding restricted or regulated tenancies should be exempted from the proposed changes. A further exemption is afforded to owners of ground rents and nominal rents. Such landlords do not maintain the same degree of economic interest or control over their property as in the usual landlord-tenant relationship, and accordingly they are excluded from the proposed liability.

Members will note that the legislation is to take effect one year after it receives Royal Assent. That is designed to allow those landlords whose premises may require work to be carried out a generous amount of time in which to do it. It will also give other landlords time to carry out any necessary inspections and to prepare for the new legal framework. While for the majority of landlords such work will be minimal, I warn those who may have let their property fall into an unsatisfactory state to do something about it.

This is a short piece of law reform that should only have a limited effect on current practice and procedures. The majority of landlords keep their properties in good repair and already owe certain duties and responsibilities to their tenants that this proposed legislation will not affect. Such landlords have no reason to fear from the reforms as outlined. However, landlords who do not keep such a diligent eye on their properties and who allow them to lapse into a state which could potentially cause injury or damage will have to take note of this legislation. If it helps them to focus on their responsibilities and ensures a safe environment for their tenants and others, it will have served its purpose. Accordingly I commend the Bill to the Assembly. I will try to answer such points as are raised by Members when I wind up at the end of the debate.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I welcome the Bill. As the Minister said, it is a short measure, dealing with the liability of landlords. It is important because of changes in the use of houses that had been family homes, many of which have now been turned into flats for students and others. Landlords should live up to their responsibilities towards their tenants. The Bill will go some way towards making the necessary changes.

In the time before the legislation comes into operation we should have some means of inspecting properties to ensure that they live up to fire safety and health standards. After the Bill is passed, we should ensure that speedy action can be taken to bring properties up to standard.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

Generally speaking, I welcome the Bill. It will certainly help those of us who live in areas in which there is urban dereliction.

There is one thing, however, that I would like to take up with the Minister. Dereliction may occur because of a dispute over ownership of the property or because there has been a family feud and no one can say who really owns a property. There is often a long legal wrangle. In the interim, not only do the premises fall derelict but they are open to the abuses that are common in urban areas. Tenants who are not proper tenants may abuse a property that they have simply usurped. Responsibility for making the property safe still falls to the local district council. Will the Bill include powers to deal with dereliction if the title deed owner or landlord cannot be identified? It is an area of great concern to local councils, and that is why I raise the issue, although I am generally happy to support the Bill.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I welcome the Bill, particularly as I represent a constituency in which there is so much property for lease and for rent. It will extend the rights of individuals, with particular reference to lawful visitors and neighbours, as well as occupiers.

I note one point. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to human rights issues and says that the Bill

"interferes with possession and peaceful enjoyment of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights."

However, it is also argued that the extension of landlords’ liability is a legitimate aim and would be to the benefit of the community at large, and the terms of the Bill agree with that latter argument. When the Bill goes to Committee Stage I would like some attention to be paid to the implications of that.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

It will also have an impact on targeting social need. At the moment, the Bill says it has no adverse impact. Does that mean it may have a positive impact or will it have no impact whatsoever? It is a simple question. Since it seems to be such a useful introduction to people’s rights, particularly in relation to property in deprived areas, I imagine that the Committee will want to pay some attention to that.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Ms McWilliams raised the question of conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. I need to speak about that.

As the House will know, one of the responsibilities of the Speaker’s Office is to ensure that Bills coming to First Stage conform with the European Convention on Human Rights and are within the competence of the Assembly. There are circumstances where differing rights interfere with each other and the matter is then one of the balance of public interest. Where, in my judgement, the balance of public interest is that the Bill should be brought forward in the form in which the Minister proposes that information would be contained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The Assembly would then be able to make a judgement on the balance of public interest because it could introduce an amendment at Consideration Stage. Where a Bill may be a changed by amendment and there is a balance of public interest which, in my judgement, is being served by the proposed legislation, I will allow it to proceed to Second Stage. We will have to make a further judgement before it reaches the Final Stage.

This will be the situation where there is a genuine balance and, in my view, the benefit to the public is in the Assembly’s being able to make a judgement on that balance. Where this is reasonable, I will permit the measure to go forward.

I mention the matter now because this is the first time that the issue has been raised in this way. It seems to me that the Assembly needs to be in a position to consider such matters thoughtfully.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the intention of the Bill, though I note that there are several areas where the wording, and what I would imagine is the intention, seems to be at variance with the explanatory memorandum. Clause 1 refers to

"all persons who might reasonably be affected by defects in the state of the premises".

That seems to be a wide definition. It is reasonable for a landlord to be liable for persons who are rightfully and lawfully on the premises, but I do not think that he should be liable for those who are not, and the explanatory memorandum implies that that would be the case. That clause will require some attention in Committee to ensure that it is not placing too large a burden on the landlord.

I also note that it is intended that this liability should not apply to the owners of ground rents. I think that that is appropriate as the ground rent owner is at some distance from the premises on the whole and would not normally expect to have any liability of that kind.

I note that what constitutes a ground rent owner is narrowly defined in the Bill. It refers to a tenancy under a lease where the rent payable is a yearly amount of less than £1. From work done on the Ground Rents Bill it has become evident that that should be "£1 or less", as a great many ground rents are in the sum of £1. The definition does not appear to cover those.

Quite a number of ground rents are of more than £1, and I am not sure that it is fair that such a ground rent owner should find himself within the scope of this Bill. That item need not prove fatal to the Bill, but it will certainly require attention during the Committee stage.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank all Members who have commented on the general principle of this Bill. Everybody has welcomed it, or has welcomed its stated intent and purposes. Members appreciate that the aim of the Bill — the provision for tenants of property free from potentially dangerous defects — is worthy of support. In my opening remarks, I said that the Bill was a modest piece of legislation. However, it should focus the attention of that minority of landlords who do not take all the necessary steps to ensure the safety of their properties.

Mr Francie Molloy, Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, welcomed the Bill but raised several points in relation to student lets and student property. The proposed changes can really be beneficial only to student properties. However, I should say this is not a wholesale reform of landlord/tenant law. It is a relatively modest extension of the liability that already exists. Any landlord who keeps his property in a good state of repair has nothing whatsoever to be concerned about in relation to these proposals. A landlord already owes a duty of care to his tenants, including student tenants. In effect, this legislation bolsters that duty.

Mr Molloy also raised the question of fire and safety. There is separate legislation covering those requirements and standards. The Bill does not have a direct bearing on those issues. However, property defects that could possibly constitute safety risks might be addressed as a result of the Bill, so obviously it does no harm. It does not diminish any of the legal effects or intents in that regard.

Mr Gibson raised the issue of dereliction and the problems that councils have. Unfortunately this legislation does not assist with that problem. It relates to landlord liability. It deals with a clear landlord-tenant relationship where people know who the landlord and the tenant are. To that extent, it does not touch on that problem identified by Mr Gibson. However, I note the fact that he welcomes the effect and intent of the legislation per se.

Ms McWilliams gave a general welcome to the Bill, and I appreciate that. However, she made a point about human-rights issues. I am sure that when Francie Molloy and his Committee further consider this Bill they will make a point of satisfying themselves on the question of its possible interference with rights. The Bill could, on its face, be deemed to interfere with possession and peaceful enjoyment of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, I believe that the Bill complies with the convention, not least because the extension of landlord’s liability would be for the general good of the community at large. In your own remarks, Mr Speaker, you made the point that it is for the Assembly to consider the balance between those particular points, arguments and considerations. I have no doubt that the Finance and Personnel Committee will take that up.

As for targeting social need, the point is that, in policy terms, this clearly does not in any way work against the commitments and principles of the Executive and the obligations of all Departments in this matter. The Bill does not directly target social need in itself, but it should enable people who are in the particular social need of being tenants in defective premises to have some form of legal redress. The Bill contains no targeting social need considerations that are to be directly pursued or executed by given Government Departments.

James Leslie raised some points in relation to possible variations between language in the Bill and language in the memorandum. Obviously, the Assembly will be considering and voting on the language in the Bill. As I said that language was chosen following the recommendation of the Law Reform Advisory Committee, and it reflects similar legislation across the water that was not adopted here because of the troubles and the high number of bomb-damaged properties back in the 1970s. On the basis of experience across the water, some of the possible fears or misgivings that Mr Leslie identified certainly have not come to pass with the legislation as it has been experienced in England and Wales.

Mr Leslie also queries whether the wording should give rights to people who might be on the premises illegally. Will this Bill give extra rights to trespassers? In theory that is possible. However, in practice a trespasser is already owed a duty of care by the tenant under the Occupiers’ Liability (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. In addition, the standard is that of someone who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects, and a trespasser would have to show in court that they satisfied that criterion.

Mr Leslie also mentioned the need for consistency in the treatment of ground rent in this and other Bills. The Committee and I will endeavour to make sure that there is as much consistency as possible and necessary between different pieces of legislation.

I look forward to further consideration of the measure, both in the House and in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill (NIA Bill 5/00) be agreed.

Personal Statement by First Minister

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The First Minister has sought leave to make a personal statement to the Assembly. Before calling the First Minister, I remind the House of the requirements and arrangements for a personal statement. A Member may request permission from the Speaker to make a personal statement, and the Speaker must see the detailed terms of the statement. The statement is not a question, it is not debatable, and questions can not be asked regarding it. There is one exception: another Member who is involved may remark on whether he or she accepts the statement. Any such remark must be on the terms of the statement and on whether that Member is prepared to accept it.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I would like to make a personal statement to correct the record of this House regarding a statement I made during a debate on Monday 9 October. In that debate, I responded to a remark made from a sedentary position regarding the circumstances surrounding a telephone call that I had received. The call was from the National Security Adviser to the President of the United States and took place on Thursday 28 September. It had been suggested, earlier in the debate, that I had initiated the call with Mr Berger. At that time, I consulted my officials and, on the basis of what I had been told, informed the House that neither I nor my staff had placed a call with Mr Berger. I was informed at the end of the week that an official in my office did telephone an official of the National Security Council on the afternoon of Thursday 28 September. That phone call was to ascertain what knowledge, if any, the US administration had regarding the subject matter of the UTV programme to be broadcast that evening. Later that afternoon, I did receive a telephone call from Mr Berger.

