Northern Ireland Assembly, 20 November 2000

337 contributions from 69 members. The official report.

Assembly: Unparliamentary Language

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

On Monday 13 November I cautioned a Member — Mr Wells — because of a remark he had made. He referred to

"two Departments with terrorists in Government." [Official Report, Vol. 7, No 3, p129].

Having studied the Member’s comment and my response to it, I am satisfied that it is not one that I can allow to remain. I therefore call on Mr Wells to withdraw it.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What is it that you are ruling to be unparliamentary? Is it the use of the word "terrorists" per se, or is it the use of the word "terrorists" to describe specific individuals?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As I said at the time, it was quite clear that accusations were being made about two particular Members. When I drew the Assembly’s attention to my view about that accusation against the two Members, there was no dissent. The Member simply went on to make reference to one of the Members. It is the question of the legitimacy of the remarks that were made with reference to two Members that concerns me, and it is those remarks that I ask the Member to withdraw. Will the Member please respond?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is what concerned me about the original ruling. I urge you to look at the remarks before asking the Member to withdraw them. Are you questioning their accuracy? It would be strange for a Speaker to adopt the position of judging the truthfulness of any remark that is made in the Assembly. That would be a full-time occupation indeed. If the word "terrorist" cannot be used, the Assembly should be told that it is unparliamentary in itself and not just because it refers to a particular individual.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

In other places accusations against Members that have legal connotations but are made on no legal basis are judged not to be parliamentary. I call on Mr Wells to withdraw the comment.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The ordinary, decent people of the Province make no distinction whatsoever between Sinn Féin and the IRA. They are one and the same, two sides of the one —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. This is not an opportunity to make a statement. I have explained the situation and have asked the Member to withdraw the comment.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Mr Speaker, I refer you to the Hansard record. When you pulled me up on that matter I made it clear that I was referring to the Minister of Education, who is on record as having at least two convictions for terrorism —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member and his Colleagues know well that when they are asked to withdraw remarks, they are not being given an opportunity to make a speech. I have drawn attention to the comment

"We still have two Departments with terrorists in Government."

At the time I drew attention to its clear implication. I have said that it is not acceptable and I call on the Member to withdraw it — [Interruption].

Order. The Member knows what the consequences will be if he is not prepared to withdraw.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

As Hansard, at page 129, records, I said

"it is a matter of record that the Minister of Education is a convicted terrorist. I am not saying anything that has not been on the front page of every newspaper in the country."

It is a matter of record, a matter of fact. I have clarified it and I have no intention of withdrawing my statement that the Minister of Education is a terrorist.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member knows perfectly well what the question is. The Minister of Education is without doubt a powerful individual, but he does not have control of a second Department — [Interruption].

Order. As the Member will not withdraw his statement, he must withdraw from the Chamber and the precincts of the Assembly for the rest of this day.

The Member withdrew from the Chamber.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you saying that you will make a ruling on the accuracy of any accusations made against Members in the House? You have ruled that it would be all right if the Member had referred only to the Minister of Education as a terrorist, because everybody knows that he is a terrorist and has been convicted of being a terrorist. Are you also ruling that because there is no conviction against the other Minister, it was incorrect to make such remarks? Is that the basis of your judgement?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It would be improper for me to permit Members to make wild statements without legal accuracy, to accuse other Members of criminal activities when there is no —

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Like corruption?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Corruption, of course —

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

We have said "corruption of democracy" before.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The phrase "corruption of democracy" is a different matter — [Interruption].

Order. Corruption of the procedures of this Chamber is not acceptable. If Members are not prepared to accept the rulings, they will be removed or they can put down a motion and I will quite happily sit through another debate, as I sat through the last one.

We will now proceed with the proper and appropriate business of the Assembly.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the debate on Monday 13 November you drew Mr Wells’s attention to his comments in relation to two Departments. Mr Wells went on to say

"Mr Speaker, it is a matter of record that the Minister of Education is a convicted terrorist."

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

You are not prepared to deal with the issue in a fair and impartial way.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member will resume his seat. He knows perfectly well that he is about to question a ruling of the Chair.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Yes.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member knows that it is out of order to question a ruling of the Chair. If he wishes to put down a proper motion, which would be in order, he is at liberty to do so.

We will now proceed with the proper business.

Assembly: Conflicting Ministerial Replies

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 2 October 2000 I raised with you my concerns about how I, as a public representative, could proceed with regard to conflicting information I was receiving from two Ministers. Subsequently, the issue was made clear by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development as a result of questions from Mr Ian Paisley Jnr and myself. The Department advised that there was no consultation. Under Standing Order 1(2), you are supposed to rule on the matter. Why is it taking so long to get a ruling?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The answer is twofold. First, it took some time to receive responses from the relevant Departments. Secondly, it would not be proper to give a ruling when the relevant Ministers are not present. To date, it has not been possible to have both Ministers present, but I trust that it will soon be possible to address the matter, because a response has been forthcoming in the terms which I advised at the time would be likely to apply.

Food Standards: Enniskillen Meeting (Cost)

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I drew the attention of the Speaker’s Office to the fact that I would be making a point of order on this matter.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I trust that it is a point of order.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

It is a point of order.

On 6 November the Minister of Health gave an undertaking to the House that she would write to a Member about the officials who accompanied her to Enniskillen on behalf of her Department and give the costs of that meeting. That was 14 days ago. When can we expect answers from the Minister of Health on these crucial matters?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member knows that this is not a point of order. It may be a point of concern to him, but there is no Standing Order that relates to the matter.

Assembly: Languages

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Several weeks ago I raised the question of statements being made in the House in Irish which were not fully translated into English. You were to give a ruling on the matter. We received a rather inadequate excuse from the Minister involved, but we did not receive a ruling from you.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Minister responded and explained what had happened. At the time I made it clear that I regarded the Minister’s response as adequate. She apologised to the House because there had been an error. All statements and responses — [Interruption].

Order. It is out of order for mobile telephones to ring in the Chamber.

The position is clear. When responses are made in a language other than English, a full and accurate translation must be given. On a number of occasions I have checked the matter. For Members who wish to have a simultaneous translation, a report showing the costs and other details has been available for over 18 months. It is simply a matter of a proposal to be taken forward by the Business Committee.

My ruling is clear: any statements made in a language other than English must be translated fully and accurately. On that occasion the statement was not translated fully and accurately, but the Minister fully and promptly apologised.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am not taking any further points of order at this stage. We are simply delaying business, and many of these points are not points of order. If there are any further points of order I will take them later.

Public Expenditure (2000-01): October Monitoring

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the October monitoring round.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

At its meeting on Thursday 16 November the Executive Committee agreed some reallocations of spending for the financial year 2000-01. I stress at the outset that this concerns the monitoring of expenditure in the current year and not the Budget for 2001-02, which we discussed last week. There is a very important distinction between these processes.

As the year progresses, changes in the estimated requirements for public services become the dominant factor in the planning of spending. Allocations can change for a variety of reasons, and the scope for strategic decision -making is not as great as at planning stage. That underlines the importance of taking planning decisions well in advance, so that resources can be used in the best possible way.

The monitoring round addresses, first, the estimating changes and other sources of spending power which can be reallocated — the room to manoeuvre. Secondly, it addresses revised estimates of requirements from Departments and proposals for additional discretionary expenditure. The key issue is to ensure that resources continue to be used in the best possible way in the light of new information on requirements, which can lead to substantial changes — both up and down — as the year progresses.

In this round, significant savings have emerged for reallocation. The total amount available for reallocation is £75·3 million. That comprises several key elements, the largest of which is £40 million identified as savings by Departments. The largest single item is £20 million of additional house sale receipts from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. There are other significant elements, including some slippage on capital projects and other additional income over and above the levels projected at the time of the previous monitoring round in June/July. These include £9·6 million of additional ship- building receipts. The total available is significantly larger than has been the case in previous years, and we should not expect to have such large amounts to reallocate in every monitoring round.

The Executive had held £7·7 million unallocated since the June/July monitoring round to cover the second tranche of the Agenda for Government. The agenda gave a foretaste of the ways in which new practices of working together could be achieved under devolution. Our proposals on the October monitoring round show how this can be continued in the context of the Programme for Government, which takes that work to a much higher level and on to a more extensive scale.

Also available for allocation is £5·8 million that we have received through the Barnett formula as a consequence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s most recent allocation for education in England in this financial year.

Members have copies of the table showing the additional allocations that the Executive have agreed. In many cases these are to cover changes in the estimated requirements for particular services, and this should be borne in mind when considering all the proposals, especially the distribution of resources between services. This exercise has to be guided mainly by pragmatism and practicability, because we cannot do all that we might wish at this stage of the year. There are just over four months to go until the end of the financial year.

Recognising the limitations on additional spending at this stage of the year, the Executive have decided to plan on the basis that some of the spending power available in this monitoring round should be carried forward into 2001-02. This is possible under the end-year flexibility arrangements, subject to formal approval by the Treasury. It will permit a more effective use of resources and more careful consideration of their allocation.

In this way we propose to allocate £5 million to the Health Service’s capital programme to secure additional spending in 2001-02. It was not possible to provide for this area as much as we would have liked to when we were allocating budgetary funds in mid-October. At that time we were also concerned that we had not channelled sufficient resources for the first year of the Executive programme funds. Given the large amount of money now available, we propose to add £9 million to the funds, through carry-over into 2001-02, leaving a total of £25 million.

As we promised, further details on the design and management of these funds will be revealed as soon as possible. It is the Executive’s intention that decisions on the first round of allocations should be made early in the new year. This will ensure that well-planned and well- targeted spending can be achieved to enable us to make the best possible use of this important new resource. Moving this money to the Executive programme funds will help to ensure that it is targeted in the best possible way, and in accordance with the priorities of the Programme for Government.

The remaining £61 million is being allocated to meet a range of additional requirements which have arisen across all the Departments. These allocations include £10·6 million to further the initiatives launched in June in the Agenda for Government. With substantial resources available, the Executive have decided to add some £2·9 million to the £7·7 million that has been set aside for this purpose. The additional allocations agreed by the Executive include £6·7 million for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, mainly to cover revised estimates of the costs arising from animal health issues, which have continued to increase beyond what was estimated in June.

There is £1·2 million for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, including £700,000 for public libraries. The Executive remain determined to ensure that appropriate resources are available to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for key policy objectives. There is an additional allocation to ensure that the information age initiative receives maximum resources for the remainder of this financial year. In addition, there will still be scope for the Executive to agree, later in the year, to devote additional resources to any new costs that may emerge from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

The Department of Education will receive an extra £10 million, including the £5·6 million Barnett formula allocation made consequent upon the Chancellor’s schools’ money from the pre-Budget report. This will help to address the physical condition of schools, and the Minister of Education will indicate how the funding is to be distributed in due course. There is an allocation of £8·4 million for the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, including £4 million to cover a revised estimate of the cost of student support and £3 million for redundancy payments in connection with Harland & Wolff.

A total allocation of £17 million is to be made in this financial year to the Health Service, including £4 million for capital expenditure and allowances to meet a range of other cost pressures which affect the Health Service at this time. In covering additional costs, such as the effect of high oil prices on hospitals, the Health Service will be better placed to cope with the demands that it will face over the winter period. The Executive believe that this is an important boost for the Health Service which will be used effectively to achieve a better response to the needs of the region in the coming months.

There is a £5 million allocation to the Department for Regional Development, mainly designed to cover a range of additional running costs for the Roads Service and the Water Service, which have emerged as the year has progressed.

There is also £10·5 million for the Department for Social Development. This includes provision for disability adaptations and some housing costs, including those resulting from the disturbances in the Shankill area.

The final allocations are of small amounts for my Department — to facilitate work on the EU structural funds — and for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The sum of £200,000 has been allocated for some important work to meet the needs of victims.

