Northern Ireland Assembly, 11 December 2000

79 contributions from 29 members. The official report.

Assembly: New Member

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

At the sitting of 4 December, I informed Members of the resignation of Mr John Hume as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the Foyle constituency. I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that the new Member for that constituency is to be Mrs Annie Courtney. I invite Mrs Courtney to take her seat by signing the Roll of Members.

The following Member signed the Roll: Annie Courtney.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am satisfied that the Member has signed the Roll and confirmed her designation. Mrs Courtney has now taken her seat.

Assembly Business

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday 7 December, my party was informed that today’s business would include a motion from the Executive on the Civic Forum. I understand that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have withdrawn that motion and will not proceed with it at this time. I do not know their reason, but that is not relevant to the point of order.

A hole has been left in our business that could have been filled by one of a long list of motions that are queued up for consideration. May I move the suspension of Standing Orders to allow the Business Committee to consider over lunch whether it might take one of the motions from the list and put it at the end of today’s sitting after all other business on the Order Paper has been dealt with?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As the House will know, sometimes the business that the Business Committee has agreed — whether a motion, a Bill or some other matter — is withdrawn. That is the case for private Members, and I regret to say that it has happened on several occasions. It also happens from time to time with Ministers and others.

The Member is correct that that alters the business, but at least Members know what the business is when they receive the Order Paper. I regret that it is not possible to table a motion for a suspension of Standing Orders, on this or any other matter, without its being on the Order Paper.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful, but I wish to make certain that I understood what you said. I see no stipulation in Standing Order 72 that that must be done by way of a written motion.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Standing Order 12(7) states that

"Motions relating to the business of the Assembly" —

for example, suspension of Standing Orders —

"shall be taken at the commencement of public business after notice and shall be decided without amendment or debate."

Members have not had written notice, which must be on the Order Paper. That is how we have proceeded heretofore.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I accept that. Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly. I refer to Standing Order 72, which would enable us to suspend the Standing Order to which you refer, if Members so wished. There was no edge to my comments about the withdrawal of the motion. It is simply a matter of good business practice to let everyone deal with a motion sought by one or more Members in the normal way, rather than give them the afternoon off.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I understand that the Member is referring to Standing Order 72. However, a motion for suspension is no different from any other motion, and under Standing Order 12(7) a motion for suspension of Standing Orders — a motion on the business of the House — would have to be on the Order Paper. I make no comment about whether that is a good way to arrange business under Standing Orders; I am simply doing my best to interpret Standing Orders and keep everything in order. I regret that we must now move on.

Electronic Communications Bill: First Stage

Denis Haughey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill to make provision to facilitate the use of electronic communications and electronic data storage.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Dogs (Amendment) Bill: Further Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Under the powers given to me in Standing Order 34(1) I have decided to accept a late amendment to this Bill, tabled by Mr P Robinson, on the ground of exceptional circumstances. I trust that the circumstances will indeed prove to be exceptional.

The Bill was, as I understand it, listed in the forthcoming business sheet for the week beginning 15 January 2001, or later. At an earlier stage a number of points, including the matter at issue, had been raised by Mr Robinson, and a ministerial reply was expected. I understand that when the Bill was rescheduled for today the ministerial reply had not been received. I cannot say whether it was sent. As I pointed out to the Business Committee, the whole purpose of the Further Consideration Stage becomes nugatory if Members are unable to table amendments. They only know from the Order Paper of the final opportunity for amendments after the deadline for the submission of amendments.

I hope that these circumstances will be exceptional, and on that ground I have accepted this amendment. It is the only amendment on the Marshalled List, and I trust that Members have received it.

Clause 1 (Power of court to order destruction of dogs)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move amendment number 1: In page 1, line 7, after "shall" insert

‘, unless, having taken account of all the circumstances, it appears to the court that exceptional mitigating factors exist,’.

I had expected, at the beginning of Further Consideration Stage, some explanation from the Minister as to why the Bill was being debated earlier than had been contemplated. It was on the list of forthcoming business scheduled for the week commencing 15 January 2001.

The handling of the Bill has perhaps been the worst practice of any Department that I have seen for a long time. First, the Bill was introduced without consulting those who have to enforce it, namely local authorities. To this day, they complain about aspects of the Bill and the fact that they have never been asked to comment on it. In her reply, which I eventually received, the Minister offered as an excuse the circumstances relating to the setting up of devolution in Northern Ireland as the reason why proper consultation did not take place. Of course, she and her Department did have time to consult with the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA), but she did not have time to consult with the statutory body responsible for enforcing dogs legislation — namely, local government in Northern Ireland.