I take this opportunity to place on record the correct sequence of events. I regret that I may have inadvertently misled the House on this matter.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Having consulted Hansard, I call Mr Dodds, who is the Member concerned in the reference to comment from a sedentary position.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am glad that the First Minister has taken the opportunity to confirm the truth of my comments in the House during that debate. I am disappointed that, at the time, he rejected what I said. He now asks the House to accept that he was not aware of this at the time. We will leave that for Members to judge, in the light of his previous statements and pledges to this House — which have turned out to be false.

This is a significant statement. It is obvious to everyone that those at high levels in the American Government would have been unaware of the contents of a programme broadcast by a regional television authority unless it had been drawn to their attention. It is now clear that it was the First Minister’s staff who placed the call. They alerted officials to the fact that there was a programme coming out that would undermine everything that the First Minister and the pro-agreement parties have said about Sinn Féin/IRA’s commitment to decommissioning.

The appropriate response would have been to come to the House and move for the exclusion of Sinn Féin/IRA from the Government of Northern Ireland, not to urge the American authorities to try to get the programme changed. The fact that the First Minister chose to go for cover-up, rather than exclusion, is the greatest testimony to his attitude to Sinn Féin/IRA decommissioning and to democracy in this House. [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Mr Speaker, you indicated that some limited comment might be made on the statement. I ask you whether, in the course of such comment, it is in order to make statements that are untrue.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The First Minister has made a statement to correct the record, and it seems to me that he has done so at the earliest possible opportunity.

Street Trading Bill: Second Stage

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Street Trading Bill (NIA 2/00) be agreed.

This Bill replaces the provisions of the Street Trading (Regulation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1929, which relate to the licensing of street trading and which enable district councils to regulate street trading in their district. That legislation was designed to cater for the type of street trading prevalent in the early twentieth century. Over the past 70 years there have been significant changes in the manner of trading: hot-food and ice cream vans, roadside sales, car boot sales, moveable stalls et cetera were rare or unheard of in 1929.

There has also been a marked increase in the level of street trading, including market trading. The most significant change in recent years has been the alarming rise in illegal street trading, namely trading without a licence, particularly in the run-up to Christmas. While the current legislation provides for fines for that kind of trading, district councils have not found it to be an effective deterrent.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

The introduction of the Bill is the culmination of a wide-ranging review of the existing legislation, carried out in consultation with as wide a range of interested groups as possible, including district councils, the police and street traders. [Interruption]

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

Order. Owing to the number of private conversations that are going on in the Chamber, it is extremely difficult for some of us to hear the Minister speaking.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Bill contains a number of fairly detailed provisions. I would like to take a few minutes to provide Members with an overview of the main measures included. Unlike the 1929 Act, the Bill makes it clear that all street trading, other than certain specified exemptions, will require a licence. Under current legislation, only those trading from a stationary position are required to have a licence, the interpretation of which has caused district councils a good deal of difficulty.

Under the Bill, district councils will firmly designate the streets where they will allow street traders to operate from a stationary position. In this way, the system will become more open and understandable. Prospective traders will know where trading is to be permitted. In addition, residents, or those owning businesses in the area in question, will have an opportunity to make representations to the council about the proposal that trading be permitted in the area. Traders classed as mobile by a council will still require a licence but may, at the council’s discretion, be permitted to operate in non-designated streets.

The Bill sets out much more clearly the responsibilities of district councils in administering the scheme and in keeping applicants and licence-holders fully informed. It will ensure that opportunities are provided for representations to be made about proposed decisions, and extends the time limits within which appeals may be made.

District councils will have discretion in a number of aspects of the licensing procedure. A council will be able to decide the duration of the licence to be issued, up to a maximum of three years. In addition, the fee to be charged for a licence will no longer be set centrally but will be determined by each district council and set at a level sufficient for it to recover its full costs in administering the scheme. A provision has also been included to allow district councils to grant temporary licences to permit trading for a limited period at special events, such as fairs and festivals.

Councils will have discretion to deal with certain offences by issuing a fixed penalty notice to the offender. It is hoped that this will result in a saving of time and the administration costs of taking cases to court. Under the terms of the Bill, an authorised council officer or police officer will have the power to seize goods and stalls from vendors trading without a licence. A court which convicts an unlicensed trader will have the power to order the forfeiture of the items seized. Councils find that existing legislation provides no effective deterrent to combat the activities of unlicensed traders.

The Bill also seeks to protect the rights of individuals. District councils will be permitted to seize goods for evidence purposes only, and if proceedings do not result, the items may have to be returned to the trader. Under the proposed legislation, if a court finds that an unlawful seizure of goods has been made, the owner can seek compensation.

The Bill aims to provide a modern and effective framework for the regulation of street trading in the Province. Street trading, if properly regulated, can add colour and vibrancy to the centres of our towns and cities. The main aim is to support a licensing system to avoid nuisance, interference and inconvenience to persons and vehicles through open, fair and workable legislation which provides district councils with a high degree of flexibility.

I hope that I have provided Members with some assessment of the measures contained in the Bill, which I commend to the Assembly.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. As the Deputy Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, I welcome the introduction of the Street Trading Bill. Committee members will be considering the contents of the Bill in detail, so I will be brief.

The current street trading legislation, which dates back to 1929, must be updated to provide proper regulation. Unlicensed street traders have grown in number in recent years and the current legislation has proved to be ineffective to control their activities. Licensed and controlled street traders have a role to play in our towns and cities. Many towns benefit from the visitors attracted to properly managed markets. Internationally renowned markets in such cities as Dublin, London and Sydney are tourist attractions in themselves. Almost every European city has a market, which can serve as a meeting place for tourists while drawing people to the towns or city centres and enhancing them.

Markets in areas such as Enniskillen, Dungannon and Aughnacloy may not be so famous, but they attract shoppers, which provides a spin-off benefit for the town’s permanent retailers. In this age of out-of-town shopping, any feature that attracts people to town centres is welcome. Markets add vibrancy, colour and fabric to town centres and must therefore be developed, rather than hampered or hamstrung.

Nevertheless, many rate-paying retailers object to unlicensed street traders who pay nothing. They often set up business in inappropriate locations where they can be a nuisance to the public and retailers. We must have equitable legislation which permits street trading but creates the level playing field needed to create a mutually beneficial working relationship between street traders and retailers. The Committee will look in detail at all the issues covered by the Bill. Their findings will be reported to the Assembly prior to the Consideration Stage. Go raibh míle maith agat.

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

In general, I welcome the Bill. It is long overdue, and I congratulate the Minister for bringing it to the House. I agree that street trading brings colour and vibrancy to our streets but, if not properly regulated, it is also a considerable nuisance. The Bill focuses on and attempts to remedy that type of mischief.

I am speaking as a Member of this House but also as a member of Belfast City Council. The council has noted the considerable annoyance, inconvenience and nuisance caused by unregulated street trading and has been to the forefront of lobbying the Government over the years to try to remedy the situation. The Bill will provide a remedy, as it will update a rather archaic Act of Parliament, the Street Trading (Regulation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1929 and bring the regulations into line with modern practice. Enforcement has proven problematic. The council found that traders evaded the law by ignoring those who approached them, or by relying on the cumbersome and bureaucratic procedures contained within the 1929 Act. Therefore illegal street traders regularly got off without any penalty. This Bill will mean that traders will have to be properly licensed; that the licence will have to be carried with the trader; that those with him must be under his control; and that they will have to trade in designated areas. That system is as welcome as it is overdue.

The powers contained within the Bill are central to dealing with illegality. In particular, seizing of goods has been very difficult in the past, but the power to seize them is vital if we are to eradicate the scourge and mischief of illegal and unregulated street trading.

The Bill also provides for goods to be forfeited when someone is convicted of illegal street trading. That is very important. It is the greatest deterrent to illegal traders, and I congratulate the Department and the Minister for including that power in the Bill. The power must, of course, be exercised in a balanced and a fair way, and it will do nothing to prevent a bona fide street trader from carrying out his trade properly under licence. However, when a trader violates that licence by contradicting its terms, such as trading outside the proper area — and this applies too to those who trade without a licence — goods can be seized and even forfeited. That power alone will drive illegal traders out of our city streets and towns. Councils have long been hoping for this, and so I welcome the Bill. The obligation on every trader to carry on his person a strictly binding licence, complete with his photograph, will bring greater discipline to street trading throughout Northern Ireland.

I worry about the passage of the Bill — I hope that it will be passed fairly quickly, but the timetable is governed by the rules of the House. However, let us hope that the terms of the Bill can be enacted and come into effect before Christmas. I hope so, because it is at Christmas time that illegal and unregulated street trading proliferates, especially in town and city centres. I hope the Minister can ensure that the legislation is enacted before the start of the Christmas season and so prevent the mischief that has characterised recent Christmases. I hope too that the House will broadly support the view that the legislation should be enacted as soon as possible.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I welcome the introduction of legislation to regulate street trading. District councils will be able to set fees to recover costs, and so on. The attractive element of the matter is that proper street trading can help to recreate a critical mass of custom in town centres. However, the Minister will be aware that one of the main concerns of permanent traders is the rates disparity. Would it be within the competence of local councils to include comparative figures for fees to redress the balance between the permanent traders and the street traders?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am delighted that the Bill has reached this stage in a relatively short time. When I held the position that Mr Morrow now occupies, I had the pleasure of bringing the legislative provisions in detail to the Committee for Social Development. When I took office as Minister, one of my priorities was to cut through the delays on street trading to get the legislation onto the statute book as quickly as possible. Mr Maginness mentioned the need to try to get the various stages through the House as quickly as possible, and I echo that. We should try to have legislation passed and powers in place before the onset of the Christmas period when, especially in Belfast city centre, there are problems with street traders.