All these reallocations will be subject to approval by the Assembly, as Supplementary Estimates, in due course. There will be a further monitoring round in December and that will provide an opportunity for some further easements and reallocation. I propose to merge the revisions agreed at that date with those available now and to draft one revised Appropriation Bill in the new year. Time will be short for the approval of that Bill, but I hope that by then we will have agreed a revision of Standing Orders to facilitate the timely passage of financial legislation. In the meantime there is some time for the Finance and Personnel Committee and the other statutory Committees to scrutinise the reallocations which I have announced today before they become Supplementary Estimates and proposals for the Appropriation Bill to which I have already referred.

This is an important range of reallocations. I must stress again that they are driven mainly by the pragmatic redistribution of resources in response to changing patterns of spending across public services. It is unusual for the amounts to be as large as they are on this occasion. I hope Members will agree that there is benefit to be gained from planning to carry over some of the resources into 2001-02. If we use this measure to boost the Executive programme funds in particular, that will in turn boost the effectiveness of our efforts to introduce and develop our priorities. There is potential here for continued benefit from devolution and for applying resources to our needs. Again this is a manifestation of the constructive and positive impact of members of the Executive working together.

I commend these proposals to the Assembly in the belief that they represent a good use of the resources which have now become available to us.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is certainly good that further resources are available to the Committees and to the Assembly for reallocation in this way.

Does the Minister have a programme for working with the Committee on the revised draft Appropriation Bill? Given the short time available, this would allow us to scrutinise and discuss the new legislation as quickly as possible. Will the new allocation of money, and the new-found money, allow for the possibility of reducing the 8% rate rise envisaged in last week’s statement?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Molloy has raised several points. I recognise the importance of the Finance and Personnel Committee’s role. It is particularly important that it has plenty of time and sensible procedures to enable it to discharge its role. I appreciate the fact that the various constraints which affect our Department and the Executive at large also affect the work of that Committee. We have already spoken with the Committee with a view to trying to improve procedures and agree proposals, and we intend to continue working on that joint basis.

I am glad that the Chairperson of the Committee welcomes the resources that we have available. Obviously the Committee and he will want to take time to consider more fully how well those resources are being allocated. When we have money available for allocation, we want to make sure it is put to best use. That is why we are carrying some money over into next year.

As for the rates question, I indicated previously that if figures became available on time, there is sufficient buoyancy in the rates to allow us to plan a lower regional rate increase while still retaining the projected level of expenditure that is needed and budgeted for. The Executive still propose to spend an amount of money next year that will require an increase in the regional rate.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement on the outcome of the monitoring round. However, I am concerned that the Minister may be lapsing into a practice that is prevalent across the water — that of double-counting money. I note that £7·7 million of the £75 million was available in the June monitoring round. It seems to me that the new net amount is rather in the order of £67·6 million. Can the Minister clarify this?

Does he propose to keep the Agenda for Government separate from the Executive programme funds? It looks to me as if one may slide into the other seamlessly.

In paragraph 13, which concerns the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, no sums of money are mentioned. Acts of genius are, of course, expected from the Ulster Unionist Ministers, but I am amazed that the Department’s amount of new age technology is so great that seven lines were devoted to it but costs were not mentioned. Can the Minister enlighten us?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As my statement made clear, the Executive held over some £7·7 million in the June/July monitoring round for a second tranche for the Agenda for Government. We clearly identified the fact that this sum of money would be available for the October monitoring round to give us room to manoeuvre, and the Executive have decided to use the money. As the figures show, the expenditure on the Agenda for Government will exceed £7·7 million.

The Agenda for Government has been exceeded, broadened and elevated by the Programme for Government. Further work will follow to give details of the Programme for Government through to the public service agreements. We will continue to work on elaborating the precise design and management of the Executive programme funds to ensure that they best serve the priorities in the Programme for Government. We do not intend to continue with Agenda for Government items because we now have the Programme for Government itself.

I indicated in my statement, and I apologise if this is not reflected properly in the tables, that some money will be available to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for its information age initiative. The Executive will try to provide further moneys later in the year, should that be necessary for key projects. I also acknowledge the contribution from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on manoeuvrability.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. The public will be pleased to hear that £75 million is to be reallocated after the October monitoring round.

Can the Minister tell us when the Durkan funds will be available, in particular the fund for social inclusion and community regeneration, and when they will start to have an effect on the ground? Many groups in the community development sectors are waiting to hear when the programme funds can be used.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I do not think that funds should be named after an individual, any more than I think that taxes should be named after an individual. These are the Executive programme funds, and the Executive are trying to add to their value in the first year. Many people have asked if there is enough money for the first year, given the significant increases that we want in years two and three.

Mr Byrne referred to the fund for social inclusion and community regeneration, which, no less than other funds, will be subject to further Executive consideration. That will ensure the best working system to enable the fund to serve its proper purposes — not just for the Government and all the Departments, who have a real contribution to make to the success of that fund, but for a range of community and social interests as well.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The £1·5 million spent on the Shankill Road and the further £200,000 from the Department of Health to rehouse people in that area show the poison of paramilitaries in our society. They need to stand down. Good use could have been made of that money and social housing provided for people who need it. The victims originally asked for £500,000, and the £200,000 coming now is too little, too late.

The £1 million for historic buildings should be given a broad welcome because that will bring in extra money from the National Lottery, through the lottery heritage fund. There is also £700,000 of additional funding for libraries. Will that help to get the long-awaited library for Lisburn under way? There was also an opportunity to do more for the Roads Service. Given what we have heard in the last week about our roads, we are missing an opportunity to do more for them.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome Mr Poots’s welcome of some of the items, particularly the historic buildings grant. The Environment Committee has been pursuing that matter. In particular, the Minister of the Environment, Sam Foster, has made the point that more lottery money could be made available. For that reason we are trying to improve provision there.

There is also significant provision for libraries for the remainder of the year. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Michael McGimpsey, will indicate precisely how that money will be spent, and there has to be balance in that.

I appreciate that many different programmes feel that they could have got more and should have done better out of this round. I also recognise that because moneys were made available to Departments that incurred costs arising from the Shankill Road situation, the opportunity to meet some of the allocations that other Departments were seeking has been constrained. I hope that all Members encourage an improvement in the situation on the Shankill, not only for the good of the community there but so that the rest of us do not have to suffer some of the consequential costs — and lost opportunity is one of them — that those problems have caused.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Like other Members, I welcome the Minister’s statement. I would like to make one point and ask one question. There are allocations for non-industrial pay, industrial pay and salaries among other things. There is even £3 million towards redundancy payments in the shipyard. We also have allocations for gap funding for many of the European Union-supported projects with which there have been controversy and difficulties that affect a number of working-class areas right across the North. Can the Minister assure Members that some priority will be given to increased moneys for European Union gap funding, given the high level of unemployment that will otherwise be created in many constituencies?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In the reallocations, £3·6 million is being allocated for gap funding. First, £0·5 million is being allocated through the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety especially for childcare related projects. Secondly, £1·1 million is being allocated through the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to carry over projects from the old single programme which would have been eligible for transitional Objective 1 funding. Finally, £2 million is being allocated through the Department for Social Development for the peace programme.

The Executive recognise the importance of bringing the new programmes on line as soon as possible, and we are negotiating with the European Commission to achieve that. We are responding to serious pressures that are coming forward with gap funding, and we will keep the matter under review. Members will recognise that in the Executive programme fund for social inclusion and community regeneration we are demonstrating the Executive’s interest and funding that interest by supporting positive intervention at a community level in rural and urban settings.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I heartily congratulate the Minister and the Executive for removing the appalling problem created by the inability of many of the public bodies in Northern Ireland, especially the Housing Executive, to carry over moneys from one year to the next. I have appeared twice before the Public Accounts Committee because in my eagerness to spend money that became available through house sales, I had slightly manipulated the rule, and I went away chastised. However, it did no harm to the great improvement in housing in this Province.

The Province has many splendid houses, of all sizes and shapes, but with a ticking bomb about them — because those houses, which have now been sold by the Housing Executive, were built on borrowed money. The Housing Executive has lost the rent for those houses, but still has to pay interest on the loan.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. In a previous life the Member may have been able to arrange a financial overrun, but he must not arrange a time overrun in this one. Perhaps he could put his question.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Can the Minister help the appalling housing circumstances in Northern Ireland, especially in north Belfast and Fermanagh, the homelessness and the absence of starter homes by allocating more funds for 2001-02 to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive or to housing generally?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

First, the Member has touched on issues that relate to next year’s budget. Contrary to what has been planned for next year under the comprehensive spending review, there will be an increase in the Housing Executive’s budget and the housing budget overall — 1·5% in the Housing Executive’s budget and 6% for housing associations.

I recognise the importance which many Members, and the relevant Committee, attach to the housing budget. We have tried to respond to questions raised, both about proposed Budget allocations and monitoring rounds. This is not the first monitoring round in which we have responded to particular pressures facing the Housing Executive and the housing programme.

I will deal with end-of-year flexibility and carry-over. The provision to carry resources over into the next year is intended to encourage better budgeting and to avoid gratuitous spending simply to beat financial calendar deadlines. Although the practice of carrying over resources will still require formal Treasury approval, the way in which we are planning to carry over resources is sound and should win that approval. With regard to discharging the historic loan burden carried by the Housing Executive, the Departments of Finance and Personnel, and the Dept for Social Development, will continue to see if that particular problem can be better factored into our plans.

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

I welcome the increase in the allocation of resources, particularly those to the children’s fund. It illustrates the Minister’s commitment to the most vulnerable in our community. Today is Children’s Rights Day. Will the Minister make a statement on when these funds will become available?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Allocating resources to the children’s fund demonstrates the Executive’s interest in improving how Departments and their services relate and respond to the needs of children, and help to support many of the positive initiatives and projects trying to deal with those needs. The Member’s recognition of the relevance of today is important.

We are not proposing to increase the children’s fund for next year because the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has been allocated £1 million for children’s services. The Department of Education has been allocated an extra £10 million, with most of it going to schools. Some of the EU gap funding, not least that which will be going through the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, will find its way to supporting projects that deal with children in need and youth at risk. Those of us who heard the recent findings of the NSPCC will agree that this is an area on which we need to spend more money and to which we need to give further consideration.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

In view of the points already raised, can the Minister confirm that the resources announced today represent not new money but the reallocation of money already in the system? Many people will welcome the announcement about the adaptation of homes for the disabled and the covering of the costs of the problems on the Shankill Road. My Colleague has already said that it is a pity that this money has to be spent in this way, but it will relieve pressures elsewhere in the housing budget. I would like the Minister to clarify the £22,000 allocation to the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas (OFREG). Will that money be used to help OFREG reduce electricity and energy prices in Northern Ireland?

A substantial portion of the allocation, £20 million, arises from additional house sales receipts. In view of the great pressures on the housing budget, and the concerns of many Members, can the Minister assure the House that he will examine ways in which that money can be retained in his Department and in the housing budget for expenditure on housing?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I agree with the Member that it is regrettable that we must devote money to those purposes because of the situation on the Shankill Road. If we do not do so, however, there will be serious pressures on other programmes —not just the Housing Executive’s but those of many other bodies as well.

We cannot allow housing receipts just to lie where they fall. Not all programmes can generate receipts in the way that house sales can under the housing programme. We should also remember that some of the money from such receipts comes from the sale of properties bought under the scheme for the special purchase of evacuated dwellings (SPED). In other monitoring rounds, money went to that programme to deal with particular problems. When money has been given to the Housing Executive — whether recently, in the context of SPED pressures, or in the past when housing was rightly a priority — it has been at the expense of other programmes, many of which, Members now tell me, were historically underfunded. If money becomes available to us for public expenditure, we must examine all public expenditure needs, not only those that fall within the confines of a particular Department or relate to the programme from which those receipts arose in the first place.

We have given additional money to support the work of OFREG in reviewing charging by Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE).

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the broad thrust of the reallocation of moneys. I should like to deal, however, with the Minister’s comments about the Housing Executive. As I understand it, the June allocation included £20 million from house sales, making a grand total of around £40 million. The sale of houses reduces the overall costs associated with housing, leaving money that could be used to reduce Housing Executive rents, or at least to ensure that they do not increase by more than the rate of inflation.