Even after receiving complaints from local government, the Minister did not attempt to consult it on the issue. In effect, if it had not been for the exercise of the Speaker’s discretion, the Department would have succeeded in time-barring the Assembly from putting down any amendments. I shall quote the undertaking given by the Minister at the Consideration Stage, when she could not answer the questions that I had asked:

"As regards the other questions to which the Member seems to think he has received no answers, I am perfectly open in saying that I have not answered all his questions because I had no notice of them. There are issues involved which I, as a Minister, would be foolish to address off the top of my head."

The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development undertook to answer in writing, and she made it clear during the course of the debate that if Members were dissatisfied, they could table amendments at this stage. Therefore it was not unusual for a Member to hold back before tabling an amendment to see whether the Minister could resolve the difficulties raised at the earlier stage.

However, I had to ring the Minister’s Department last Thursday to ask for a copy of a letter that it said had been sent to me. Indeed, it was sent to me, after the request had gone to the Business Committee to consider this matter for this week’s business. Therefore, in effect, when I received the communication it was too late, according to the Standing Orders, to put down any amendment. However, with the exercise of your discretion, Mr Speaker, it has been possible for this amendment to be taken.

It is important that I set my amendment in context. As Members will know, a district council has no discretion at present — if a dog is proven to have attacked a person or to have worried sheep, the council must seek a destruction order in the courts. Equally, the courts have no discretion if they find that a dog did attack a person. "Attack", in this sense, it is worth pointing out, has a wider meaning than would otherwise be assumed. The interpretation given in the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 includes not only a physical attack on a person but the case in which the dog has behaved

"in such a manner so as to cause a person apprehension of being attacked".

At present, if a person is left with the apprehension that he or she is being attacked, that is sufficient for the courts to make a judgement on the matter, and they have no choice on what that judgement should be. They have to issue a destruction order on the dog.

It is obvious that this piece of legislation is intended to give some limited scope to the courts. In fact, the Bill itself does not offer any discretion to the council. It will still be necessary to take the case to the courts, and the courts will then have only limited discretion as to what they may do. They can, of course, issue a destruction order, or they can consider some other measure that should be taken by way of what might be described as punishment if it has been proved that an attack took place.

The Bill does not provide the courts with the discretion to determine that the dog should be exonerated in all the circumstances. How can the Minister argue that it is right to let the courts have discretion to determine whether the dog should be destroyed or whether some measures falling short of destruction should be applied, while not giving them the discretion to determine whether no action should be taken?

When the case comes to court, if an attack has taken place and the dog has been found guilty, only the extent of the punishment is to be determined. The Department is, in effect, saying to the Assembly that there are no circumstances in which a dog might attack or behave

"in such a manner so as to cause a person apprehension of being attacked"

that can be justified. A dog can never be justified in attacking an individual. That is the Department’s argument. I do not agree. I mentioned one such set of circumstances at the Consideration Stage.

I shall refer to it as the "Rover to the rescue" scenario, in which a dog comes to the rescue of its owner if the owner is under attack. One could perhaps hypothesise about several other possibilities: if a dog were the subject of severe brutality, it might be justified in its attempts to extricate itself from those circumstances. I have not tried to stretch my imagination too far in providing those examples, but I am sure, given the vivid imagination of some Assembly Members, that they could provide other examples. However, that does raise the question of why the Minister is insisting that a dog must be punished in those circumstances.

Does the Minister not trust the courts to exercise their discretion properly? One can only assume that she has confidence in the courts, otherwise she would not be giving them that additional element of discretion. Indeed, given the courts’ past practice, there is no justification for not giving them this further element of discretion. My amendment is framed to ensure that the courts know that only in rare and manifestly justifiable circumstances will they be able to exercise their discretion to the extent of exonerating the dog.

Mr Speaker, you set an excellent example when you exercised your discretion and said that you are prepared to do so only in very limited circumstances. The amendment is framed in such a way that it is made clear to the courts that they can exercise their discretion only in very rare and limited circumstances. It would be unreasonable for the Minister to resist the amendment.

I have attempted to determine why, in her response to me, the Minister was not prepared to accept the substance of the amendment. I suppose that when attempting to guess other people’s motives, one is treading on dangerous territory, but it strikes me that this is, perhaps, departmental arrogance. Is it a question of "Our officials framed this piece of legislation; the experts drafted it. How dare those Assembly Members think that they will be able to find some imperfection in our handiwork." Perhaps there is a direct rule legacy in the Department — "We are the people who will decide these matters, and we do not want any interference in the process from elected representatives."