I want to congratulate the Minister for the way in which he has proceeded with this Bill. He and other Members have been determined to achieve results. The current legislation is out of date. It is 70 years since it was revised, and today’s street trading practices are very different from what they were decades ago. As it stands, the legislation is totally ineffective. It does not give council officers the necessary powers to deal with the problem. I welcome the fact that we intend to introduce a power to seize goods that is the only remedy that will make a difference to the problem of illegal street trading.

I have had many complaints from mothers with young children in prams, from people with disabilities and from the elderly, who are all concerned about the way in which street traders operate on the footpaths in Belfast city centre. I have also had complaints from consumers who have bought goods from these stalls — goods which turned out to be totally different from what they were supposed to be and for which those consumers have no effective comeback or redress. Belfast City Council — other Members of the House are also members of the council — is very keen to get this legislation in place. Other councils are also affected, but it is a particular problem in Belfast.

I am not saying that all street trading is bad per se. There is no doubt that street trading brings a certain amount of colour and vibrancy to cities and towns both in this country and abroad. The problem comes when it is unregulated. Then, it creates the worst possible impression and image, and street traders act illegally by selling goods that are not of a proper standard. That brings the environment and ethos of the city of Belfast into the depths. The Bill will go a long way towards recovering that position.

Some of the legislation that has been tabled in the Assembly heretofore has been necessary, some of it has been technical, and some of it has dealt with important issues. This is an issue on which the Assembly, if it passes the Bill, will be seen to have made a real difference to people’s lives and to how they go about their business in Belfast city centre in the run-up to Christmas.

I commend the Bill and hope that it will receive a speedy passage.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I wish to echo the words of Mr Alban Maginness, who, praised the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. I am sure that the House will notice the seamless way in which the decision made by the previous Minister has been carried through by the present Minister. Despite all the criticisms of the Democratic Unionist Party’s policy regarding the rotation of Ministers, there has been no disadvantage to the people of Northern Ireland. In fact, direct rule Ministers pondered this legislation for five years. Despite what our opponents have said about the way the Department for Social Development has been handled, the Bill has been brought forward in a fraction of the time by the Ministers appointed by the Democratic Unionist Party. I make that point because I am glad to see that even our opponents have praised us for doing the work that we said we would do: while opposing the worst aspects of the agreement, we work at representing the people of Northern Ireland.

My second point relates to the absence of the Chairperson of the Committee responsible for bringing this legislation forward. I have noted his comments over the past week about the performance of the Minister for Social Development. In meetings of Belfast City Council, and on other occasions, I have heard him talk about the need for the Bill, and yet we are discussing it —

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The Chairperson of the Committee has an urgent dental appointment.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

He certainly did not look too swollen when I saw him at nine o’clock this morning. What is really important is not the teeth of the Chairperson but the teeth of the legislation, which gets to grips with the issue of street trading.

It is significant that the Chairperson has found an adequate deputy in the Sinn Féin Deputy Chairperson. Given the relationship between himself and Sinn Féin to which the First Minister admitted this morning, it is not unusual to find Ulster Unionists asking Sinn Féin to deputise for them when it comes to speaking on certain matters.

The Minister might clarify certain issues for me. Like other Members, I accept that street trading can add vibrancy to town centres. Indeed, we ought to seek such trading in a properly regulated form. However, there are a number of other issues arising from the Bill. The issues may be adequately covered, but perhaps we should strengthen the legislation.

Car boot sales are regarded as street trading and many constituents and constituency organisations benefit from them. I notice that the Bill deals with trading under the auspices of charitable organisations. However, it points out that trading must not be for individual profit. In many car boot sales, individuals profit while organisations make money from selling pitches. Does the Bill cover that aspect, or do we need to be more specific? I am sure that organisations such as churches, scout groups, residents’ associations, and community groups would not be very happy if the work that they do to raise funds through car boot sales were covered by this legislation. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point.

Mr Dodds mentioned my next concern. People trading on the street quite often break employment regulations and those relating to the standard of goods offered. Clause 9 of the Bill covers discretionary grounds for refusing an application. In Belfast, we see situations in which a street trader takes out a number of licences and has people under the age of 16 running stalls for him. I understand that there may be occasions — perhaps at family stalls — when parents go for something to eat, leaving a child in charge for a short period. We must make allowance for that. Under the discretionary grounds for refusing an application, should there not be a provision whereby a person’s habitual use of child labour might constitute grounds for the refusal of a future licence? There is also the question of those who have been found guilty of selling goods that do not meet health and safety or consumer protection standards. Are those not also grounds for refusal?

Alban Maginness raised my last issue — the forfeiture or seizure of goods. That is the bite in the Bill. My attention was drawn to the wording of the relevant clause, which may simply fulfil the legal requirements. Where an authorising officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting thata person has committed an offence, he may seize an article or things being offered which may be used as evidence. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether the officer is required to seize everything offered, for it is then that the legislation would have teeth. If he is simply required to seize a sample to show what has been on offer, the trader can be back on the ground the next day.

Would it be a reasonable defence against such legislation for someone to say in court that he had been put out of his legitimate business after having all his goods seized rather than an exemplary item for legal use? If the legislation is to have real teeth, then the officer must be able to seize all the goods. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether that is the Bill’s import.

I am aware that many of these issues will be raised in Committee, and I know that the Social Development Committee intends to look closely at the Bill. However, those are some of the issues that I should like to see flagged up for a response from the Minister.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank all the Members who have taken part in the debate. Many useful comments have been made about the general principles of the Bill, which will provide a more structured and working scheme that will be to the benefit of all parties.

Prospective traders will better understand the types of trading covered by the Bill. Where trading is permitted in a district council area, the councils will have clear guidelines and an effective deterrent that will enable them to deal with those who trade without a licence. Ultimately, the success of the scheme will depend on its practical operation, but the end results should benefit the general public. They will see street trading regulated in a way that allows them to go about their daily business without undue obstruction.

I will now try to deal with the points made and raised by individual Members. Mr Maginness and Mr Dodds asked when and how the Bill would come into operation. It will come into operation by means of an Order made by the Department for Social Development. That is likely to be four months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, to give the district councils adequate time to prepare for the new procedures that they requested. It is unlikely that Royal Assent will be granted before Christmas.

Mr Hussey asked why district councils are prevented from charging a figure more closely related to the disparity in the rates. The purpose of the Bill is to regulate street trading; it is not a financial measure aimed at income generation. The provisions for the setting of fees and charges limit district councils to recouping the costs of administering and enforcing the system, which is only right and proper. Within those limits they may charge what they wish, and street trading-stalls may be liable for rates.

I agree with Mr Dodds on the ineffectiveness of the present legislation, which is some 70 years old and not in line with the requirements of modern society.

Mr Wilson raised a number of questions. He had concerns about the Bill’s preventing licence holders from employing young people, especially in the summer holidays. The relevant provisions of the Bill clarify the law on children by making it clear that while a licence holder may employ assistants, the provisions of article 135(4) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 prevent the licence holder from engaging children. Assistants must be over the legal school-leaving age, and any offence in this regard would be under the Children Order.

Mr Wilson also asked why car boot sales are not exempt from the requirement to have a street trading licence, especially those run by bodies such as churches and scout groups. It is anticipated that most private car boot sales will not require a licence — not because they are exempt but because the trading does not take place in a street, as defined in the Bill. Provided that the activity takes place in an area that is separated from a road or footpath by a wall or fence, the question of a street trading licence will not arise.

Mr Wilson also raised the point of whether district councils or the police can seize anything they wish from an illegal street trader. Items may be seized only if they are to be used as evidence in court proceedings or are the subject of a forfeiture application in court. If an unauthorised council officer or a police officer seizes items unlawfully, the court may award compensation for the loss or deterioration of those items. Any item may be seized.

Mr Wilson underlined the exclusion from the Bill of issues such as health and safety. Many important issues affect our streets, but they are not exclusive to street trading. The new street trading legislation cannot be used to cure the ills of other legislation. Concerns about the suitability of any street for trading can be addressed when a council is considering if that street should be so designated.

I trust I have covered all the points that were raised by Members. If I have missed anything, a reply will be given later.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Street Trading Bill (NIA 2/00) be agreed.

The sitting was suspended at 1.05 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Assembly Business

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, have you received any notice of a personal statement from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to apologise for not being present, for disrupting the business of the House and for allowing the Bill that she was supposed to be presenting to be put back because of her inexplicable absence?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

If any Member is not here for a piece of business which requires his or her presence — whether a Bill, a motion or a question — it falls, but it may come forward later for consideration by the Business Committee. That is the position.

The answer to the Member’s question is that I have not received any communication in respect of this matter.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Are you saying that not only have you not received any request from the Minister to make a personal statement by way of apology to the Assembly, but you have not received any explanation of her absence either?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have been occupied with visitors to the Assembly, as several Members will know, and I cannot say whether there has been an attempt to get a message to me.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you take comfort from the fact that the DUP now wants Sinn Féin in the Assembly?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am at a loss as to what the point of order is. We should allow the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to proceed with their questions.

First minister and Deputy First Minister

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Question 2, standing in the name of Mr Joe Byrne, has been withdrawn, and I understand that the Member in whose name question 5 stands is not able to be here and will receive a written response.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if they will confirm that the first meeting of the Civic Forum has taken place and to detail plans for future meetings.

(AQO 167/00)

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am pleased to confirm that the first meeting of the Civic Forum took place on Monday 9 October in the BT Studio in the Waterfront Hall. No date has been set for the next meeting, but the Forum expects to meet in plenary session in December. The location of further meetings of the Forum will be a matter for members of the Forum. Consideration will be given to holding future meetings in venues across Northern Ireland.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I attended the first meeting and found it very worthwhile. Does the First Minister agree that, given the interest of the general public in this very important Forum, communcation and information should be of the highest quality?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I do indeed agree that we want to ensure that the highest quality information is available. The Member will have noticed the extent of the publicity for the first meeting and I am sure that the public interest reflected by that will be sustained. The Deputy First Minister, and I and the Assembly as a whole must consider how best to make use of the Civic Forum. It will be a channel for information from some sectors of civil society and for views to be expressed. Collectively, we have to consider the value that we put upon the deliberations of the Forum.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Can the First Minister explain what his plans are for how the Assembly should co-operate with the Civic Forum? Also, does he intend to have a consultative procedure to allow us to examine ways to co-operate with the Civic Forum?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am not in a position to answer that, because no definitive proposals have yet emerged. It might be unwise of me simply to muse out loud on the matter. Establishing the Forum within six months of devolution represents a tremendous effort by the office and the staff involved. The office did remarkably well to achieve that objective.