End-of-year flexibility for 1999-2000 has produced £4 million from the regional rate for reallocation. Can the Minister not give the people of Northern Ireland an early Christmas present by assuring them that the regional rate will not increase by 8%?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I suspected that the Member’s comments would deal with that area. I welcome his broad enthusiasm for the proposed allocations and hope that he will agree that they represent the best possible use of available resources, including the money from house sales.

The extra £4 million comes from last year’s rates. Buoyancy meant that there was more money than we first estimated. If the figures available to us when we come to make final decisions on the rates indicate that an increase of less than 8% will allow us to raise the money that we need for our expenditure plans, we shall consider the matter positively. Last year we were able to set the non-domestic rate at a lower level than I had proposed in my Budget statement simply because the figures showed that we could do so and still raise the amounts that we needed. The projected increase in the regional rate is similar to that projected for the council tax across the water.

Many Members have emphasised that we need to make our case on the Barnett formula and how we are treated in public expenditure terms. We need to remember that comparisons work both ways. We are projecting a rate of increase similar to that of the council tax in England yet our regional rates are running at about half the level of the average council tax in England. I hope that people can get some of those figures into perspective.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas seo agus tá mé sásta a fheiceáil go bhfuil airgead breise ar fáil againn anois. Tá súil agam, de thoradh an airgid bhreise seo, nach gcuirfear ar ceal obair phráinneach ar bhóithre na hÓmaí.

I welcome the statement and the additional funds. Will the additional £5 million allocated to the Department for Regional Development ensure the reinstatement of the major road schemes that Minister Gregory Campbell has postponed in the last week or described as potentially at risk from his latest spending cuts? I refer particularly to the Omagh bypass, which is crucial to the economic regeneration of Omagh. I would like to see that back on schedule.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The table accompanying my statement details precisely which Department for Regional Development spending lines are to receive that £5 million. It does not cover any of the points the Member has raised. We must remember that we are talking about spending allocations that are taking place late in the financial year. Major long-term capital projects do not lend themselves to qualification in this sort of reallocation exercise as well as some other items do. Unfortunately, I cannot give the Member the answer that he would like to hear.

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

I welcome the fact that a significant amount of money is going to health services. I am pleased that children’s services, hospital pressures, mental health, Shankill displaced families and programmes for training nurses are to benefit. Is the £1 million for children’s services ring-fenced, or merely earmarked? That may be outside the Minister’s remit, but I want to mention it anyway.

The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is shortly to bring forward a paper on the future of primary care services. We must bear in mind that at present there are massive pressures on primary care. I refer to grossly overworked community nurses, midwives, community psychiatric nurses and occupational therapists. Can the Minister, in association with the Health Minister, look at those areas to see if some financial help can be given now?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We have been able to make allocations to different service needs in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. We recognise that there are unfunded pressures on children’s services. The new funding should enable boards to make progress in those areas with initiatives to support families and the foster-carers of disabled children, out-of-hours social services and other support services for children and families at risk. This further allocation to children’s services comes on top of £2·13 million allocated by the Executive in the July monitoring exercise.

As far as those funds and the funds allocated for other purposes are concerned, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will make further announcements about their precise allocation and management. The Minister of Health, like all other Ministers, will ensure that these are put to best use and fulfil the purposes of her Department and the Programme for Government.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Can the Minister of Finance comment on the fact that the Departments under the control of the Ulster Unionist Party Ministers appear to have received considerably less than the Departments under the control of the Democratic Unionist Party, the SDLP and IRA/ Sinn Féin? Are the Ministers from the Ulster Unionist Party failing to fight their case inside the Executive? Will he go further and join with me in calling on those Ministers to withdraw from the Executive? They might get a better deal outside than that they are getting inside it.

I also want to draw attention to paragraph 10 and ask the Minister to comment on the Executive programme funds. The Minister of Agriculture, who was with our Committee, indicated that she hoped to address the £10 million deficit in the vision group as misallocation or non-allocation. Can the Minister give the House — and, indeed, the Minister of Agriculture — a guarantee not only that she can expect to have the Executive programme funds for the vision group strategy but that the House can also expect to have the Executive programme funds so that we can start to address the critical issue of debt in the farming community?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome some of the points made by Mr Paisley, in particular the enthusiasm that his latter remarks show for the Executive programme funds. They relate well to the priorities and interests of the Assembly at large.

With regard to his earlier points, I want to make it clear that the Executive, in taking decisions on allocations, are taking decisions in a responsible and clear-headed manner. It is taking decisions neither on the basis of party-political headcounts nor on the basis of the party affiliations of the Minister of any Department. The Executive are taking good and fair decisions. No Department is being favoured because of the party-political associations of its Minister. I hope that Mr Paisley will recognise that this is the logic of his remarks.

I can assure the House that all Ministers have clear ambitions and plans for the use of public money. That was obvious during the budgeting round and when we were making the in-year allocations. Many Ministers, and the Departments too, have made significant contributions, in terms of ability to manoeuvre, to the debate on the money available. That is part of the work of the Executive in the round. Not all of us, as Ministers, can be part of the Government on a "now you see us, now you don’t" basis. We cannot all play ‘Ministers in their Eyes’ — "Tonight, Matthew, I am going to be the Minister for Regional Development."

We have to work with the total range of public responsibilities that fall to the Executive, no matter in what Department some of these services lie. The Executive have responsibilities, and in agreeing these allocations, they have reflected and discharged those responsibilities well.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the disclosure by the Minister that all Departments, regardless of whether or not their Ministers take part in the Executive, receive equal treatment. That is encouraging. And it is welcome news that we in the DUP are being treated in the same way as everyone else.

My question is to do with disabled adaptations. I understand that the figure of some £1·5 million is to be set aside for them. Can the Minister indicate if that will clear up the long waiting list for disabled adaptations? Can he also state if that money will be available from 1 April for those who have been waiting between six and nine months for them? There is also a waiting list of between 12 and 18 months simply to secure an interview. Can the Minister explain what funding is available and the impact that that will have on waiting lists?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Shannon asks when the money will be available — he hopes it will be so by 1 April. This is an allocation for this financial year. It is not one of the allocations for next year’s Budget. The Member may also recall that there was a £2 million bid for disabled people from housing associations and that this was met in the first round under the Agenda for Government. However, demand has clearly continued to grow. This allocation will enable 400 conversions to be made.

North/South Ministerial Council: Trade and Business Development

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I wish to report on the third meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, in its Trade and Business Development sectoral format, held on Friday 27 October 2000.

Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Dr Seán Farren and I attended the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Ms Mary Harney TD, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This report has been approved by Dr Farren and is also made on his behalf.

The Council received a verbal report from the vice-chairman of the Trade and Business Development Body, Dr Harold Ennis, on the progress made to date in establishing the body. This dealt with the relocation of the body’s offices to new permanent headquarters in Newry, arrangements for appointing permanent staff and its future activities.

Mr Liam Nellis, the body’s interim chief executive, provided the Council with an update of the work that the body has undertaken so far. He also confirmed the final arrangements for a series of roadshows that will take place during November at four locations.

In accordance with the agreement that established the Trade and Business Development Body, the body was asked to bring forward proposals in four areas for consideration by the North/South Ministerial Council. These relate to: first, the development of a North/South equity investment fund programme; second, the development of graduate and other placement programmes on a North/South basis; third, the carrying out of a range of testing services for industry with a view to the development of North/South testing services on a fully commercial basis by private interests; and fourth, the implementation of standards development and certificate programmes on a North/South basis. The Council had a valuable discussion on the board’s proposals on these matters.

The Council considered the recommendation of a selection panel for the appointment of a chief executive to the Trade and Business Development Body. The name of the candidate put forward by the selection panel was accepted by the Council, and a further announcement will be made in due course following acceptance of the appointment.

The Council considered an Irish Government paper on enhancing the competitiveness of the two economies on the island, North and South. The Council agreed that the Trade and Business Development Body should take this study forward in conjunction with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment with a view to preparing a competitiveness report for the next North/ South Ministerial Council plenary session in March 2001.

The Council agreed that its next meeting in sectoral format would take place in the South in January or February 2001. The Council also agreed the text of a communiqué, which was issued after the meeting. A copy of this has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister elaborate on the effectiveness of the trade body’s roadshow? Will it sustain that type of involvement with all cities throughout Ireland, or is this just a one-off launch event, after which it will move on to another phase of its work? Does it intend to continue that type of outward projection of its work in smaller cities throughout Ireland?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Four roadshow meetings have been arranged. One took place in Dublin, one in Belfast, another in Limerick, and the fourth will take place in Londonderry towards the end of the month.

The purpose is, first, to inform people in the business community of the existence of the body. Secondly, it is to try to encourage cross-border trade and the development of supply chains through awareness of what others might be doing close at hand. The rationale is very simple: if the supply chain can be shortened, there is gain to be made from reduced stockholding and the ability to resupply more rapidly.

This is not a new idea. Local authorities have done it by having "meet the buyer" events. They have tried to introduce people trading locally to one another so that they can supply one another rather than import from abroad. It is not a one-off event. This particular event has been focused on a specific issue, namely the development of supply chains and an awareness of the body, but further activities will be undertaken. For instance, in June 2000 the body held a seminar in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, which focused on e-business, and people from America who had succeeded in trading on the Internet were invited to it. Local people were also invited, the objective being to encourage them to take up a similar type of activity.

I see that as ongoing work to implement the operating plan which the trade body presented to the North/South Ministerial Council and which was approved some months ago. I do not expect this to be a one-off event but, rather, part of the process.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he elaborate further on the Irish Government paper on enhancing competitiveness on the island? Does it acknowledge that there is competition between the Industrial Development Agency (IDA) and the Industrial Development Board (IDB) to attract inward investment into Ireland?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Competitiveness goes beyond the IDA and the IDB. There is a range of issues. The Irish Government put forward a paper for consideration, and no conclusions have been reached on it. As I said in my statement, the body is currently examining it. The two Departments will take it forward and seek information from other Departments.

The paper looks at all sorts of things including transport issues, e-business capabilities, and broadband capabilities. This is not simply about competition between the IDA and the IDB, which, of course, is a matter for the respective Administrations. The matter will be pursued further, probably around March.

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

I would like the Minister to elaborate. From a reading of this statement, it appears that we would welcome some reduction or change in the destructive competitiveness between North and South that does not enhance the competitiveness of either.

Will it be possible for the North/South trade body to develop joint marketing initiatives in the USA or elsewhere and will the North/South trade body make any effort to encourage development outside the eastern seaboard and particularly in areas north-west of the Bann and south-west of the Shannon?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

There appears to be confusion about the purpose of the Irish Government’s paper on competitiveness. It is not concerned with inward investment because that is not a function of the trade body. It is concerned with benchmarking the two economies against economies worldwide, seeing how the economies compare with their major competitors and pinpointing their strengths and weaknesses.

The worry about the focus on the eastern seaboard is common to both economies. A few years ago, for example, there was great concern about the level of concentration on the Belfast/Dublin corridor. Many people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland felt — and continue to feel — a sense of isolation. Members will be aware of the pressure that exists west of the Bann for activity to develop its infrastructure. People want to feel that they are on as level a playing field as possible. A similar situation exists in the Republic of Ireland with trade, business and tourism. The people of County Donegal feel a sense of isolation, and this is reflected in the comments of their elected representatives.

The paper, therefore, is not concerned with joint marketing but with benchmarking the economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland against one another and against competition. That is the area that is being looked at, so areas such as e-commerce and broadband technology must be examined.

The Programme for Government states that broadband issues in Northern Ireland must be dealt with. That is one means of creating a level playing field for areas west of the Bann and for other more remote areas. I am conscious that in recent years the concentration has been on the east. As the work of the North/South trade body and the Programme for Government continues, I hope that greater efforts will be made to ensure that there are viable and successful economies west of the Bann.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

As an avid reader of the Belfast Agreement, I notice that the Trade and Business Development Body is not one of the 12 implementation bodies listed in the agreement. Will the Minister confirm that his enthusiasm for all-Ireland bodies is now so great that the 12 bodies that were presented to the electorate during the referendum campaign are insufficient and must now be added to? Does the Minister plan to add on any more implementation bodies, and will he indicate to the House the cost of the Trade and Business Development Body? Have those 12 bodies reached such a state that the Irish Government are now presenting papers about enhancing competitiveness in the Northern Ireland economy? Is that the route that implementation bodies will take in the future?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The hon Member obviously mis- understands. The Trade and Business Development Body is one of six implementation bodies set up under the Belfast Agreement. There are 12 areas of co-operation: six are being dealt with through implementation, and six through co-operation, where there is no formal structure.