Even in the correspondence that I received from her, the Minister gives little glimpse as to why she would turn down the amendment. From her correspondence, I can only deduce one explicit reason that she offers and, perhaps, one implicit reason. I want to deal with both of these. In her letter to me, she says:

"I fully understand the kind of situation you describe, i.e. where the dog is defending his owner and bites an attacker or intruder, and in those circumstances I could foresee the courts operating with a fairly light touch."

That is a telling sentence. It is a recognition on the part of the Department and the Minister that they recognise a set of circumstances as being valid. However, in dealing with that, all the Minister has to say is that she recognises that that set of circumstances could come about, and she hopes that the courts will let the dog off lightly "for its gallantry". That is only a "hope", of course, because it is left to the discretion of the courts as to how they interpret the legislation. That seems to be a strange approach by the Minister. I suspect that if a soldier were to come to the rescue of a member of the public he would be mentioned in dispatches.

If another citizen came to the rescue of a member of the public, he or she might be awarded a medal. The press might even bestow some credit on that person. However, if a faithful dog that loves its owner is prepared to put itself in harm’s way in order to protect its owner, the Minister’s answer is, "Well, you do not necessarily have to kill it; you can just punish it slightly." That does not seem to be a very humane approach to the matter, and it is a definition of mercy and compassion that I would not want to share. I can see no logic in the thinking behind that.

The other implicit reason given by the Minister in her correspondence for making no change in the Bill is that, based on past experience, there would be very few such occasions. The Minister said

"There are relatively few destruction orders made each year; in 1999 there were 40 attacks on people and 16 attacks on livestock; and I would envisage only a very few of those raising issues which might lead the Courts to consider that measures other than destruction could be taken to prevent the dog being a danger to the public or to livestock."

I do not know for how many years we might expect this piece of legislation to be in force in its present form. The last similar piece of legislation came forward in 1983. Therefore, for the purpose of my calculation, I am going to take a period of 17 years. On the 1999 figures provided by the Minister, that makes about 1,000 cases that may come before the courts.

I do not know — and neither does the Minister — how many of those cases would be of the kind for which the amendment might be applied. I do not think that it is a sensible approach for the Minister to say that it is not worth making the change that we could make today with so little effort. She would rather punish gallant dogs and be unjust than allow her Bill to be changed in any way.

Mr Speaker, you will know from your experience in another place that amendments generally fall into one of three categories. First, amendments can be tabled with the intention of doing violence to the Bill, of changing its direction, of attempting to undermine the key principles. In those circumstances, I would never be surprised if a Minister were to oppose an amendment. The second category is where somebody takes the opportunity that the Bill raises of riding his hobby horse across the pages of the Bill and putting down an amendment to extend it in some direction. I would seldom be surprised if a Minister might resist his or her Bill being used in that manner of convenience. However, there is a third category where Members try to improve the legislation to enhance the intention of the Bill, and are being helpful to the Minister and the Department.

It is obvious that this amendment does no violence to the principle that the Minister has included in this Bill. It is consistent with the purpose of the Bill, which is to allow the courts to have more discretion. I do not see how the Minister could argue that the amendment takes the Bill off in another direction — it is riding the same path that the Minister is riding. The only issue is whether it is right that in certain circumstances it might be opportune for the court to have the discretion not to destroy or to instruct that measures be applied to punish the dog for any action in which it has been involved.

As my amendment seeks only to improve and enhance the stated intention of the Bill, any attempt by the Minister to defeat the change will leave her defending the incomprehensible and appearing obstinate and arrogant. She will be seen to be defending her Department’s shortcomings with the same vigour as she might defend her honour or virtue.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

For the sake of completeness, I should say that there is at least one type of amendment in addition to the list that the Member has given. It is not uncommon for probing amendments to be put down. Their purpose is not to wreck or divert the Bill or divide the House, but to ensure that the Minister will put something on the record. That could be by way of an undertaking for a later stage, which is not relevant at this stage of the Bill, or something might be said by the Minister that could, subsequent to the Pepper v Hart judgement, be used by the courts in the interpretation of a piece of legislation, if it were unclear what the legislation intended.

The Member has helpfully referred to the fact that there are different kinds of amendments used by the House, and by Members, in different ways. This amendment has, however, been tabled and proposed.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I intend to accept the amendment. Does that remove the need for a debate?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is possible for the Minister to respond by way of acceptance, but normally Members could make some other remarks if they wanted to do so. Some of those remarks may be tempered by the Minister’s intervention.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I support the amendment. I know that the Minister has said that she will accept the amendment, but I cannot leave this issue without reiterating the criticism of the handling of the Bill. There has not been the kind of consultation for which one would have hoped for, especially with those who will have to enforce the legislation. As has been said, this is not unique to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. There is still a pervading sense in Departments that the expertise lies with their own legislative draftsmen. How dare anybody from outside criticise that?