As the Member said, we have to consider how best to make use of the Forum. We want to hear the views of Forum members and of Assembly Members. We do not have a pre-prepared set of ideas. There are no arrangements that we wish to impose upon the Forum. We want to think the matter through. Because of that, I will resist the temptation to think out loud.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Does the First Minister not agree that he has already used the Civic Forum to reward those to whom he wishes to give patronage — to appoint and reward failed party candidates, to reward complaining loyalist paramilitary spokesmen and to keep the IRA quiet by nominating a convicted IRA terrorist?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am at a loss to understand that last point. The Member knows that appointments to the Civic Forum were made by a range of organisations from a variety of sectors in civic society. Consortia were formed by interested bodies, and they made 54 of the appointments. The Deputy First Minister and I made six appointments in total. We made it absolutely clear that three were nominated by the Deputy First Minister and three were nominated by myself.

To deal with the Member’s first comments, which were of a personal nature, I think that the persons concerned will have every reason to feel aggrieved that they have been referred to in those terms in this Assembly. I reject that description.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, further to their reply on 18 September, what action has been taken on plans to establish Executive sub-committees on cross- departmental issues.

(AQO 154/00)

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

It is entirely a matter for the Executive to decide how their business will be conducted. Sub-committees are neither provided for, nor precluded, by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Executive is currently considering how best to address cross-departmental issues, particularly in the context of the Programme for Government. The Executive will determine the role and remit of any sub-committees and retain overall responsibility for all decisions taken.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the sooner Executive sub-committees are established the better? We might have sub-committees involving the Department of Health and the Department for Social Development, or the Department for Regional Development, which is responsible for the ‘Shaping Our Future’ document, and the Department of the Environment, which is presently drawing up area plans.

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

The Member will be aware that I do not want to anticipate any decisions made by the Executive on this matter. I agree with him on the value of dealing with cross-cutting issues. There are many cross-cutting issues, and I believe that the decisions that the Executive will make will allow such issues to be dealt with whatever structures are created.

Eugene McMenamin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the non-appearance of the Minister for Social Development at the inter-ministerial meeting on drugs is a deplorable derogation of responsibility? Can he assure Members that the Executive will press ahead and establish good government despite the DUP?

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

I assure the Member that we will do everything in our power to ensure good government. In relation to the substance of his question, I state that since 2 September 1999 DUP Ministers have not attended meetings, but they have offered views on papers circulated to them.

The DUP Ministers have submitted memoranda to the Executive Committee on a wide range of topics, but have refused to attend Executive meetings to discuss issues arising, even on matters of public interest. The Minister for Regional Development did not attend the Executive meeting that discussed the outbreak of cryptosporidium. The Minister for Social Development refused to attend the first meeting of the ministerial group on drugs, which was held last week. That refusal to participate in meetings addressing matters of such vital significance to everybody in Northern Ireland, especially parents, children and young people, reflects the fact that some Ministers seem to think that playing party politics is more important than tackling the real problems facing society.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I am interested in Mr McCarthy’s proposal. Is the Deputy First Minister prepared to guarantee that a Minister taking part in a sub-committee would actually turn up, unlike a Minister who did not do so this morning in the House?

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

I anticipate that whatever structures the Executive decides upon for handling cross-cutting issues, it will be a very important part of the deliberations of the Executive. We would like to see all Ministers attending not just the Executive but any sub-committees that may be formed by the Executive. I include all of us in that, and it is crucially important that issues are dealt with in a way that is both unified and creative, especially those cross-cutting issues which go right across the 10 Departments.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Is it not the height of hypocrisy for the Deputy First Minister to lecture anyone in this House about boycotting or not attending meetings when he has almost daily been pontificating about the refusal of his party to attend police structures if it does not get its way in the Police Bill?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member is straying well wide of Executive sub-committees, and he is aware of it. The question is out of order.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister if they have made any representations to the Government of the Republic of Ireland regarding that country’s non-implementation of obligations under the Major Accident Hazards Directive (96/82/EC).

(AQO 157/00)

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

No representations have been made to the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning that country’s non-implementation of obligations under the Major Accident Hazards Directive (96/82/EC). We understand that the necessary regulations to implement the directive with regard to the Republic of Ireland are expected to be made by the end of October 2000. The non-implementation of EC directives by member states is a matter for the European Commission to pursue under the infraction procedures established by article 226 of the EC Treaty.

It is our understanding that the Republic of Ireland authorities consider that within their jurisdiction there are no major accident hazard sites that have the potential to give rise to cross-border effects, and we have no information to the contrary.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the First Minister agree that the failure to adopt this could possibly endanger both the environments and the citizens of Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it is essential that our own regional central emergency planning unit should continue to receive our support? Will he suggest to the Government of the Irish Republic that they create a similar body? I understand that they do not have such a body.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member has referred to our central emergency planning unit. Of course, we do have such a unit. The authorities in the Republic of Ireland are aware of its role and function, and they liaise regularly with it to exchange and share information and best practice in the field of emergency planning. However, it is entirely a matter for them to decide what arrangements they should make for emergency planning in their own jurisdiction.

Of course, hazards that could have cross-border effects are a matter of real concern to us. However, on the information available to us, it does not look as if there are any such hazards.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what action has been taken to ensure that all Ministers in the Executive Committee are adhering to their Pledge of Office as defined in the Agreement of 10 April 1998, Strand One, Annex A.

(AQO 171/00)

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Ministers are required by section 18(8) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to affirm the Pledge of Office set out in the Belfast Agreement before taking up office. The Executive Committee has adopted a ministerial code which provides guidance for Ministers on their relationship with the Executive Committee and on the conduct of their ministerial duties. Compliance with the code promotes and underpins ministerial adherence to many elements of the Pledge of Office. However, it is ultimately a matter for the Assembly to decide whether there has been such a breach of the Pledge of Office as to resolve to exclude a Minister or a political party from office.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Does the First Minister agree that the Republican movement’s failure to decommission its weapons brings into question the adherence of Sinn Féin Ministers to section (b) of the Pledge of Office? Does he also agree that the only reason that the Ulster Unionist Party was prepared to restore devolution this year was on the basis of the IRA’s promise in May to put its weapons completely and verifiably beyond use? Therefore, is it not outrageous that the Republican movement has still not kept this promise some five months later?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member is correct in that the Pledge of Office includes a

"commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".

The individuals who take that pledge do so on the basis of being the representatives of their party and, indeed, of the movement that brought them to where they are now. The Member is also correct in saying that the promises made by the Republican movement in May were critical to the restoration of devolution. It is a disappointment to us to find, five months after the event, that the promise to initiate a process that would put weapons completely and verifiably beyond use, and on that basis to engage with the de Chastelain Commission, has yet to be redeemed.

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

Does the First Minister agree that all Ministers must comply with the Pledge of Office, particularly Annex A(a) and (e), which require Ministers to discharge all duties of office and to operate within the framework of the Programme for Government when it is approved? What are the First Minister’s views on the DUP’s non-compliance?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

We have the curious situation of people who hold ministerial office and discharge that office in virtually all respects in relation to their ministerial functions, what they do in their offices and the representations they make with their Colleagues. They do everything that is connected with that office except meet their Colleagues and discuss matters with them from time to time. That is not a full adherence of the Pledge of Office.

However, the Administration is functioning with regard to all its Departments. The only people who are harmed by the non-participation in some Committees of DUP Ministers are those DUP Ministers, who consequently deprive themselves of the opportunity to contribute to collective decision making. We are determined that this Administration should proceed and that the public service should be protected. If some Members are too shy to come and speak to their Colleagues that is their own lookout.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the First Minister explain why he is simply disappointed at Sinn Féin’s non-compliance with its Pledge of Office, given that IRA/Sinn Féin Members and their organisation continue to be involved in gun-running from the United States of America and continue to be involved in paramilitary attacks? At the weekend there was the sanctioning of a murder by the Provisional IRA. Surely this, more than anything else, is a breach of the Pledge of Office. Instead of expressing disappointment, what sanctions is he going to put on the Provisional IRA and its Ministers in this Government?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

When I used the term "disappointment" I was avoiding the hyperbole, exaggeration and bombast which characterise the DUP. Our disappointment on this matter is extremely serious, and the Republican movement is aware of that. However, I must deprecate the conduct of the Member who asked that question in another matter too.

There was, indeed, a very regrettable murder this weekend, and some people are attributing it to mainstream Republicans. At the moment, the Chief Constable says that he cannot rule out the involvement of any organisation or come to any conclusion about who was involved. I hope that the Chief Constable will soon be able to tell us whom the police believe to be responsible for that and other murders. Many violent incidents have occurred, and we need to know the police’s assessment, but we should not jump to one conclusion rather than another, because it serves the purposes of a particular political party. We need a balanced view from the Chief Constable in order to arrive at a conclusion.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

The First Minister knows — and the majority of people in the community believe — that the murder of Joseph O’Connor at the weekend was carried out by the Provisional IRA. If the Chief Constable confirms that, will the First Minister give an undertaking that he will remove Sinn Féin representatives from the Executive? Failing that, will he give an undertaking to the House that he will do the honourable and decent thing and lead his party out of the Executive? Even his bible — the Belfast Agreement — makes it clear that Sinn Féin Members are in breach of section (b) of the Pledge of Office. It clearly states that they must have a

"commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means."