This body has been in operation from the outset. Its remit has not been altered, added to, or detracted from. In the report made to the House following the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in September, reference was made to the paper presented by the Irish Government. The matter was then referred to this body for further consideration. Anyone can issue a report and put it forward for consideration and it has no bearing on who will make the final decisions on the Northern Ireland economy. That will continue to be the remit of this Assembly, acting through the Executive and the Departments, and there will be no change to that.

So far as this body is concerned, areas of co-operation in a range of activities have been ongoing for many years between the economies on both sides of the border. There are more than 150 areas of co-operation, projects, joint discussions and joint working parties. These all operated prior to devolution without input or control from anyone in Northern Ireland. They are now under the Assembly’s control, and Members have the right to question what is going on. No decisions with regard to finance or other matters can be taken without the approval of the House.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister go into further detail on the four areas for consideration that InterTradeIreland has undertaken? How far advanced is the work?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Four areas of co-operation were set out in the agreement of 18 December 1998: a North/South equity investment fund programme; the development of graduate and other placement programmes; the carrying out of a range of testing services; and the implementation of standards development and certificate programmes on a North/South basis.

Reports were presented on those areas of co-operation. With regard to carrying out a range of testing services for industry, the report came to the conclusion that no value could be added by the body pursuing that, and the recommendation was not to pursue the matter further. That was accepted by the North/South Ministerial Council.

The implementation of standards development and certificate programmes on a North/South basis was also felt to be an area where the body reported that it could not add value. It was accepted, therefore, that that would not be pursued.

With regard to the development of a North/South equity investment fund, the IDB commissioned a study into small and medium-sized (SME) enterprise finance, which is currently under way. The body has been asked to further refine its proposals in association with the IDB because we do not want duplication or crossover. The Trade and Business Development Body will study the proposals brought forward through that research to ensure there is no overlap.

My Colleague Dr Farren is closely involved in the development of graduate and other placement programmes. He believes that considerable progress can be made, and he is taking that forward at departmental level because some placements have already been completed. That has been happening for years in the private sector, and Dr Farren believes that further progress can be made through graduate placements. It is similar to the explorers programme that the Department runs every year in which people work abroad, where they have the opportunity for exchanges and for developing networks. The intention is to do something similar between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It is a solid proposal, and Dr Farren is pursuing it enthusiastically.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I read the proposal for a North/South equity investment fund programme with some curiosity and a degree of concern. Whose equity is it? What will it be invested in? Is it a Government-backed programme? If so, will the Minister be mindful of the exceedingly mixed record of such programmes? In the past, normal private sector investment disciplines have been disregarded in pursuit of political objectives.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The body was originally asked to investigate the four issues that I mentioned in my statement, one of which was North/South equity investment. That was over two years ago and the products available through equity investment have changed significantly since then. More products have come onto the market, and more people are involved, but there is still a lack of enthusiasm and a consequent lack of projects.

We are at an early stage. A report has been produced on what is available, as has a study of SME finance, commissioned simultaneously by the IDB. We will look at the two reports to see what is required. We may need a public-private partnership, if funds can be generated, but we must take into account the implications of providing state aid.

As yet, no firm proposals have been developed. We want to see that there is a gap in the market that is not filled by the private sector or by existing funds. We must also take account of the fact that the European Union has put a short-term embargo on a range of equity capital funds, including, for example, the Viridian growth fund. The Department of Trade and Industry has also found that several of its funds have been affected. The matter still has some way to go, and I have no particular proposal to put to the House at this stage.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate him on his efforts to promote North/South trade. I am glad to hear that the North/South Ministerial Council considered the paper on enhancing the comp- etitiveness of both economies, North and South. Does the Minister agree that this is an important issue, given that Northern Ireland is too dependent on the public sector for economic regeneration? Will the Minister assure the House that his Department will treat the promotion of private sector enterprise as a priority? There is much potential for the development of SMEs and indigenous local enterprise.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I agree with the Member’s sentiments entirely on general economic policy. However, the main vehicle for generating more private sector business start- ups will be the general economic policies pursued by this Administration and by the Government in London. Through the Trade and Business Development Body, we can promote a range of initiatives — including the supply chain initiative — aimed at generating new business. To people who express concerns about such developments I say "Do you not want to do more trade on this island or with other European Union partners?" More trade is in everybody’s interest, and at present there is remarkably little.

12.00

Although our exports to the Irish Republic have been growing, the level of trade between the two economies is still remarkably small considering they share a land border. It would certainly be a lower proportion than between other economies in the European Union, such as France and Germany. We can generate more private sector investment if we can increase the total volume of trade. It is just as effective as inward investment.

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

If close neighbours can trade with one another, it is right to encourage that. In doing so, we will strengthen our economy. I acknowledge that we are still over- dependent on the public sector. That needs to be corrected if we are to have the basis to sustain the services we wish to provide for our community well into the remainder of this century.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Roadshows were mentioned in the statement. I know it might disappoint some of his groupies over here, but does the Minister agree that this all-Ireland ministerial roadshow is a disaster for Northern Ireland? Is it not about time that he, as Minister, told Dublin to get on its bike on the road out of Northern Ireland, instead of coming into Northern Ireland more and more?

The Minister mentioned the development of graduate and other placement programmes on a North/South basis. What reassurances can he give the House that these appointments will be open to members of the Protestant community and equally shared across the community in Northern Ireland?

In the penultimate paragraph of the statement, where creeping Nationalist-speak appears to have taken over, the Minister talks about "the South". I assume he means the Republic of Ireland. Will he assure us that he will refer to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland by their designated titles in all future communiqués from his Department, and not allow this Nationalist-speak to creep in?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

First, to say that the roadshows were a disaster is rubbish. The turnout for all of them has been exceptionally good. If the Member had gone to the roadshow at the Hilton Park Hotel in Templepatrick or the meeting the following morning in Belfast City Hall, he would have seen 150 business people, all interested in whether there was any possibility of doing business with one another. It was the same in Dublin and Limerick, and I have little doubt that the roadshow in Londonderry is already oversubscribed.

I think it is good to increase business. If it is mutually beneficial, I cannot understand what the difficulty is. Companies, including some in Mr Paisley’s own constituency that depend on orders from the Republic, come to me to find out how they can increase trade. That is right and proper. I do not understand what people are worrying about, because that is exactly what it is about.

Prior to devolution a huge volume of cross-border activity was being undertaken by previous direct rule Administrations. Over 150 bodies or projects were ongoing, and not one of them was subject to approval by anyone here. Most people in Northern Ireland knew nothing about it. Every six months a list of the areas of co-operation was put into the Library of the House of Commons. No one was able to stand up and ask the Minister any questions about it.

I am conscious of the point the Member makes about language, but, with the greatest respect to him, I will use my own language because I know what I am talking about and I know what I mean. If companies wish to offer graduate placements to individual employees, all those people will have that opportunity, just as everyone has the opportunity to apply for the explorers programme.

Whether a person of a particular religion is going to make himself available is a matter for him, not me, but everybody should have the opportunity to take it up. My Colleague Dr Farren is responsible for this area. I am sure of his commitment to fairness; I have no doubt that he is committed to ensuring that everybody has an equal opportunity to participate. If the Member wishes to put forward any names, I will ensure that they are passed on to the appropriate authorities.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In case the Minister would mislead the House, can I ask him to indicate which part of the Belfast Agreement envisaged the setting up of the Trade and Business Development Body? From the annex to the agreement, it is quite evident that it was not envisaged. This body was set up as a result of the Ulster Unionist Party being prepared to give further concessions to Nationalism. The Minister also failed to answer my Colleague’s question about the cost of setting up the body, so perhaps I can ask him again. How much did it cost to set up the new offices in Newry, and what is the estimated cost of running the Trade and Business Development Body?

I also want to ask the Minister about the implementation of standards, development and certificate programmes on a North/South basis. Has this not already been done under the European Union? What is the relationship between this and what we currently have, the BS5750?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I think the Member did not hear one of my previous answers regarding item four. I indicated that the body had investigated this and felt that no added value could be achieved by pursuing it any further. The North/South Ministerial Council agreed with that, and the matter is therefore no longer part of the agenda of this organisation.

My Colleague Mr Durkan expressly set out the cost of the North/South Trade and Business Development Body in his Budget statement. I cannot answer the question about the cost of the headquarters in Newry with precise figures, but I am happy to write to the Member accord- ingly. I do not know why he persists in trying to say that this body was not envisaged in the agreement. It is one of the six implementation bodies. If it was not set up by the agreement, why does it have a budget, and why have I have been reporting to the House regularly since it started?

North/South Ministerial Council: Tourism

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I wish to report on the first meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its tourism sectoral format held on Friday 27 October. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Dr Seán Farren and I attended this meeting. Dr James McDaid TD, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, represented the Irish Government. This report has been approved by Dr Farren and is also made on his behalf.

As envisaged in the statement of 18 December 1998 by the then First Minister (Designate) and the Deputy First Minister (Designate), the Council agreed that a publicly owned limited company should be established by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte Éireann to carry out functions aimed at increasing tourism on the island of Ireland. The Council agreed the draft memorandum and articles of association of the new company and also agreed that arrangements should be put in train to register the company as soon as possible.

The Council agreed that the board of the new company should have 12 members, including representation from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Bord Fáilte Éireann and the tourist industries in Northern Ireland and the Republic. The membership of the board will be formally approved at an early meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. The Council agreed the arrangements for jointly funding the new company; a South/North funding ratio of 2:1 for the programme costs of the company was approved. At its inaugural plenary meeting on 13 December the Council agreed that the headquarters of the company would be in Dublin, with a regional office in Coleraine.

At the meeting on 27 October 2000 it was agreed that the Coleraine office should have responsibility for printing, publishing and distribution. The Council approved a schedule for the early establishment of the company. A project team of senior officials, drawn from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte Éireann, is being established to take forward the initial set of arrangements for the company. A progress report will be submitted to the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its tourism sectoral format. The Council has approved arrangements for the recruiting of the chief executive officer of the company. The Council is satisfied that an important step has been taken towards establishing the new company. The Council believes that enhanced co-operation in the tourism sector will bring significant and tangible benefits to both Northern Ireland and the South and that the company, working closely with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte Éireann, will have a crucial role to play in that regard.

The Council will hold its next meeting in sectoral format in the South during either January or February 2001. The Council has agreed the text of a communiqué, which was issued following the meeting. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, tourism is regarded as one of the biggest growth industries in the world. It represents some 7% to 8% of the GDP in the South, yet only 2% in the North. I welcome this report. In reference to the draft memorandum and articles of association of the new company that have been agreed, arrangements must be put in place to register the company as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Council is to approve a schedule for the early establishment of the company. Can the Minister explain in more detail the draft memorandum and articles of association, and can he also inform us as to when the company will be established? The Coleraine sub-office remit has been outlined, but there has been no mention of the Dublin head office’s remit.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

This is a company, and all companies have a memorandum and articles of association. It differs in its structure to an organisation such as the Trade and Business Development Body, which has been set up between the two Administrations. This will be a company set up by both tourist boards. Its structure is different. It is a trading entity with a profit and loss account. The memorandum and articles of association set out the objectives of the company and other procedural matters to comply with company law. One of the two offices is to be in Coleraine, and the precise functions of that office have been established. Those functions will be reviewed after three years when we see how well the company is doing.

A project team has been appointed by both tourist boards to carry out the operational establishment of the company. It is difficult to be precise, but it will happen in the next couple of months, as the project team is established and as it sets about its business. The company, as a legal entity, must comply with company law. The tourist boards are establishing teams from each side to work out the operational details.