We shall also find that problem with other Bills. Ministers ought to give due consideration to the people who have to implement legislation. They know where difficulties arise and where problems have occurred in the past. Therefore, they can see the flaws in the legislation, which in many cases is drawn up from the point of view of academic expertise rather than experience.

I shall reinforce my Colleague’s point. I am glad that the Minister has accepted the amendment, for a couple of reasons. First, one thing that has attracted much bad publicity to councils — and it has been the case in the council on which I serve — is when a destruction order on a dog has been made that, in the circumstances, has been patently unfair. Councils have no powers of discretion. The officer on the ground cannot make a judgement.

He cannot say, "There are mitigating circumstances that persuade me not to pursue this case in the courts." Under the terms of the Bill, the courts will not be able to exercise discretion in the circumstances that were described by my Colleague. Ultimately, the council will be at the front line when it comes to making destruction orders and will therefore attract all the bad publicity. The Bill gives the court some limited discretion, but, without the amendment, it does not give the court the discretion to do nothing.

It was ironic that the Minister had to rely on the argument that a court might "deal lightly" with a dog "in certain circumstances". What does that mean? The options open to a court, if it decides not to require that a dog be put down, are to muzzle it, confine it, exclude it or neuter it — all that from a Minister whose party has complained vigorously about the Government’s attempts to muzzle terrorists.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am trying to draw a parallel.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I can think of another parallel — how the Speaker should deal with Members. The Member should review what he said about the meaning of the phrase "dealing lightly" in tomorrow’s Hansard. He should be cautious about making comparisons with other areas, as the Speaker might be tempted to do so as well. The Member must remain tightly within the confines of the amendment and not wander too far from it.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I hope that you were not considering the fourth option that I mentioned, Mr Speaker. I could have gone on to speak about exclusion orders or incarceration, which the Minister’s party has deemed to be inappropriate for terrorists.

The clause sets out how a court might "deal lightly" with a dog that has been protecting its owner or his owner’s property. The Department should accept the amendment. We must be vigilant about allowing Departments to think that they know better and that they can railroad measures. That would be against the whole ethos of devolution.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am aware of the practice of tabling probing amendments, and deliberately did not mention it lest it give the Minister an easy route out.

The courts often consider the intentions of legislators. There is a sentence in the Minister’s letter that follows on from what my hon Friend said about the four specific measures mentioned in the Bill. In the letter the Minister says

"The kind of restrictions mentioned in clause 1 sets the parameters for the restrictions which the court could place on a dog but there is no reason why the courts should not, if it thought circumstances so dictated, define other measures sufficient to prevent the dog being a danger to the public or to livestock."

I simply put the matter on record because the courts may want to know that they have that additional measure of flexibility.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is important to have that matter on the record because — as Mr Robinson pointed out — the courts will often look at the intention behind legislation when it was being debated.

Finally — and I know that this has been raised before — there is concern as to how this legislation is to be enforced. The restraining, confining or exclusion of dogs will mean additional work for a local authority, although that is not being made clear. If that is to be the case, perhaps the Minister will clarify whether she intends for additional resources to be made available. Will those funds have to be found by local councils?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

It seems that the mover of the amendment has pre-empted my thinking and has presumed that I would not accept his amendment. Perhaps he underestimates his own powers of persuasion. He is very good on rhetoric but sometimes not so good on substance. It was interesting; perhaps he is not used to dealing with people with open minds. I am pleased that the Members opposite recognise the value of devolution and hope that they will continue to recognise it.

I did not have any amendments at the Consideration Stage, but Members will be aware that the Bill passed Committee Stage and — as Mr Robinson acknowledged when speaking at Consideration Stage — missed some key points. It is interesting that the Committee, of which he seemed to be somewhat critical, is chaired by his party leader and includes two more of his party members.

The timing of the Bill is not a matter for the Department, as the Member will probably be aware. The issue of consultation has been discussed at length in the House and at Committee Stage, and the reasons have already been given. I do not intend to go over them again. As regards additional resources, application of the legislation would be a matter for the RUC.