No one believes for one moment that Mr Adams, Mr McGuinness and the other Sinn Féin Members have any commitment to that pledge.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. This is Question Time; it is not an opportunity for speeches.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member can talk about his beliefs and the beliefs of others but he is not in a position to say anything about what I know, other than what he hears from me. He does not know what I know. That is a simple point about the loose use of language by the Member.

The Member can rely on my Colleagues and me to do the decent and honourable thing for society in Northern Ireland, particularly the 71% who want to see the process working. We will pursue our objective of achieving devolution and decommissioning. The Member is quick to urge other people to walk out but is himself slow to move. [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members know that I do not take points of order during Question Time. I will take them at the end.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

How many guns must the IRA attempt to bring into the Province and how many people must be killed before the First Minister will exclude Sinn Féin from Government?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Many assumptions have been made in that statement and old history has been raked up. With regard to what my party will decide in the coming weeks and months, I refer the Member to my party conference speech, in which I touched on those matters.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if they can confirm that all those employed in their Office as Special Advisers are complying with their terms and conditions of employment.

(AQO 147/00)

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

We are satisfied that all those employed as Special Advisers in the Office of the First and the Deputy First Minister are complying with their terms and conditions of employment.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I fear that the Deputy First Minister is not well informed as to the activities of some Special Advisers. It may be difficult for him to answer this supplementary question, which illustrates one of the unsatisfactory features of putting questions jointly to the Ministers. Could he ask his Colleague to write to me and explain how someone employed as a Special Adviser in the Office of the First Minister can act as a press officer to David Trimble as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, accompany other Ulster Unionists to news conferences, and act as a spin doctor for the party, while supposedly being a civil servant?

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

I have no doubt about the identity of the person to whom the Member is referring, but I want to put it on the record that, so far as I am aware, there is no evidence that any Special Adviser has broken his or her terms of employment. Let me put on record what those terms are, and actually say what a Special Adviser may or may not do.

In terms of fulfilling his obligations, a Special Adviser may attend the Minister’s party functions and maintain contact with party members, but not speak publicly at a party conference. He may take part in policy reviews organised by the party. He may undertake all forms of local political activity — that is, in connection with local authorities, local councils — but not activities in support of national politics (and that includes the Assembly). He may provide specialist or political advice to his Minister during an election campaign.

A Special Adviser may not take part in what is termed national political activity — Assembly, Westminster or European activity, as opposed to local government. [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

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

He may not speak in public matters of national political controversy or express views on such matters in letters to the press or in books, articles or leaflets. He may not be announced publicly as a candidate or a prospective candidate for the Assembly, Parliament or the European Parliament. He may not canvass on behalf of a candidate for the Assembly, Parliament or the European Parliament or on behalf of a political party or otherwise take part actively in an election campaign other than by giving advice to the Minister. Those are the dos and don’ts in relation to Special Advisers, and I would be very keen to offer to deal with any specifics or any definite points that the Assemblyman or anyone else would like to raise on the matter.

Arthur Doherty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

The Deputy First Minister can be assured that his initiative of appointing Special Advisers is widely recognised as a very worthwhile innovation. However, can we be assured that the DUP tendency for revolving Ministers, accompanied by revolving DUP Special Advisers, will not be a tax burden and will not be at tax payers’ expense?

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

I thank the Assemblyman for the question. Special Advisers have been of great importance and great significance in terms of the Office of First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and I know they have been very helpful to other Ministers as well.

In relation to the specific point he raises, the model contract between Departments and Special Advisers has been reviewed to reflect the possibility that some advisers may be employed for relatively short periods of time.

The current model contract provides that where an adviser resigns within six months of the commencement of his employment to participate in elections, he is entitled to one month’s severance pay only. It has been decided to extend this principle so that if an adviser’s employment terminates within six months of appointment for any reason he is entitled to one month’s severance pay only. This change applies to contracts entered into from 4 October 2000. It cannot be applied retrospectively to existing contracts.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The Deputy First Minister wants specifics. Can he tell us specifically if it is compatible for a civil servant or Special Adviser, namely Mr King —

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has got the wrong one.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I have not. This is a different one — so there is more than one doing it.

Is it compatible for a civil servant or Special Adviser, namely Mr King, to take part in an election campaign by using a platform piece in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ to blatantly electioneer for his party to such an extent that the newspaper had to give another political party the right to reply? Is that taking part in elections? If so, will the Deputy First Minister condemn that? Will he condemn it as an abuse of the role of that civil servant, and will he indicate to us what disciplinary action should be taken to sanction that person?

I note that the First Minister is giggling and going quite red, but after the South Antrim by-election he was nearly crying.

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

It is a matter of record that Mr King is not employed as a Special Adviser in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I can assure the Member that Mr King is not employed as a Special Adviser by the First Minister, and I can doubly assure him that he is not employed by me.

I fully agree with the Member’s second point. It would not be compatible for any Special Adviser to do what the Member described: write articles on behalf of one political party or another, or to otherwise campaign in an election. I would like to be specific on that, because I know it is a very sensitive issue. I am glad to be utterly specific in relation to the Assemblyman’s question.

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

8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what preparation has been made by the devolved Administration for implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 following its introduction on 2 October 2000.

(AQO 172/00)

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Northern Ireland Administration has been required to act in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 since the original date of devolution. Steps have been taken to prepare for implementation on a range of matters.

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

What areas of vulnerability have been identified, particularly in the area of planning?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

We have endeavoured to examine a range of matters. We have asked all Departments to review their legislation, policies and procedures and organisational arrangements. Where existing arrangements are shown to be vulnerable to challenge we are considering making changes. There are areas of concern on a range of planning matters. In a recent Scottish case, County Properties Limited successfully challenged the planning procedures of the Scottish Ministers under Article 6 of the Convention. However, it should be noted that the case is the subject of an appeal.

Notwithstanding that, there are a number of areas in the broad planning field, including things like compulsory acquisition, where there are areas of concern. We are looking at those areas and consulting with the Administrations in Wales and in Scotland, and with Whitehall, because some of the problems are common and the legislation is similar in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is desirable to have a common response to the problems that have been identified.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be appropriate for the First Minister, at an early opportunity, to correct a misleading statement he made to the House on Monday 9 October, when he said that he, or his office, had not contacted the office of Mr Sandy Berger? I wonder if he would like to —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. First of all, Members should be more careful about raising questions regarding Ministers misleading the House, and ought to read their Erskine May in that regard. It would be even better if they were in the Chamber and able to hear the matter being addressed. I am afraid that the Member asking the question was obviously not in the Chamber when a personal statement on the matter was made earlier today. I recommend that he read not only Erskine May but also today’s Hansard when it is published tomorrow.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development if a time limit is placed on the Roads Service to respond to requests for views on planning applications being considered by the Department of the Environment Planning Service.

(AQO 161/00)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Under the current service-level agreement with the Department of Environment Planning Service, my Department’s Roads Service aims to achieve a 90% return of consultation forms relating to minor planning applications within 15 working days of receipt from the Planning Service; a 75% return of consultation forms relating to major planning applications within 15 working days of receipt from the Planning Service; and a 90% return of consultation forms relating to major planning applications within 30 working days of receipt from the Planning Service.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Can the Minister tell us whether those targets are being met? The impression that one gets from the present planning system for Belfast is that those targets are missed by a wide margin. Within the past two weeks, we have found that one third of the planning applications due to come to Belfast City Council could not be brought forward because the Roads Service had not responded. One application relating to East Belfast has been delayed for more than three months, in the absence of a Roads Service response.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

In the first quarter of the year, for target number one, the Roads Service’s success rate was 76%, compared with the target figure of 90% . Target number two was 75%, against which the service achieved 73%. For target three, where the target was 90% of major applications within 30 days, the performance has been 86%. Roads Service performance has not reached the levels that I would have liked, in relation to target one. Performance in the eastern division falls below the target. The hon Member for East Belfast referred to the Belfast area, which, of course, falls within the eastern division.

A number of factors have contributed to the performance. First, there has been a significant increase in planning applications, including a 17% increase in the past three years. In 1999-2000, there were 15,000 planning applications from the Department of the Environment Planning Service. Three thousand eight hundred of those were for the eastern division, which includes Belfast City Council area. Additional staff have been deployed in the eastern division to address the current backlog of work.

The application of the new design guide for roads in new developments has slowed the private streets determination process, leading to an additional backlog. My predecessor established a joint Planning Service and Roads Service working group to examine the issues and identify how the planning process can be improved. That working group is due to report to the joint Planning Service directorate before the end of this calendar year. I am hopeful that that will speed up the clearing of the backlog.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will detail the number of meetings he has had with Ministers with responsibility for transport at national, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly level.

(AQO 151/00)

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

7. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will detail what proposals he will submit to the North/South Ministerial Council, particularly in relation to transport.

(AQO 159/00)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 2 and 7 together.

I was due to meet Lord Macdonald, the Minister for Transport, in Manchester last month. Unfortunately, although I was present, he was unable to fulfill the engagement, due to pressures on the Government that arose from the fuel cost protests. I have arranged a meeting with the Scottish Minister for Transport and the Environment, Sarah Boyack, which is scheduled to take place next month. It is, in fact, a rescheduled meeting. My predecessor, Mr Peter Robinson, had arranged the meeting, but it was postponed, due to the suspension of the Assembly.

In addition to that, my officials have regular contact with their counterparts in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions as well as with those in the Scottish Executive. In fulfilling my responsibilities as Minister for Regional Development, I have no plans to submit proposals to the North/South Ministerial Council.