With regard to the functions of each office, that is an operational detail. It is perfectly obvious that if you remove those functions specifically allocated to the Coleraine office from headquarters, it leaves a clear idea of what will happen at headquarters. It remains to be seen, however. We decided to have a review in three years’ time to see whether any changes are needed, because it will be an operational decision to identify where particular functions are allocated.

I look forward to the establishment of the company within the next few months. The project team will bring forward an operational plan and will report at our next meeting, which will most likely be in February.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. What criteria and methodology are being used to appoint the 12 members of the board? Will there be remuneration? What will happen to the existing staff of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The board will consist of 12 persons. The present position is that membership will be determined after consultation with, and with the involvement of, the industry, here and in the Republic. However, some elements are already emerging. We have undertaken a consultation exercise with representatives of the travel trades here. My counterpart, Dr McDaid, is doing the same in the Republic. The chairperson of the company will be nominated from Northern Ireland, and the Republic will nominate the deputy chairperson. It is intended that the chairperson, deputy chairperson and chief executive of the NITB will be members of the new board, as will their equivalents in Bord Fáilte Éireann. The balance of the membership will comprise persons who are either nominated by tourist industry interests or deemed to be effective in representing travel and tourism interests. We hope to be able to nominate board members within the next few weeks. Those nominations will come into the public domain when final consultations are concluded.

So far as the staff of the NITB is concerned, the tourist board will continue to operate. The situation is not unlike that which existed during the operation of the overseas tourism and marketing initiative (OTMI). Some people from the NITB will join the staff of the new company, but the NITB will continue its main functions in Northern Ireland, such as regional marketing, together with all the regulatory and statutory functions that it has under law. That will not be affected in any way by its involvement. The NITB and its equivalent in the Republic are establishing the new company. NITB will be a co- owner of the company, and the tourist board in Northern Ireland will continue to play a proactive role. The primary function of the new company will be to market our product worldwide.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly with regard to the establishment of the regional tourism office in Coleraine, in my own constituency of East Londonderry. Can the Minister say when this office is likely to open? Has a location been decided upon? If so, where? What staffing level is envisaged?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I cannot tell the Member the precise location of the office, but I know that one of the early tasks of the project team will be to identify a suitable location. The Coleraine office will be responsible for the printing, publishing and distribution requirements of the company, as agreed by the two tourist boards.

That will be quite an undertaking, as the Coleraine office will deal with all the literature, promotional material, printing requirements and distribution on a worldwide basis. It is expected that between 10 and 15 people will be employed in that office. We expect to have specific proposals at the end of January or February with regard to a site and the establishment of the office. We will review the progress of that office and its functions after three years to see if further work is required.

At this stage it is hard to assess the exact number of people to be employed in the office, which is why I said between 10 and 15. That figure could vary and it could be higher. It depends on what is deemed to be an appropriate form of marketing and whether that requires more literature to be distributed. Internet activity will have to be addressed as more and more people are looking at tourism through the Internet.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I welcome the Minister’s statement on the formation of the new company. It is a significant development which I hope will bring tangible benefits to the community in the new peace era in which we hope tourism will evolve.

I noted the answers the Minister gave to earlier questions regarding membership, and it is obvious that it is going to be a narrow board. First, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is important that the board reflects the interests of those who provide the existing tourist facilities that we want to develop. Secondly, what relationship will the new company have, either directly or indirectly through the NITB, with the local government partnership and its involvement in tourism?

In view of the need to market our wonderful natural resources — the north coast, the lakes of Fermanagh, the Mournes and St Patrick’s country — does the Minister envisage the administration of tourism becoming more geared to the areas delivering tourism? Should we perhaps have a sub-office in an area like south Down?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

We could deploy most of our resources to establish offices behind every whin bush that people want.

The Member represents a beautiful part of our country, one that is frequently visited by tourists. The board must reflect the concerns of the providers, but that must not be an incestuous arrangement. We want people to come forward with fresh ideas. The board must not be a closed shop for people without any other interests.

I take the Member’s point about local government partnerships and the regional tourism organisations, which are active. I recently attended a meeting of the Kingdoms of Down group, and I have also been to the CORE group that operates in north Antrim. Those organisations have lobbied and put forward names, and they are very much involved. They will continue to be involved as the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will continue partly to fund them.

I see an ongoing marketing and promotional role for regional tourism organisations, irrespective of, but in addition to, the marketing done by the new company. I do not see any conflict between these organisations. The closer one gets to the main markets, the more scope there is for local marketing.

Our main markets for tourism include the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and parts of Great Britain. More than two thirds of our visitors come from those areas. It is obvious that those people have an awareness of Northern Ireland, so this should be focused on.

I draw Members’ attention to the statement of 18 December 1998, where the remit of the company was set out. It said that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board would continue to have access to the services of, for example, the British Tourist Authority and that there would be clear guidance to the company that its promotional efforts should take account of the need to develop tourism in Northern Ireland against the background of the problems faced by the industry there over the past 30 years.

The company’s remit — and this is not yet fully understood — will specifically have to take into account our difficulties over the past 30 years. I thought it would be worth drawing that to Members’ attention, because this is a remit that was not included in the OTMI operations that preceded it. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board is in at the design stage of this company. That was not the case with OTMI. Northern Ireland will have 50% membership of the board, and it will also have chairmanship of the board. When all these matters are taken into account, we are much better placed from a marketing and promotional point of view than we were previously.

The regional tourism organisations and the very significant contribution made by most local authorities will continue to play a part. However, we have to face the fact that no matter what money and effort we put into this, none of it will work as it should unless we have stability in the Province. This is necessary to bring tourism here. We are suffering from 30 years of disruption and conflict, and we still have ongoing, unresolved problems. Stability is the best way to get the maximum number of tourists here. Our tourism industry is operating at only one third of its capacity, and that is a great pity.

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

Before calling the next Member, I remind Members and the Minister that there is a long list of people who wish to ask questions. It would be useful if both questions and answers could be kept brief.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I notice that the body is to be funded on a ratio of 2:1 between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. Can the Minister inform us of Northern Ireland’s total contribution to the company? In the first year of the Assembly, the cost of the tourism implementation body was included under the cost of the North/South institutions. Can the Minister explain why this has been taken out of that section of this year’s Budget? Is this an attempt to hide the true cost of "North/Southery" from this Assembly?

Finally, I noticed that the membership of the company has yet to be decided. Can the Minister assure us that to avoid the political cronyism which has so far been rife in these North/South bodies, where the party faithful in his own party have been rewarded with positions, the Peach requirements will be applied to all the posts in the tourist company?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

There are conspiracies everywhere, are there not?

The reason that no funds are included in the Estimates is that the company has not spent anything, because it does not yet exist. It has taken time to establish. If the Member wishes that we had moved more quickly to get North/South bodies established, that is a matter for him. The company has not yet been established, therefore it has not engaged any staff, nor has it any premises or establishment expenses. The reason it has not moved at the rate some people would have liked is that there were many serious matters to be agreed between the two Departments and between myself and Dr McDaid, and that all took time. We have taken our time, and I believe that the structure that is now emerging is the right one.

According to the Estimates that were published by Mr Durkan, the budget is in the region of £5·4 million, which is allocated primarily for marketing.

The Member is incorrect in saying that the programme is being funded on a ratio of 2:1. The programme costs are being funded on a 2:1 basis, but staffing will initially be funded on the basis of the origin of the person who takes the post. If it is a Northern Ireland Tourist Board official, the funding will be provided by the Tourist Board, while Bord Fáilte Éireann will bear the cost if one of its officials takes up the post. Given the difference in the size of each organisation, the Republic’s share would be much larger than it would be if the 2:1 basis were applied. However, this will be reviewed in the light of experience and when we see who comes forward.

The board will be made up of people with a clear interest. According to the statement, the membership will be drawn up in consultation with, and with the involvement of, the industry. The appointments are not being made in accordance with the recommendations of Sir Leonard Peach’s report, but they are being dealt with through the industry. All four key elements of the industry, plus others, have been notified, and we have already received a number of nominations.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, it is expected that 20,000 jobs will be created through increased tourism in the Six Counties as part of the development of tourism bodies, North and South. Does the Minister agree that it is a myth to compare our situation with that of the South, given the unresolved conflict at Drumcree each year? Does he also agree that politics must be working here before we can begin to meet our tourism objectives?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The difficulties at Drumcree create problems but 30 years of terrorism have also caused problems. It is a combination of such factors that has conspired to keep 20,000 people out of work.

The situation has improved. Visitor numbers and the amount they spend have increased, but the percentage increase is not high enough. If we compare the increase in tourism here with that in the Republic and Scotland — our two nearest neighbours — we will see that we are running at approximately one third of the ideal rate. Tourism constitutes 1·9% of the gross domestic product, but it should account for 6% or more.

We have the potential to develop tourism even further if we concentrate on natural-resource-based tourism and other niche markets. Against the background of huge pressure on communities, particularly in rural areas where there have been agricultural difficulties, such as animal and other health scares, largely through no fault of the Northern Ireland farmer, rural development provides real potential for people to supplement their income. Some people have been doing this with success, but huge potential remains, and I hope that we get the opportunity to exploit it fully.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

In principle, I welcome this statement and the movement towards the company, but I would like assurance from the Minister on two fronts. First, I hope that this new company will not preclude independent marketing, where appropriate, by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. There is a commercial reason for this: the two tourist products are different to some degree. Historically, for example, Northern Ireland has received large numbers of tourists from Scotland, while the Republic of Ireland did not. There is, therefore, a case for differences in marketing.

Secondly, will the international marketing of the new company concentrate on areas which yield the greatest marginal returns? It could well be argued that those areas will not be in Great Britain, but in continental European Union countries.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

With regard to the first point, I can give the Member the assurance he seeks. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board is not precluded from regional marketing where it deems it to be appropriate, because such a high percentage of our tourism comes from those areas. We will ensure that there is complementarity between the marketing done by the company and that done by the Tourist Board. This will be done by ensuring that the Tourist Board uses the company as the delivery mechanism for whatever regional tourism, advertising and promotional activity it wants to do. It has the right to do that, and it will do that.

With regard to international marketing, as the Member pointed out, we are looking as far afield as we can. There is significant difficulty at the moment with the euro zone because of the price differential, which now sits at a huge 30%. Therefore, while marketing will be an operational matter for the company and the two tourist boards, we are under enormous pressure in the euro zone because of the currency. In the short term, the effort may have to be made more in the dollar zone area or wherever, but it will not be excluded from the marketing portfolio of the new company.

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

I congratulate the Minister on his report and the emphasis that he has placed on tourism since his appointment. In particular, I welcome the news of the office in Coleraine. I wish to seek assurance that this office will have the resources to tackle international marketing in a way which will give particular emphasis to specialist aspects of tourism. I am thinking in particular of angling, because of the River Bann in the area I come from. Will the Minister also assure us that he will discuss realistic improvements in the transport infrastructure with the airlines and ferry operators? If tourists do not have easy access to Northern Ireland, the efforts put into marketing could be in vain.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member has been very resourceful in managing to get in a question which is somewhat at variance with the topic of debate. With regard to the office, I can assure the Member that there is a determination by all concerned to see that the Coleraine office is properly resourced. It will be reviewed after three years. It has the tasks of producing all the printed and written materials to do with promotional activity and ensuring their distribution, and that is a huge undertaking.

I take the point that the Member makes about his area and the need for improvements in transport, but I expect that you would prefer that to be left for another day.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

The Minister has already responded to the Member for East Belfast, Mr Sammy Wilson, on the make-up of the board, and he has referred to the tourist industry interests in the North and in the South. Can he indicate where they will come from? Will they be posted to the land mass, or will they be half-and-half? I put a specific question related to tourism to him this week, and he gave a specific response. Capital funds for the Strangford area in the last three years have amounted to —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Could your question be more precise?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

We do not want Northern Ireland to become the poor relation in the new company. Can the Minister assure us that this will not be the case? Will he also assure us that there will be some system to monitor the promotion of tourism to ensure that Northern Ireland gets an equal share and that the east of the Province — Strangford and so on — gets a bit of special promotion? The sun does not just rise and shine in Fermanagh and south Tyrone; it rises and shines in Strangford also.

The Minister said that the Coleraine office will have responsibility for printing, publishing and distribution. This highlights one of our concerns. Can he assure us that the Coleraine office will be used to promote tourism actively in Northern Ireland? It looks as if Dublin will control everything.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Over the years the tourism industry in Northern Ireland has been fragmented, with various groups representing various parts of the industry. This is a matter of concern and will have to be dealt with in the long term. These groups were invited to indicate the people whom they thought would be helpful on the company’s board, and we have received responses from them.

The Member is worried about Strangford, but if I recall the figures correctly the "poor relation" in all this is East Belfast, which has less resources than any other constituency. I think the Member will find that many areas are doing worse than Strangford.

Unlike the previous OTMI arrangements, we are very well placed in this new arrangement. We have 50% of the board; we provide the chairperson; and part of the company’s remit is to take account of the need to develop tourism in Northern Ireland against the background of the problems faced by the industry over the past 30 years. Its operational and corporate plans have to come before the North/South Ministerial Council for approval. We will approve the appointment of a chief executive. By approving the corporate and operational plans, we approve the promotional activity. That will give us a wonderful opportunity that we never had before to assess whether we are getting a fair share. I have already outlined the funding arrangements. All in all, I think we have a satisfactory structure.

The Coleraine office will do all the printing, publishing and distribution, and its function is to operate on a worldwide basis. This is unprecedented and should give Northern Ireland and Coleraine a unique opportunity to make a positive contribution.

John Taylor (UUP, Strangford)

Representing, as I do, the most beautiful part of Northern Ireland — Strangford Lough and the surrounding countryside — in principle I welcome what the Minister has announced today. First, can he assure us that the company will be registered in the Companies Office in Belfast as well as in Dublin? Secondly, can he assure us that the board and staff will be non-political and that they will refer to the two jurisdictions by their correct names? Thirdly, since the Southern Irish tourist industry is five times larger than the industry in Northern Ireland, why should the ratio of financing not be 5:1 instead of 2:1? Finally, can the Minister assure the House that this new arrangement will in no way impinge on the activities of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board within the United Kingdom, namely on its co-operation with the English Tourist Board, the Welsh Tourist Board and the Scottish Tourist Board and especially on the close working relationship that it has with the British Tourist Authority to promote Northern Ireland internationally?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I will not rise to the challenge of the Member’s first comment, lest there be more daggers in my back than there are at present. With regard to the British Tourist Authority, the statement made on 18 December indicated that

"the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will continue to have access to the services of the British Tourist Authority".

That is part of the agreement.

Since I became Minister, a formal agreement has been signed with the British Tourist Authority. Such a treaty had never existed before and it sets out specific arrangements. Bord Fáilte Éireann is negotiating with the British Tourist Authority to handle destinations in far-flung parts of the world where it would not be economical for either of us to be represented. That is very positive. Both tourist boards have staff in the British Tourist Authority- run visitor centre in London, which is, and will continue to be, our main shop window in the capital.

I will have to come back to the Member in writing about the technicalities of registration, because I am not sure whether it has been registered in both jurisdictions. With regard to the Republic’s tourism industry being five times larger, I do not have those statistics at my disposal. I think it is three times larger, but perhaps we will reflect on that. The 2:1 ratio relates to marketing. The total operational costs of that ratio might be different because the relevant tourist board will pay for the staff who will be appointed. Bord Fáilte Éireann is a much larger organisation than the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. I expect, therefore, in the short term at least, a much larger proportion than 2:1 to come from the Irish Republic.

When this is examined in a few months’ time the Member will find that the actual ratio is more favourable. However, we want to spend a great deal on marketing, because that is what we need to do. We have some wonderful products, but I do not necessarily agree that they are all in his constituency.

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

Does the Minister agree that we have made major advances this morning in that Sammy Wilson and Jim Shannon want to join the North/South tourist body? Will he agree to try to facilitate their enthusiasm? This is a major advance and something that we were waiting for. I brought that up in case Sammy Wilson’s question had been misunderstood. I think it is clearly understood now.

I welcome the ministerial statement and I strongly welcome the formation of the new body. However, for this body to achieve its full potential — and by that I mean trebling our current turnover of tourists — we need a much more dynamic and effective Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Reports I receive from North American visitors suggest that our tourism products are somewhat unsophisticated, lacking in development and, in some cases, shoddy.

The Minister will be aware of what happened last Easter. Does he have any plans to revamp the Northern Ireland Tourist Board so that it can play its full part in ensuring that we get a substantial share of the benefits referred to?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has received criticism over the years; any public body has to take its medicine from time to time. However, we should have some sympathy for the board. In the dark days of the troubles it had a very difficult job trying to market Northern Ireland. Every time it tried to encourage people to come here, something got in its way, whether it was terrorism or whatever. It has battled through, year after year, and the fact that we are operating with increasing figures, both in numbers and revenue, is a credit to those involved.

I appreciate the effort made by the chairman and members of that board. A number of new members have been appointed in the past few months. Along with existing members, they are attempting to promote our Province in a vigorous and dynamic way. This area is being looked at in the review of the structures of the Department and its agencies. I ask the Member to wait until we are able to bring forward more definite proposals, although I have already indicated in this question-and- answer session that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will continue because it is essential. So far as the Department and businesses are concerned, I want to ensure that their places in the overall scheme of things are taken into account during that review.

Wilson Clyde (DUP, South Antrim)

The Minister has answered the first part of my question about the number of people to be employed in Coleraine. How many are to be employed in total?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

There is no precise figure at present. A more substantial number will be employed in marketing operations throughout the world, and that number will be recommended to us by the project team established by the two tourist boards. That is still at an early stage. We could give approximate numbers for the Coleraine office because it will have a narrow range of easily identified functions. I will give the Member a more precise answer after the next report from the project team. I cannot take it further today.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Who is responsible for the transition of the current Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s international offices into the proposed new company? Will the Minister outline some of the lessons learnt from previous joint marketing initiatives that should be applied to future initiatives to enhance their benefit to Northern Ireland?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Responsibility for the transition of offices will be a matter for the company’s board when it is established. It is envisaged that where the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and Bord Fáilte Éireann have offices in international destinations it may be advantageous to bring them together. For instance, it makes sense to co-ordinate in New York, where Bord Fáilte Éireann has a significant office and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board does not. Similarly, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board has an office in Toronto, but Bord Fáilte Éireann does not have a similar operation, so it might be appropriate to link together there. That is an operational decision, and while the decision and the timing will be a matter for the two tourist boards as it involves their premises, these policies will be decided in conjunction with the company.

Regarding the second part of the Member’s question, I stress that this marketing initiative is different. At the core of the agreement of 18 December 1998 was the proviso that account must be taken of the circumstances in Northern Ireland, given our recent turmoil. That is systemic in the marketing operation and promotional activities planned by the company. That must be one of its fundamental functions, and we will look at it very closely to ensure that its materials and the nature of its promotion are consistent with the remit given to it by the statement of 18 December 1998.

John Fee (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I will be brief.

Will the Minister undertake an examination of the role of the regional tourism organisations (RTOs) to see if it would be appropriate for the new tourism company to take over their role in some border regions? I refer specifically to the scandalous activity of the regional tourism organisation that the Minister mentioned earlier. The RTO in Newry and Mourne took £30,000 from ratepayers in the area and subsequently, without consulting the council providers or guest providers, changed the name from South East Ulster to Kingdoms of Down, thereby disenfranchising everybody from County Armagh. Also, not one single project or bed space south of Kilkeel is currently referred to in its literature.

Where co-operation between north Down and south Armagh is not possible, would it not be more appropriate to examine regional tourism within areas such as Louth/ Monaghan, Armagh/Down and Donegal/Derry?

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

Members’ questions should be relevant to the statement.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The function of the tourist company will not be to take over the regional tourism organisations. These bodies are exactly as their name suggests, and they will remain independent. The Member refers specifically to a dispute between Newry and Mourne District Council and the Kingdoms of Down regional tourist office. It is inappropriate for me to involve myself in this, save to say that a number of local authorities co-operate in tourism within Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the Republic. I support this activity. An example is the North West Passage tourism promotional activity package, while Strabane and Limavady also have various links with Donegal. I encourage this activity, but the question of the regional tourist organisations is one for another day.

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

The time for questions is up.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My name was listed for a question to the Minister.

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

That is not a point of order, but if you wish to speak either to the Clerk or to myself afterwards we will attempt to sort it out.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I do not think you can sort it out then. My name was listed, and I ought to have been called. In fact, you called two SDLP Members, one after the other.

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

Your name is not on this list. I will enquire afterwards as to why.

Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill: First Stage

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

A LeasCheann Comhairle. Molaim go dtugtar a Chéad Léamh don Bhille (Gnéithe IdirThíortha) Uchtaithe.

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill to make provision for giving effect to the Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption concluded at The Hague on 29 May 1993; to make further provision in relation to adoptions with an international element; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

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

No amendments have been tabled, and, as no Members have indicated a wish to speak, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the five clauses of the Bill.

Leave granted.

Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

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

The Bill now stands referred to the Speaker.

The sitting was suspended at 12.59 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Question 7, in the name of Mr Eddie McGrady, has been transferred to the Department of Finance and Personnel and will receive a written response from that Department.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister why there is no strategy to address divisions in Northern Ireland society within the draft Programme for Government.

(AQO 325/00)

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Tackling divisions in society is a key priority. A range of policies aimed at promoting community relations with annual expenditure of over £9 million is already in place in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Department of Education and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The draft Programme for Government seeks to build on that and contains a range of actions, including the development by 2003 of a cross-departmental strategy for the promotion of community relations leading to measurable improvements. The programme emphasises the need to examine the impact of key services such as housing and education and to respond positively when people wish to live and learn together.

In addition, the Diversity 21 initiative provides a very clear strategy and programme of action for tackling divisions which have their origins in our different cultural backgrounds and experiences. These represent some of the most deep-rooted divisions in our society.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for the response, but he seems to have confirmed that while there are aspirations and much rhetoric on the need for promoting community relations and a shared society, there is very little in the way of strategy. The only specific he could quote to me was the year 2003. Does the First Minister really think that the problems of division in society are so much less important than socio-economic issues, many of which get a rather earlier date for progress?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I should have thought that the Member might have welcomed the fact that we do not propose, as recently advised by a journalist writing in a newspaper, to wind up the community relations programme. Instead, we are carefully examining it to bring forward new proposals. The Member might also like to reflect on the fact that this institution, through its functioning and the role that the various parties play in it, can make what is probably the most significant contribution to healing divisions in the community.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Does the First Minister agree that by its commitment to social and economic development the draft Programme for Government itself represents a strategy to heal divisions?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I agree. There is quite a range of initiatives in the draft Programme for Government on the issue. As I said in my earlier answer, however, over and above everything else, this institution is the way in which we can heal divisions in society. As we said over two years ago, we intend it to be a pluralist parliament for a pluralist people.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

On the subject of community relations, does the First Minister have plans to do away with the two institutions that presently train teachers, putting them into one establishment?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am sorry to say that I did not catch the middle part of that question.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am not sure whether teacher training institutions are within the ambit of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Perhaps if the Member would like to repeat the question, I can clarify that in my own mind.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I am asking the First Minister if he is going to address divisions. One of our biggest divisions is that Protestant teachers are taught in a Protestant training school and Catholics in a Catholic one. Does the First Minister recognise that there is no difference in training methods, irrespective of religion, and that everybody should be trained in one place?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I apologise to the Member; it was the phrase "teacher training" that I could not make out initially. I am well aware that there are many people who believe that the divided educational structure we have — the Member has taken a particular aspect of it — generally perpetuates division, even if it does not create it. That is not a view that I wholly share . I do recognise, however, that it is held by a number of people and also realise that education may play a role. At the same time we have to recognise that parents have a right to educate their children in their identity and culture. There is a difficult balance to be drawn on this. I am not in a position to make specific comments about the teacher-training colleges, but, no doubt, what the Member has said will be heard in other places.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what steps will be taken to ensure that all policies put forward by the Executive in the Programme for Government will be appraised for their impact on the creation of a shared society in Northern Ireland.