That is without prejudice to ensuring that my Department co-operates fully, on an ongoing basis, on matters of mutual interest between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, especially in relation to roads, public transport, spatial development and water and sewerage.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

Can the Minister tell us if it is his intention to attend meetings of the British/Irish Council, where transport matters relating to all four constituent parts of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland are likely to be on the agenda in due course? Secondly, does he consider that to be the best forum for dealing with those cross-cutting themes?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am, of course, as my predecessor was, content to take the lead in taking forward a sectoral meeting on transport within the context of the British-Irish Council. However, the hon Member should know that the First and Deputy First Ministers, for their own reasons, decided to assume responsibility for representing the Executive Committee on transport matters at the British-Irish Council.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement regarding his willingness to get involved in developing the transport theme with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Coming from west Tyrone, where we have major problems in relation to roads, I encourage the Minister to get involved in putting forward proposals on transport — particularly road transport — with his Department and in collaboration with the Republic of Ireland. Roads in the border areas have never really had adequate funding.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I will repeat what I have already said: my Department co-operates fully, on an ongoing basis, on matters of mutual interest between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, especially in relation to roads, public transport, spatial development, water and sewerage. That is the case and will continue to be the case.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that it takes some nerve for an Ulster Unionist to ask this question, given that it was the First Minister who did his best to block discussions and consultation between him and his Welsh and Scottish counterparts?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

As I said, it was the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister who, for their own reasons, took responsibility for representing the Executive Committee on transport matters at the British-Irish Council. That was a matter for them; they took that decision. I agree with the hon Member that it seems somewhat churlish that I am now asked about my responsibility for a matter that has already been dealt with by the leader of Mr Leslie’s party — the First Minister, Mr Trimble.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. An bhféadann an t Aire a insint domh an raibh cruinniú ar bith aige go dtí seo leis an Aire Comhshaoil sna sé chondae is fiche faoi chúrsaí taistil, nó an bhfuil sé de rún aige seo a dhéanamh roimh i bhfad?

Will the Minister detail any meetings he has had with Minister Noel Dempsey, who has responsibility for transport in the rest of Ireland? Is it his intention to have any such meetings in the near future?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I cannot pretend that I understood the first part of the question. I have already said that while carrying out and fulfilling my responsibilities as Minister for Regional Development, I have no plans to submit proposals to the North/South Ministerial Council. However, that will not preclude ongoing and continuous co-operation that my Department has, and will continue to have, with its counterpart in the Irish Republic on matters such as transport and roads.

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

I am glad to hear that the Minister is going to meet his Scottish counterpart next month. Will he take into account the needs of my constituency in East Antrim? Will he address those needs jointly with the Scottish Minister to try and upgrade our roads, the A8 (the Larne line) and the A75 on the Scottish side, as part of the trans-European network? That upgrade is critical to the people of Northern Ireland who are trying to get their goods to the UK, which is our major trading partner.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I have responded previously to another Member from East Antrim on that precise point. I am very conscious of the roads Mr O’Connor referred to in East Antrim and the A75. When I meet Sarah Boyack I intend to raise that issue and other relevant issues pertaining to the Northern Ireland travelling public as they progress through Scotland, particularly by the Belfast/Larne to Stranraer sea route.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will outline what plans he has to develop further facilities to reduce traffic congestion in the Greater Belfast area.

(AQO 158/00)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

My Department aims to tackle the growing problem of traffic congestion in the Greater Belfast area by pursuing an integrated transport strategy which will make the best use of the existing road network and develop and encourage the use of alternative modes of transport. In this context, the Department is currently progressing a number of road improvement schemes, together with measures in support of public transport, cycling and walking. At a strategic level, work on the preparation of a 10-year Belfast transport plan is due to commence early next year.

However, I must reiterate my previous concerns about the current level of funding for both road and public transport. The current level will not overcome existing deficiencies in the transport infrastructure and deal with future growth in traffic. Increasing congestion is inevitable unless significant new investment is made.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that park-and-ride facilities will play a vital role in preventing gridlock in Belfast over the next decade, and can he advise my constituents when they can expect to learn of additional park-and-ride facilities in East Antrim?

Furthermore, is the Minister aware that this morning’s commuter train from Larne had to be taken out of service because of brake failure? Last week, a similar train had to be removed from service because of numerous door lock faults. When can we expect to hear of an upgrading of our rolling stock and the removal of the things that prevent people from using the rail network?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Member raises a number of matters, some of which are specific to his constituency. I will respond in writing to him, particularly in relation to the incident which he says occurred today. I will refer to a number of measures that we are currently progressing.

A number of quality bus corridors will be introduced on the main radial routes into Belfast. There are proposals for bus-related park-and-ride facilities. There is also the introduction of bus priority facilities at traffic signals throughout Belfast. There is also the implementation of measures to encourage walking and cycling. Those measures are to be introduced in the Greater Belfast area. I will respond to the Member in writing on the specific comments that he has made in relation to the East Antrim constituency.

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

With regard to traffic congestion, which extends beyond the Greater Belfast area these days, can the Minister assure us that there is no truth in the rumour that there has been a slippage on the Toome bypass project, and that it will proceed as planned?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Toome bypass, which the Member will be familiar with, was progressed by my predecessor. Work is continuing on that bypass scheme, and when I have precise and specific details about its scheduling I will write to the hon Member to inform him of that.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Given that one of the key areas of congestion is the so-called southern approaches to the city, does the Minister agree that development of the so-called quality bus route on the Ormeau and Saintfield Roads offers a superior option to forcing an entirely new road through what is one of our few areas of green field in the city, Belvoir Forest?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Traffic congestion is not, of course, the exclusive preserve of Belfast, but it is particularly acute in the Greater Belfast area. It results from several factors — an increasing number of vehicles on the roads and an increase in usage of those vehicles. In the morning peak hour there are something like 32,000 cars travelling to work in the Greater Belfast area. Each week there are 500 additional licensed vehicles on the roads in Northern Ireland.

Large housing developments such as those constructed and planned in the Saintfield Road and Carryduff area — the southern approaches mentioned by Dr Birnie — also generate additional traffic. That tells us that there will be ongoing traffic congestion. Dr Birnie also referred to the quality bus route and a number of other issues that my Department is determined to proceed with. They are not the only answer to increasing congestion, but they are an answer.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

What plans are afoot to bring forward the much-delayed Comber bypass scheme? Comber is within the Greater Belfast area, and traffic congestion there has been particularly bad.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

This is obviously a scheme in which the Member has an interest. My answer will be similar to that given to Mr Dallat in relation to the Toome bypass. I will write to the Member shortly with the specific details of where that scheme stands at the moment and the likelihood of its progression in the near future.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

What plans does the Minister have to end the serious congestion on the A2 Carrickfergus- Belfast road? This morning it took me three quarters of an hour to travel two miles. Furthermore, can he assure me and my constituents that the scheme, which has been to the fore for around 15 years, will be carried out as quickly as possible?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Mr Neeson raises an issue which both he and others in the Carrickfergus and East Antrim area have raised on a number of occasions in the past. This scheme is being considered by the Department for Regional Development, but is not at the point of being processed immediately. The Belfast transport plan will co-ordinate the implementation of transport initiatives within the Belfast area over a 10-year period, and the A2 will certainly feature in that plan. The plan will concentrate on proposals for the city centre and transport corridors, of which the A2 is one, and I hope there will be some progress on that in the immediate future in the Belfast transport plan.

Mervyn Carrick (DUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will outline the position of landowners who permit pipe-laying on their property in the event of future privatisation of the Water Service.

(AQO 174/00)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

In accordance with Mr Peter Robinson’s statement on 15 December 1999, there are no plans to privatise Water Service. Landowners will continue to be paid for the loss of land use during the laying of new mains, but will not receive ongoing payments to cover the presence of the main on their land.

Mervyn Carrick (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his reply and note the reaffirmation that there will be no privatisation of Water Service. However, is he aware that the introduction of public/private finance into the future infrastructure investment will, by its commercial content, change the financial basis of water provision? What steps will he take to safeguard the interests of the many landowners and farmers who will be affected by such a commercial operation which, at least for the private investor, has a clear profit-based motive? Will he also compensate the landowners and farmers affected?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Privatised water companies in England and Wales have greater flexibility in their negotiations with landowners. They do, on occasion, agree to pay rent. This practice is, however, avoided where possible, due to the long-term costs, which include administration. I am aware of the public’s concern about back-door privatisation, and I take the hon Member’s views very seriously. If, as a result, issues arise which directly impinge upon the Water Service, I will not only write to the Member, but alert the House as well.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Does the Minister plan to introduce legislation to enable the Water Service to provide a waterline where landowners refuse permission?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I do not.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will make a statement on a site for the North Down waste-water treatment works.

(AQO 165/00)

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

9. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will outline his plans and timescale for the improvement of sewage treatment in the North Down area, and if he will make a statement.

(AQO 150/00)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I will take questions 5 and 9 together.

The Department’s Water Service commissioned consultants to carry out detailed environmental assessments of the two possible sites that were identified in an earlier appraisal study which was published in March 1999. These environmental assessments have been completed and submitted to the Water Service for consideration.

An additional assessment of the marine outfall pipe and storm-water management in the Bangor sewerage system is nearing completion. I visited Ards Borough Council in August to hear at first hand the views of councillors on the siting of the proposed new works. I received a report from the consultants who had been commissioned by the council. I was satisfied with the overall presentation of the report and have requested my Water Service officials to have follow-up meetings with the consultants to explore those recommendations fully. These meeting will take place in the near future.

I wish to consider all the issues very carefully, as I am aware of the concerns expressed by public representatives and members of the public about the siting of the proposed waste-water treatment works. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the siting of the works before the end of the year.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer, though I have a definite feeling of déjà vu. We have been discussing this question for the last four or five years in north Down and Ards. The Minister must be aware that his predecessor made a very similar comment some months ago. A decision must be reached as soon as possible, and if it is reached by the end of the year, I will be very pleased. Action on these reports must be taken as quickly as possible. People are being told every two or three months that the answer is coming, yet they do not get it.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I put great store on consultation with public representatives and the public at large. When I came into office I was faced with this decision as well as a request from the corporate body, Ards Borough Council, to meet me to discuss the waste-water treatment works.

It is important to have consultation and to ensure that the public knows the consequences of every decision. I therefore assured Ards Borough Council that my officials will liaise with its consultants on this issue. That meeting will take place within the next two and a half weeks, and I hope that I will be in a position to take a decision within the next 10 or 12 weeks.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Does the Minister believe that it is right to pump raw sewage into Belfast Lough at the lovely area of Helen’s Bay? What steps will he take to treat this sewage so that people can swim in the bay?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I was not aware that the situation is so stark, but I will respond to the Member once my officials have checked the position at Helen’s Bay.