(AQO 324/00)

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires Northern Ireland Departments, in carrying out their functions, to have due regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between people of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group. The equality schemes required under schedule 9 of the Act show how Departments will assess their compliance with this duty and consult on relevant matters.

Furthermore, the draft Programme for Government seeks to address diversity and religious and political division, create greater mutual understanding and respect for diversity, and support dialogue and understanding among the communities. We hope that those consulted on the programme will comment on how effectively that programme deals with these issues, both specifically in the Growing as a Community section and in other parts of the document.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his response. However, will he accept that this Assembly has the opportunity to create a pluralist and integrated society by including a policy appraisal; putting the principle of sharing over the problem of separation in this community?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

As I said in answer to the previous question, it is my hope that this institution, through its existence and functioning, will help to resolve matters of this nature and promote co-operation. That is what we are doing, and we hope the example will be followed elsewhere in society.

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

What steps will be taken to ensure that all policies put forward by the Executive in the new Programme for Government are appraised for their impact on the equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I assure the Member that this matter is in our minds. Indeed, in paragraph 4(2)(b) of schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 there is a clear requirement for any equality scheme that is drawn up in each Department to state the Department’s arrangements for assessing and consulting on the likely impact of policies adopted, or proposed to be adopted, on the promotion of equality of opportunity.

In the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister there is an equality unit, and part of its job is to oversee the operation of these schemes across the Administration as a whole. We hope that we will have a proper focus in promoting equality of opportunity.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

This debate is being conducted with a high level of pretty empty rhetoric. There is reference to great cultural divides in Northern Ireland. The simple fact of the matter is that in Northern Ireland there is very little cultural division. The inhabitants of this island speak a common language. Their institutions, both North and South, are shaped on the model of democracy within the United Kingdom.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I remind the Member that this is not a debate; it is Question Time.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

In trying to promote harmonious relationships in Northern Ireland in respect of our disagreements, would it not be better to simply insist — not that we should somehow smother our disagreements — that we conduct those disagreements within the rule of law? That is all we require. We can disagree as much as we like then. We still have a vibrant and intellectually exciting society, which we should conduct within the rule of law. All of this other stuff is empty rhetoric that happens to cost a vast amount of money.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am glad that the Member has put it in those terms, because that is precisely what the Belfast Agreement endeavours to do: deal with the differences in society, settle the constitutional disputes, and provide a basis on which we can build and go forward together in peace.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the measures intended to be taken to eliminate progressively the differential in unemployment rates between the two communities.

(AQO 311/00)

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

The Programme for Government explicitly recognises the importance of tackling community differentials in unemployment. That is consistent with the Good Friday Agreement, which commits us to the goal of

"progressively eliminating the differential in unemployment rates between the two communities."

Among the relevant measures in the Programme for Government are: through New Deal, lifelong learning and welfare reform programme, giving people the skills and incentives to get jobs and escape from the cycle of deprivation; the New TSN action plans, which will be reviewed annually; the establishment of a task force on employability and long-term unemployment; training programmes for adults with low numeracy and literacy skills; regeneration strategies for the most disadvantaged communities in the two major cities; and a neighbourhood regeneration task force to reduce disadvantage in the most deprived urban areas. Actions needed to tackle unemployment differentials are found throughout the Programme for Government, including under the headings of infrastructure, planning, and ensuring access to education for all.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I notice that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister changed their pattern of answering questions so as to allow the Deputy First Minister to answer this one.

I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s commitment to tackling the unemployment differential. If that is the case, why, in recent months, have officials and junior Ministers from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister been engaged in an exercise to attempt to influence a report from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) which would deny that the differential is a measure of discrimination, absolving past, current and future Administrations from any responsibility in this regard?

Can he confirm that when the junior Minister Mr Nesbitt declares that he is winning the war on equality he is not in fact eradicating inequality and discrimination but rewriting history and securing a Unionist analysis on differentials as Government policy? Does this not strengthen the case that we made some time ago for a Department of Equality with a specific scrutiny committee?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I encourage Members to be reasonably concise

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

The policy of the Executive has not changed. I have already listed the important measures we are taking under the Programme for Government that will help to reduce the differential in Catholic and Protestant unemployment. Long-term unemployment is higher among Catholics than Protestants. Areas where there is a concentration of unemployment tend to be predominantly Catholic. Tackling long-term unemployment and unemployment black spots will help to reduce unemployment among Catholics and Protestants and should help to reduce the difference in the unemployment rates between Catholics and Protestants. It is not for me to comment on press releases issued by people in a party political capacity.

With regard to the second part of the Member’s question, I understand that NISRA produced a briefing note, but it was on statistical and technical matters in relation to community differentials in unemployment. This is currently being evaluated. There are no current plans to publish this briefing note — and it is just that. There may be hundreds of briefing notes going to Ministers at any one time. This note was drafted for internal discussion, and it was concerned with statistical and technical issues. The Programme for Government states that we are committed to tackling the unemployment differential, and that remains our policy.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the last question reeks of hypocrisy, considering that Sinn Féin/IRA’s policy over the past 30 years has been one of economic warfare — that is their term, not mine — which has included the kidnapping and killing of businessmen, the bombing of business premises and the extortion of money from businesses? Does he agree that if the levels of deprivation which have been suggested in the Assembly today do exist, then the finger of blame should be pointed at those who have wrecked the economy for the past 30 years? Does he also agree that it is a bit odd that wreckers are now included in Northern Ireland’s Government?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member is straying from the question.

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

I thank the Member for his question. It is difficult to see which part of it refers to the role of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I will take the opportunity to restate that we are serious about dealing with the issue under consideration — the unemployment differential. That is a serious matter for the Assembly and the political process. It was not for me, in response to the previous question, to refer to statements issued by others on party political notepaper for party political reasons.

I will not respond in a similar manner to the Member’s question. It is not for me to make any judgement but this: there is a differential. That differential must be addressed, and the ways to address it are identified in the Programme for Government. We will not be made to deviate from that by any utterances either inside or outside the Chamber.

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

I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s comments. I want to press him further. How will New TSN action plans be updated and evaluated? Can he assure us that policy in respect of community differentials will remain unchanged?

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

I will take the second part of the question first. I assure the Member that those policies will remain unchanged. With regard to the substantive part of the question, every Department has, and is now implementing, a New TSN action plan. These will be published shortly. The Executive Committee will watch closely progress on the New TSN plans across all Departments, and Ministers will provide regular progress reports. Each Department will thoroughly review its action plan every year, update it to take account of progress, and build in new targets to follow those that have been met.

We will publish a New TSN report every year to let people see what has been achieved during the year. There will be an evaluation of New TSN, with a report in 2002. That evaluation will involve external experts, and the outcome will be used to assist further thinking on New TSN.

I repeat that there is no change in policy in respect of community differentials. The draft Programme for Government makes that clear. In line with the Belfast Agreement, we are committed to the progressive elimination of community differentials. I have already outlined some measures in the draft Programme for Government which are being taken to tackle community differentials in unemployment. Finally, no one should be tempted into going off at a tangent. That is what those who want to distract us from this objective would like us to do.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if, further to the resolution passed by the Assembly on 18 September 2000 (Official Report, Vol 6, No 2, p 64), representations have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the impact of fuel prices on the local economy.

(AQO 340/00)

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

As explained during the Assembly’s debate on this matter on Monday 18 September, we have made representations to the Government about this issue. We will continue to work on this matter.

Since the debate a number of representations have been made to the Treasury about the impact of fuel prices on our local economy. Following a meeting with the Petrol Retailers’ Association in October, Sir Reg Empey wrote to Mr Stephen Timms, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and brought to his attention statistics which demostrate the huge fall in legitimate fuel deliveries in Northern Ireland over the past five years.

He reiterated his deep concern, which the First Minister and I share, about the plight of the local petrol- retailing industry and pressed again for serious consideration to be given to a reduction in the duty rate applying to Northern Ireland. The First Minister and I have also written to the Chancellor to voice our concern about the effects of the high level of fuel tax and the difficulties that that is causing in Northern Ireland. We have requested a meeting with him to discuss that.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement. However, does the Deputy First Minister agree that the local haulage industry continues to be disadvantaged compared with its competitors in the Irish Republic. I am thinking of the cost of derv and excise duty. Will the Deputy First Minister continue to press the Secretary of State for increased resources for Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise and the RUC to help them to stop the illegal importation of fuel and the associated paramilitary racketeering? We must ensure that there is fair competition for the honest businessmen who are trying to transact legitimate business.

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

We are aware of the difficulties faced by the haulage industry and the people of the North of Ireland generally. The 50% cut in vehicle excise duties for lorries and the additional support for the haulage industry are welcome and should go some way towards helping to reduce the severe difficulties that the haulage industry faces. The proposal to raise the threshold for the reduced rate of vehicle excise duty for cars is also welcome but is unlikely to compensate for the significant increase in fuel costs over the past couple of years. For owners of cars over 1,500 cc, there is no benefit.

Ministers continue to make representations to the Treasury on the problem of supply and sale in Northern Ireland and to press for greater action by Customs and Excise, who have responsibility for tackling that issue.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Do the First and Deputy First Ministers recognise that the differential in fuel prices is lining the pockets of Republican organisations in my area of south Armagh? The differential is damaging legitimate fuel stations in border areas, and the smuggling of fuel into Northern Ireland is forcing many such stations to close. Have the First Minister and Deputy First Minister raised the serious problem of smuggling in border areas? What do they intend to do about it?

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

I repeat what I said in my answer to the original question. The First Minister and I are fully aware of the major decline in legitimate fuel deliveries to Northern Ireland. There has been a decline of 31% in the past two years. To a significant degree, that reflects the amount of petrol that is being smuggled.

The Treasury Minister has assured us that he takes the problem seriously. He has recently increased the resources available to tackle it, and we will continue to press him for results. Ministers will continue to make representations to the Treasury on the problems of supply and sale in Northern Ireland and to press for greater action by Customs and Excise, who have the responsibility for that problem.

The Member referred to his area of south Armagh. On the basis of my knowledge of the issue, I remind him that the cases that have been brought to date show clearly that the problem extends far beyond the border area.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the devolution of policing and criminal justice responsibilities to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

(AQO 341/00)

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The policing and justice section of the Belfast Agreement states that

"the British Government remains ready in principle, with the broad support of the political parties, and after consultation, as appropriate, with the Irish Government, in the context of ongoing implementation of the relevant recommendations" —

the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland and of the review of criminal justice —

"to devolve responsibility for policing and justice issues."

The criminal justice review body, whose report attracted broad support, noted that there was widespread support for devolving criminal justice functions to the Assembly and recommended that the same range of such functions should be devolved as is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

The review of policing arrangements recommends that responsibility for policing be devolved as soon as possible, except for matters of national security. The Government, through the Secretary of State, indicated in a reply to a parliamentary question on 26 October that devolution will follow as soon as is practicable once they have paved the way

"by completing the implementation of the policing reforms and giving practical effect to the decisions made on the Criminal Justice Review".

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

Does the First Minister believe that the devolution of policing and criminal justice powers to Stormont will make a difference to the attitude that the people in Northern Ireland have to the police and the justice system? Does the First Minister believe that that devolution will help tackle paramilitarism in Northern Ireland, and does he agree that it will only be dealt with when Members of the House take responsibility for policing and criminal justice and offer the right kind of political will to deal with the scourge of paramilitarism, rather than have Ministers on the mainland telling us that the normal rules of civilised society do not apply in Northern Ireland?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I agree with the Member’s comments — particularly his closing comments. The normal rules of civilised society do apply here, and it is our objective to see that that happens. The previous question demonstrates that there is a clear need to take responsibility for ourselves and the society in which we live. Only when we do that can we be sure that things will be done effectively.

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

I have listened carefully to the First Minister. Do he and the Deputy First Minister agree that the core element in the transfer of policing and criminal justice powers to Northern Ireland is dependent on agreement between the two political traditions that share this House? Do they also agree that that transfer can only take place in the context of the successful implementation of the criminal justice review and the Patten report?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I have already stated in a previous answer that the agreement so provides and that the criminal justice review so provides. In that context I was interested to see that there was a broad level of support for the report of the criminal justice review and pleased to see that it extended throughout the community. That is a matter of considerable encouragement to us, and it should enable us, when appropriate, to proceed in that matter.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if it was considered appropriate to launch the draft Programme for Government after the announcement of the 2000-01 Budget.

(AQO 323/00)

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Programme for Government and the 2000-01 Budget are inextricably linked and have been developed together. They have been considered together by the Executive, and the Budget was agreed in the light of the Executive’s views on the Programme for Government.

As we explained in our statement of 24 October, the Programme for Government required some final drafting before we could present it to the Assembly, but we expect that to be a problem for this year only.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for that reply and for the acknowledgement that the cart was put before the horse in this particular year, and I welcome the assurance that that will not happen in future years. Will the First Minister also assure the House that as the Programme for Government is developed — particularly in relation to the numerous public service agreements — adequate time will be given to the House, via its respective Committees, to scrutinise and advise on those issues?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

As we have endeavoured to say to the Member, it may appear that the cart was put before the horse, but it was not. We want to see full consultation, but there are items in the timetable that cannot move because of budgetary needs. I must say to the Committees — and this is in relation to the Programme for Government and to legislation — that there is a job to be done, and we call upon them to discharge that job. We cannot always move at the pace of the slowest member in the convoy.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the progress made by the Republican movement towards fulfilling the pledges it made on 6 May 2000 in respect of decommissioning.

(AQO 343/00)

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

9. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail what reports have been received from the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning on the issue of the decommissioning of illegal terrorist weaponry since the restoration of devolution on 30 May 2000.

(AQO 303/00)

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

12. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if they are aware of any indication of a re-engagement by the Provisional IRA with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

(AQO 344/00)

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

Mr Speaker, with your permission I will take questions 8, 9 and 12 together.

In May of this year the IRA gave a number of undertakings to facilitate the re-establishment of devolved arrangements. The IRA leadership stated first, its intention to initiate a process that would completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use.

Secondly, it stated its intention to resume contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) and to enter into further discussions with the commission. Thirdly, as a confidence-building measure, the IRA agreed to allow some arms dumps to be inspected, on a regular basis, by third parties who were then to report directly to the IICD. There have been two arms inspections. The first took place in June, and the second in late October. In its report of 26 October 2000, the IICD concluded that it

"cannot report progress on actual decommissioning during the period following the IRA’s renewal of contact in June, and the UVF and UFF’s earlier acceptance of methods of decommissioning and supporting issues."

However, the IICD welcomed this report and looked forward to other such reports.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Did the IRA not make certain promises to the Northern Ireland people to put their weapons beyond use, completely and verifiably? The people of Northern Ireland will not have faith in the process until they get an answer to the question which the Deputy First Minister himself put — are they going to do it, and when?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The time for questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is up. Unfortunately, the Deputy First Minister will be unable to respond to that question, save in writing, as he and the First Minister will be forced to do for the remaining questions.

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

Regional Development

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will outline how the targeting social need policy will be applied in relation to road improvement works.

(AQO 313/00)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

All potential major road schemes are being assessed for possible inclusion in the Department’s 10-year forward planning schedule. The assessments are based on five criteria — integration, safety, economy, environment and accessibility — in accordance with the Department’s Northern Ireland transport policy statement ‘Moving Forward’ which was published in November 1998. The process takes into consideration the objectives of the Department’s new targeting social need policy, primarily under the accessibility criteria.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer, but I am concerned that if TSN is to mean anything, the imbalance of the past will have to be addressed. Road improvement schemes in many areas of the Six Counties have been neglected, particularly in my constituency of South Armagh. On some sections of the main route into the area two buses or lorries cannot pass each other without stopping. Surely that is an unacceptable state of affairs in the twenty-first century. Will the Minister assure us that TSN will be applied to address the imbalance of previous decades when road improvement schemes were completely neglected?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The preface to the Department’s New TSN action plan states

"It is generally accepted that distance from centres of economic activity contributes to increased social need. Roads Service may be able to contribute to reducing peripherality through major capital schemes. However, the impact on overall social need is influenced by a combination of factors and, therefore, the specific contribution of road schemes cannot easily be determined. The Department has consulted widely including a number of district councils on the development of an appraisals framework to prioritise programmes for capital works. New TSN principles will be incorporated in the assessment criteria. The potential for all schemes to contribute further to improving conditions in areas defined as disadvantaged is also being examined."

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Does the Minister accept that his announcement last week on major road improvements, including the Toome bypass, which is in an area of social need, has again exposed his party’s "all perks and no work" attitude to ministerial office? Will he assure the Assembly, and the people of Northern Ireland, that the next major announcement by him, or his successor, will mean what it says, and will have more to do with targeting social need than party political need?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Despite some of his comments, I thank the Member for his contribution. I remind him that we do not enjoy any of the perks of office, as our Ministers and office-holders do not avail of official salaries. Perhaps the Member has been misinformed.

A briefing for the Regional Development Committee, of which the hon Member is the Deputy Chairperson, included the need for additional provision for road maintenance, and I highlighted once again my concern to seek some level of certainty in the capital programme funding over a three-year period. The funding that we have is such that some capital schemes may have to be deferred. All these schemes were announced subject to resources being available to allow them to commence.

Each Member, including the hon Member who posed the question, received a letter from my predecessor, dated 20 July, which indicated, not once but on five separate occasions, that that was the case. Last week at the Regional Development Committee I endeavoured to ensure that the necessary funding is in place so that capital works schemes can proceed as quickly as possible.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is interesting that the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee does not read the letters that he receives.

Can the Minister confirm that in the current year’s proposals there is enough provision to start these roadworks? Can he also confirm that unless the budget is cut drastically by the Executive, there will be sufficient finance to complete these roads in years two and three?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I can confirm that the amount that has been allocated in year one is sufficient to allow me to proceed as planned, but if funding in years two and three were to be reduced, road schemes may be unable to proceed at the pace envisaged. My predecessor and I made bids for funding that would have allowed those schemes to proceed and be implemented, but it may be the case that that is not the position.

Because of the media speculation surrounding last week’s announcement at the Regional Development Committee, I am in the process of placing a number of documents in the Assembly Library for Members’ information, including the roads major works construction programme, the roads major works preparation pool, the presentation given by the divisional roads manager to the Regional Development Committee in Omagh on 15 November, and the press release that accompanied that presentation. I have done that in order to be helpful and to ensure that Members are aware that we need the funding in years two and three to ensure that these road schemes proceed. That is my intention, my goal and my objective.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will detail the amount spent upgrading the drainage system in West Tyrone by year for each of the last five years, and what is the amount set aside for the current financial year.

(AQO 326/00)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Expenditure on drainage by my Department’s Roads and Water Services in the Omagh and Strabane district council areas was as follows: in 1996-97, £932,000; in 1997-98, £977,000; in 1998-99, £1,187,000; and in 1999-2000, £1,281,000. Figures for 1995-96, the first year of the period specified, are not readily available, but I can indicate that planned expenditure in the current financial year is up — again — at £1,313,000.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Can the Minister give a clear undertaking that his Department will alleviate the effects of the flooding that can sometimes occur three or four times a year in Newtownstewart? Will he also give an undertaking to liaise and work with the Rivers Agency to bring about a situation where the A5 is not subject to flooding six or seven times a year?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am aware of a number of flooding incidents not only in West Tyrone but across Northern Ireland, and I take every incident very seriously. My Department has been looking into the flooding that occurred on 28 October in the West Tyrone area and is currently endeavouring to ensure that measures are taken to make that flooding less likely in the future.

Our efforts can be seen in the amounts I have outlined. We are spending more, year on year, on trying to improve the drainage system to minimise the effects of any extreme flooding, which Northern Ireland has unfortunately been subjected to over recent months.

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

Due to the recent lack of adequate drainage systems in my constituency of West Tyrone we have experienced severe flooding, particularly in the Ballycolman area of Strabane because of the failure of electric motors in pumping stations. The main factor contributing to the failure of these motors was that they were clogged with leaves, which tripped the circuits. Fortunately, the local Water Service — and I compliment them on their work — got the pumps back into action and thus prevented dozens of homes being flooded.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Will the Member put the question?

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

Yes. Will the Minister assure me that his Department will check stations throughout the North of Ireland to make sure they will operate when needed? I represent a rural area, and my office constantly receives calls from residents complaining of sheughs being blocked throughout the constituency. Will funding be made available to upgrade these sheughs and small drains in rural constituencies?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I do not wish to make light of it, but it will be interesting to see how Hansard deals with the spelling of "sheugh". I will undertake to ensure that the areas mentioned by Mr McMenamin are investigated. I am aware of the locations he mentioned, and I have instructed my officials to go back to ensure that the problem is being alleviated. I will write to him if there is any unresolved or outstanding issue in direct relation to the incident he has just referred to.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will detail the damage caused to the transport infrastructure as a result of the recent inclement weather; and if he will make a statement.

(AQO 339/00)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The railway network suffered some structural damage during the recent inclement weather. There was a landslip near Seahill on the Belfast to Bangor line which temporarily closed one side of the railway line. There was also flooding near Magheramorne on the Belfast to Larne line which washed away some of the track bed ballast and closed the line temporarily. Repairs at both locations have now been completed and both lines restored to full operational status.

The roads network also suffered some structural damage. Severe surface damage has occurred on the B536 (Spout Road, Strabane) and the U0233 (Old Castle Road, Newtownstewart). There was an embankment slip on the A1 (Belfast to Newry road) near Dromore. Repairs are ongoing at the two former locations, and one of the southbound lanes of the A1 has been closed pending investigations regarding the slippage. The weather has also caused surface damage, such as increasing the number of potholes, surface deterioration and blocked culverts. On many other roads across the country the Roads Service has identified more than 30 sites which require remedial drainage work to reduce flooding.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I welcome Mr McMenamin’s use of Ulster-Scots. The Minister is well aware of the inter-agency approach to the problem of flooding, particularly on roads. I am minded of the flood alleviation methodologies which are coming through from Westminster.

I am sure that the Minister, like myself, hopes that funds will be consequential to that via the Barnett formula. Has he, together with the Rivers Agency, any plans to use these funds to alleviate the damage to the infrastructure, particularly on roads in the west? It is interesting that the two roads mentioned in the Minister’s answer are in west Tyrone.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I mentioned those roads, not because they are the only ones affected, but because the Member is from west Tyrone, and I had an inkling that he was referring to them. The Roads Service spends approximately £40 million a year on structural maintenance. That may seem like a considerable amount of money, but the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report confirmed that we need to spend £80 million a year simply to maintain the existing network to a reasonable standard, not to increase or upgrade it. I take the hon Member’s comments on board, and I will deliberate on how we can access additional funding in order to bridge that shortfall.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development what steps he is taking to bring construction works on roads and pavements to the attention of people with visual disability.

(AQO 319/00)

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

It is a legal requirement that anyone carrying out roadworks, including work to footways, must have regard to the special needs of visually handicapped and disabled people. The requirement for signing at roadworks is covered by chapter 8 of the Department of Transport’s traffic signs manual, which is published by the Stationery Office. Chapter 8 says that protection for visually handicapped people requires roadwork sites to be guarded on all sides accessible to pedestrians. This is not necessarily restricted to the footway side of the works, and provision may need to be made for people crossing the road. There must also be a pedestrian barrier which may be readily detected by a visually disabled person using a stick.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he not think that it might be useful if his Department were to inform the Royal National Institute for the Blind, or perhaps the local health trust, of roadworks that are about to commence, so that people with a visual impairment will not suddenly be confronted by unusual obstacles in their path? These groups could then pass this information on to the visually impaired.