We want to have modern, state-of-the-art waste-water treatment works in a number of areas in Northern Ireland, and almost everybody I speak to expresses support for these. The problem arises when a proposed location for such treatment works is identified. Everyone wants them, but not in their backyards. The difficulty is in reaching a satisfactory conclusion by a process that is seen universally to be independent and equitable. That is what north Down needs and what I hope the people who live in and frequent Helen’s Bay will get when this process has been concluded in 10 or 12 weeks’ time.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Will the Minister guarantee increased investment in these sewage works to reduce any detrimental impact of traffic, noise and smell, and guarantee the use of best practice examples from abroad, where works are sited underground or offshore, and where their impact is minimal?

Secondly, has he considered, or will he consider, the use of alternative, environmentally friendly engineering techniques, such as reed beds, for sewage works?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yes, I am prepared to look at these measures. In recent weeks I visited Omagh District Council, where the location of a waste-water treatment works and its vehicle access are being considered in the light of the potential difficulties for local residents and visitors. I also visited Killyleagh, in County Down, where a similar difficulty has arisen. I am very conscious of those considerations, and I will look at anything that will alleviate the perceived difficulties of people living near a treatment works. I will take Ms Morrice’s concerns on board and write to her.

The Environment

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will detail plans to bring beach cleanliness in Northern Ireland into line with the requirements of European Union Directives.

(AQO 152/00)

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There are no EU Directives dealing explicitly with beach cleanliness. Responsibility for the cleanliness of public beaches lies with the district councils. However, my Department is responsible, through the Environment and Heritage Service, for monitoring the water quality at 16 beaches in Northern Ireland that fall within the scope of the European Community’s Bathing Water Directive. It then reports these results to the European Commission. All 16 beaches met the mandatory standards in the 1999 bathing season.

Eight of these beaches were awarded a European blue flag based on their 1999 performance. The Blue Flag criteria include beach cleanliness. I will shortly be able to make an announcement on how Northern Ireland’s 16 bathing waters performed in the 2000 bathing season against the standards of the Bathing Water Directive.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Of course we all want to see more blue flags. Can the Minister assure the House that his Department will bring forward proposals to ensure that all our beaches are brought up to a reasonable standard? All too often, when we need beaches to be cleaned, we find that no one Department has overall responsibility. In some cases a council, the National Trust, a Crown estate or even local landowners claim ownership, but rather than clean up the beaches concerned, they simply pass the buck. Can the Minister give us some encouragement?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We all want to see our coastal waters and beaches clean and tidy — that is a common objective. The Bathing Water Directive applies to waters which are used by a significant number of bathers. The main beaches were selected and identified to the European Commission. The annual survey for beach cleanliness, arranged by the Marine Conservation Society, involves examining the Northern Ireland coastline for litter. While the survey reveals that Northern Ireland could do better, the publicity it attracts ensures that this information is in the public domain and can be acted upon. Any concerns about the cleanliness or facilities of individual public beaches should be referred to the responsible district council. We are willing to participate, but the responsibility for clean beaches lies with district councils.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency of East Londonderry there are four blue flag beaches, one of which is under threat because of the flow of sewage into the sea and thence to that beach? Will the Minister give an assurance that he will take steps to rectify this?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I agree that the situation described is unacceptable. Under the terms of the EU Urban Waste Water Directive, discharges to the sea from sewage treatment works in areas such as Portstewart will require secondary treatment by 31 December 2000 to prevent such problems. My Department’s Environment and Heritage Service agency is currently awaiting details of the proposals from the Department for Regional Development’s Water Service for a secondary treatment works to serve the Coleraine, Castlerock, Portrush and Portstewart areas.

Eugene McMenamin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will detail his policy on the refurbishment of abandoned quarries, and if he will make a statement.

(AQO 145/00)

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

All quarries operating after 1973 require planning permission and have planning conditions attached for site restoration. Some quarries also have agreements to restore abandoned workings, under article 40, as a condition of the planning permission. In some circumstances my Department may be able to take enforcement action to have the sites restored in keeping with the planning permission granted.

Eugene McMenamin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I welcome the letter I received from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development last week about the proposed restoration of the Ballyheather sandpit in my constituency of West Tyrone. I petition the Minister to assure me that his Department will consider introducing a policy to restore all sandpits which have been left derelict for years throughout Northern Ireland. As well as desecrating fauna and flora, these derelict sites cause major dust problems to local residents and resemble a scene from the moon, full of craters and ridges.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

May I emphasise again that, prior to 1973, quarrying in Northern Ireland was largely free from planning control. As a result, my Department has no powers to bring about the restoration of quarries abandoned before that date.

However, quarries operating after 1973 must do so with planning consent from my Department, including conditions for their restoration. We have no control over pre-1973 quarries.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Does the Minister have records of quarry operations and their locations?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We have a responsibility, and we do have records of the location of every quarry throughout the Province. However, there are some holes and gaps in these. If they were pre-1973, we will not have a full list.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

3. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will relax stringent planning regulations in the countryside.

(AQO 170/00)

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Every planning application in the countryside is considered on its individual merits. I have had a personal involvement because I was a district councillor in Fermanagh for some 20 years. In 1999/2000, 86% of applications for new houses in the countryside were approved, a figure that represents more than 4,000 new dwellings. Any review of countryside planning policy is a matter for the Department for Regional Development, and my Department will help that Department in any such review.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he explain to the House what policies he intends to adopt on the relaxation of planning controls in green-belt areas and in areas of outstanding natural beauty to help farmers with diversification projects to enable them to realise full potential of their farm land? What consultation has there been involving his Department, the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to ensure that these planning restrictions, and any cross-cutting implications, are examined thoroughly? Will the Minister put a scheme in place for "rural proofing" all planning matters so that farmers can get the optimum benefit from their land?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

This is an important issue that I have a lot of sympathy with. Within green belts countryside- policy areas and those requiring access to protected routes, retiring farmers can get planning permission if they meet certain criteria set out in the planning strategy for rural Northern Ireland. The main criteria are: the applicant last worked mainly as a farmer; the applicant has reached retirement age or is retiring due to ill health; the retirement dwelling is on a farm holding which must be viable and capable of supporting a farmer in full-time employment; the farm holding is being sold as a going concern and the existing farmhouse will continue to be used as the main farmhouse. Beyond these criteria — and we look at them regularly — planning permission will generally be granted where a site can absorb a new dwelling without any adverse impact on the surrounding countryside. I am aware of people’s concerns and I know it is a difficult time for the farming community. However, there has to be a balance and, as I have already said, 4,000 new dwellings were approved in the countryside in 1999-2000.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Can the Minister give me an assurance that priority in planning decisions will be given to those people who have lived in rural areas for generations, and does he accept that if we are to sustain the rural community we must give priority and pay particular attention to the needs of that community?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We are sympathetic to the difficulties of the farming community. It is a difficult situation. Perhaps I missed an opportunity with Mr Paisley’s question to say that we do liaise with the respective Departments on planning issues. The designations referred to have to be controlled strictly and supervised carefully.

However, we recognise that there will be circumstances in which new dwellings are justified for residential development.

Responsibility for strategic planning policy was passed to the Department for Regional Development on devolution, and although my Department will assist the Department for Regional Development in any review of strategic rural policy, the onus does not rest with us. I support the current policy of the Department for Regional Development to achieve a balance between protecting the countryside and maintaining a vibrant rural community.

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

Will the Minister use his vast experience in rural matters to encourage a greater inter-agency approach among the different Departments? Sometimes the Planning Service agrees with something while the Roads Service objects, or LEDU is involved and is in conflict with the Planning Service. I am sure that the Minister understands precisely what I mean. Will he assure the House that he will encourage more co-operation on this serious issue which affects so many people in Northern Ireland?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I accept that this is a serious issue for the rural community. I can assure the House that we co-operate, co-ordinate and liaise with all Departments, and we examine all situations to see what we can do, but we are involved in a fine balancing act.

As a poacher turned gamekeeper, I realise that this is not particularly easy. We follow planning policies, and assessments are carried out in considerable depth. Nothing is decided without much forethought. We do what we can and where we can, but we must also consider the protection of the countryside.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I recognise that the Minister was a councillor for many years. Nevertheless, changes to the planning regulations are necessary. Specifically, will the Minister consider a change in the regulations for children wishing to restart farm businesses which failed through the ill health of one or both of their parents? I know of a specific case where 15 to 20 years passed between the owner’s retirement because of ill health and his son or daughter’s decision to take over. There is a need for the present regulations to be relaxed or even for a change in policy.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We have every sympathy with the situation that the Member has presented to us, but, as I said earlier, on devolution responsibility for strategic planning policy was passed to the Department for Regional Development. Responsibility for the review of strategic rural policy therefore rests with that Department, although my Department will liaise with it in any future discussions.

Many issues are important and dear to the farming community, and my sympathies are with it, but there is a fine balancing act to be considered.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister intend to liaise with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and other Departments when looking at the present inter-departmental regulations that control those who set up small rural diversification businesses? I am particularly concerned about the rules governing the primary production element of enterprises, which inhibit small businesses from moving to diversification under the LEADER or INTERREG programmes.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member comes from the same part of the country as I do, and we have similar thoughts on many development matters. However, the Department’s current policy cannot be varied. We work by policies; we make decisions according to them; and we cannot readily depart from them.

I have every sympathy with the idea of trying to achieve and maintain a vibrant rural community. I appreciate the point, and consideration has certainly been given to such issues. We shall definitely look into this matter, but I cannot make any rash promises that things will simply happen in the way we would all like to see things happen whenever we ask a question.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has plans to introduce spot-listing powers to allow for the accelerated listing of buildings in danger of being demolished.

(AQO 155/00)

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Proposals to introduce powers enabling my Department to serve building preservation notices, which would offer similar protection to that provided by spot-listing procedures in Great Britain, were included in a consultation paper published in March 1999. I have secured a place in the current legislative programme for a Planning (Amendment) Bill, and I shall look at the inclusion of provisions relating to building preservation notices. Those provisions would enable my Department to serve building preservation notices which would have immediate effect, offering the same protection as if a building were listed. However, the proposals raise a number of difficult issues that require careful consideration, and these are being examined.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I welcome the initiative taken by the Department. Does the Minister agree with me that, had such legislation been in force, Ardmara, a very fine building in Bangor, would not have been destroyed? Does he agree that there are some very fine examples of the restoration and renovation of significant buildings in Belfast? I am thinking of the Corn Exchange in Corporation Street and the Customs House. Will the Minister do all he can to ensure that the necessary powers are initiated, applying to inner-city Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am very much aware of the concern about the destruction and demolition of buildings of special interest. I am also aware of the prolonged nature of the current listing process, which makes the immediate protection of buildings at risk very difficult. The need to provide a mechanism to offer emergency protection to buildings considered to be at risk from demolition is acknowledged. I am considering the inclusion of possible provisions in the proposed Planning (Amendment) Bill.

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

Can the Minister give us an assurance that, in spot listing, as with other listing powers, he will have careful regard not only to the architectural value of a building, but also to its cultural significance? I am thinking of the homes of prominent literary or even political figures.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am extremely conscious of the situation and concerns, as I related earlier. I said that the intention would be to introduce building preservation notices, which would be served by my Department and would offer the same protection as if a building were listed.

Spot listing is a two-stage process. In Great Britain, local authorities carry it out, with subsequent confirmation being made at national level. In Northern Ireland, the current administrative structures mean that it is likely that my Department would have responsibility both for serving a building preservation notice and for subsequent confirmation. I am endeavouring to point out that matters are not quite so easy. Any decision not to confirm a spot listing would create possible grounds for compensation. It has been suggested that it would be difficult for my Department to perform both roles effectively, since it would become judge and jury. There may also be issues relating to the human rights of owners.

However, we know there are many zealous people concerned with the character of very fine buildings, not merely in the city of Belfast, but throughout the community. We have gathered that, and that is the reason we recently had five conservation areas designated in the city.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I am very interested in the Minister’s reference to building preservation notices. In the Women’s Coalition we have called for what we described as a millennium preservation order to protect any building older than 100 years from demolition. I should like to have more details of these building preservation notices.

I would like to know several things. First, what criteria will govern the buildings that they preserve? Secondly, what penalties will be imposed on those who defy the notices? Thirdly, do they cover non-building aspects, such as trees?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We are still considering the different criteria and what the punishment might be for people breaking the regulation. Trees, at present, do not come into it, but that is something that we are also considering. I do not have the exact detail on all the aspects and criteria, but I assure the Member that I will send this to her when it is compiled.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his original answer. The Minister will be aware that listing does not always guarantee the saving of a building that is of high cultural and heritage value to the community. Neglect can sometimes mean that these buildings disappear. Does the Minister agree that the current moratorium on financial aid for listed buildings is a hindrance? Also, is the Minister aware of the deplorable state of the Stables Buildings in Sion Mills? If action is not taken soon this part of the culture and heritage of that small community will disappear.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The built heritage section of the Environment and Heritage Service is very much involved with historic buildings and their upkeep. I assure Mr Hussey that we are concerned that we had to impose a moratorium on grant aid for listed buildings. We have been trying to get some moneys for this department because we lost out over a number of years of direct rule. We had commitments worth up to £4 million in respect of grant aid for historic buildings, and the annual budget is some £1·7 million. We are very proud of our built heritage — we do not want to lose it.

We have been dealing with the Department of Finance and have tried — and failed recently — to get more moneys for the Environment and Heritage Service. I assure Members that we will continue to pursue this. People should understand that there are financial difficulties. The issue is a lack of resources and not a lack of will.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

5. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will give consideration to introducing multi-stage planning criteria, as used elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to assess the need for additional out-of-town shopping centres.

AQO 156/00

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department currently exercises its planning responsibilities for retail development in accordance with the provisions set out in Planning Policy Statement 5 — Retailing and Town Centres (PPS 5). Any review of current planning policy in this area would be for the Department for Regional Development, though my Department will provide all possible professional assistance in any such review.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that the more stringent sequential planning system outlined in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 (PPG06), which is applied in other parts of the United Kingdom, would simplify the planning system in Northern Ireland by enabling the early elimination of some out-of-town planning applications, such as D5? Does he agree that by encouraging fuller town centre redevelopment he would be giving increased confidence to town centre shops, thus preventing the "doughnut" effect, which is affecting our towns and cities?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

PPS 5 includes a sequential approach to major retail applications, though this is not directly comparable to PPG06. PPS 5 is designed to take a more flexible and balanced approach than PPG06 — protecting town centres while at the same time recognising the need for competition and innovation in a changing retail market.

Under this approach, preference is given to locations for development in a preferred sequence that reflects the type of retailing involved. For comparison or mixed retailing, this starts with town centre locations through edge-of-centre locations to out-of-centre locations. A sequential approach is being taken at this particular time. That approach has led to the elimination of proposals for out-of-centre retailing. The system set out in PPG06 could be considered in any review of retail planning policy by the Department for Regional Development.

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

In view of the fact that three separate questions have been put down today from three different political parties on the whole issue of retailing, does the Minister accept that this is a major issue which requires a great deal of discussion? This is despite the best efforts of the DUP to rubbish it two weeks ago.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I take on board what the Member has said. We do give this matter very deep consideration. It is a continual consideration in our Department and we will pursue the matter. Where there are cross-cutting issues we will dovetail with other Departments.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I heard what the Minister said about the Department’s concerns regarding out-of-town shopping centres. However, I am amazed that the Department still continues to pursue the D5 application. I just wonder why — when he expresses his concern about out-of-town shopping centres — the Minister still feels that it is important for his Department to pursue the application for D5, despite the fact we have had two court rulings against the Department on this matter,

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I want to assure Mr Wilson that the Department does not make decisions lightly. My Department will at all times preserve its integrity when assessing applications. I know that Mr Wilson has a substantive question on this matter. However, with your approval, Mr Speaker, I will give a detailed response to his supplementary question.

In respect of D5, I am aware that the applicants have lodged an appeal. In addition I understand that the respondents have cross-appealed. My Department will not be appealing the recent legal decision to quash the planning permission. However, we will be appealing against the court’s interpretation of the "complements" test used by my Department in assessing major retail proposals in out-of-centre locations. The planning application remains live pending the outcome of the appeal. Since the case is sub judice I cannot say more at this stage.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

6. asked the Minister of the Environment what criteria are being introduced to control the increased in planning applications for apartments and developments, particularly in seaside towns.

(AQO 166/00)

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department cannot control the number of new applications submitted for proposed apartment-type developments, nor can it decline to determine a properly completed application submitted for consideration. Certainly, I am aware of growing concerns about this issue. I will be consulting on planning guidance on proposals for small-scale housing within existing urban areas. Future changes to the wider planning policy relating to apartment developments are a matter for the Department for Regional Development, although my Department will provide all possible assistance at any review of the relevant policy.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Planning applications seem to be demolition led. In my own constituency — and I am talking about Donaghadee through to Holywood — demolition regularly results in the erection of a large number of apartments that are totally out of keeping with the tradition and character of the area. Can he assure the House and myself that these will be reduced so that the long-term residents, who have great concerns about this, will not be ignored?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Several Members want to put supplementary questions, but the time is up. Any reply to the last one will have to be in writing.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill: Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill was granted accelerated passage on 3 October. As Members will note from the Marshalled List, one amendment has been tabled, and notice to oppose the "stand part" has been signalled for six clauses. The form of the Marshalled List has been changed since the Consideration Stage of the Bill on allowances to make it easier for Members to participate. We have only one amendment at this stage. Proposals to leave out a clause will now be debated, and Members may vote against the Question. Members may indicate in advance their intention to oppose the Question that a clause stand part, which makes possible a debate at that juncture.

Amendments will normally be numbered in sequence, though there is only one in this case. In the past, amendments were numbered according to when they were tabled in the Bill Office. An amendment retained its number no matter what part of a Bill it referred to. From now on, amendments on the Marshalled List will appear in the order in which they will be taken in debate on the Bill. If the Order Paper, the Marshalled List or the annunciator indicates that amendment number 4 is being dealt with, a Member will know that amendment 3 has just been considered and that amendment 5 is about to be considered. Under the previous arrangement, an amendment’s number bore no relation to the order in which it was considered. That is not relevant to this Bill, since there is only one amendment, but it will apply to later Bills where there may be dozens or sometimes even hundreds of amendments. This will help Members to keep track of the debate, from inside and outside the Chamber, particularly if a Consideration Stage lasts for a number of days. Some Members’ distress at this prospect is immediately apparent.

I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to take the Bill’s 69 clauses and nine schedules in the parts or sections indicated in the measure. There is no time limit for debate, and Members may speak more than once at Consideration Stage. I see the Minister’s mouth fall. However, I propose to call Members only once during a "stand part" debate on a particular clause or on an amendment. If a Member wishes to intervene again he may do so in the usual way — by requesting the Floor from the Member who is speaking. Since some movement is necessary in these circumstances, and as there is no time limit, interventions should usually be accepted. However, if, in the view of the Speaker, a Member abuses the capacity for intervention, the Speaker will address that. If Members are clear about this, we will move forward. If they are unsure, all will become clear as we proceed.

John Tierney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Since there is no time limit, will we suspend at 6 o’clock tonight and, if necessary, continue tomorrow, or will we run after six?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We must end at 6.00 pm because Standing Orders require us to do so. If we are in the middle of a vote at that point we will continue until the end of the vote and then resume tomorrow. We are likely to begin tomorrow with a statement on the Budget, followed by questions. The resumption of the Consideration Stage will follow that.

Clauses 1 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 (Disqualification from driving)

Question proposed