I have carefully considered the proposed amendment to clause 1. It seeks to further extend the courts’ discretion on whether to order the destruction of a dog or apply a lesser penalty, such as muzzling or confinement, where the dog has attacked people or livestock. The clause was drafted on the basis that if it were proved to the satisfaction of the court that an attack had taken place, the court would take any mitigating circumstances into account. Nevertheless, the court would still have to apply a penalty provision at whatever level it thought fit, in accordance with the provisions in the Bill.

That said, insofar as the terms of the proposed amendment offer the court the option of not applying a penalty at all, I am happy to accept it on the grounds that it is limited to circumstances in which exceptional mitigating factors exist. As such, it will offer the courts the widest possible discretion in any case of a dog attacking a person or worrying livestock. The Bill will therefore be amended accordingly.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Minister has said that the timing of the Bill is not a matter for the Department. That, of course, is correct. It is, however, a matter for the Executive Committee, under Standing Order 12(4). It was at that Committee’s request that the Bill was introduced at this time.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister is right in saying that I am somewhat surprised that she has accepted the amendment. It is not because of her ability to take into account any reasoned argument put forward, nor is it because I consider the Minister to be incapable of comprehending reasoned arguments. When the Minister wrote to me regarding the matters that I raised, which included this one, at Consideration Stage, I expected her to say that she was willing to accept an amendment, or to put down an amendment herself. She did not; therefore I tabled the amendment. I am pleasantly surprised, if not delighted, that the Minister is prepared to accept it.

I do not wish to appear churlish, but the amendment does improve the Bill considerably. Despite the Minister giving me what might be described as dog’s abuse in her remarks, I must say that at no stage did I offer any criticism of the Committee — neither at Further Consideration Stage nor at Consideration Stage in November 2000. My criticism was of the Department, which has a responsibility to consult with those persons responsible for enforcing legislation that passes through the House. A Department cannot assume that a Committee will do the work for it. Instead, Departments should to be managing the wider consultation, especially in the light of the amount of work with which Committees are faced. It is not possible for Committees to bring in various interested parties for every Bill that comes before them.

The Minister may think it a telling point when she says to us that there is a value in devolution. I do not know where the Minister has been, but the Democratic Unionist Party is a devolution party. We believe in devolution. We believe that devolution is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland for precisely the reasons she is explaining. Certainly, we have major difficulties and objections to the form of devolution being exercised in Northern Ireland, but that does not detract from our adherence to the principles of devolution, which we believe is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

Bill passed Further Consideration Stage and referred to the Speaker under Standing Order 35(3).

Part-Time Workers Regulations

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

I beg to move

That the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 be approved.

I shall refer to these Regulations as the Part-time Regulations. They were brought before the Assembly on 27 June 2000 and came into operation on 1 July 2000. They are subject to confirmation by the Assembly within six months of the date that they came into operation.

The Regulations implemented European Directive 97/81/EC, as extended to the UK by Directive 98/23/EC, in Northern Ireland, and correspond closely to those made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in Britain, which also came into force on 1 July 2000. Their aim is straightforward: they make it unlawful for unscrupulous employers to treat part-time workers less favourably than comparable full-timers.

Part-time workers, therefore, must receive the same hourly rate of pay as full-timers, the same access to occupational pension schemes, the same access to training and the same entitlement to annual, parental and maternity leave on a pro rata basis. In that way we can ensure that part-time workers are not treated less favourably in their contractual terms and conditions than comparable full- timers, unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds.

I commend the Regulations to the Assembly.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I am grateful for the opportunity to make some comments on my own behalf and on behalf of the Committee. I appreciate the Minister’s remarks. It is of note that equivalent Regulations now apply in the other parts of the United Kingdom and that these Regulations have been in operation in Northern Ireland since July. As the Minister said, it is somewhat imperative that we confirm these Regulations today so that in meeting required timescales we comply with European law.

The underlying reason is the possibility of so-called Frankovich cases. The European Court has now made provision for individuals to sue the Government in their jurisdiction if that Government fail to implement current European Directives and Regulations. The Committee regrets that suspension between February and June cut short any contribution from the Committee at drafting stage of the Regulations in Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding that, on 9 November, the Committee took evidence on the Regulations and, on 10 November, we wrote to the Minister, listing some of our main concerns. It was not felt that those concerns merited a special report to the Assembly.

The burden of our concern is with respect to the limitation on the comparators against which part-time workers under this Directive are to be compared. It implies that only some, not all, part-timers will be able to avail of protection under the Regulations. Particularly of note is the fact that in these Regulations, unlike the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976, there is no provision for a so-called hypothetical comparator.

The Committee supports the motion because it approves of the broad principles of equity contained in the Regulations. At the same time, it is concerned about some of the details. In this matter, we are constrained to a great extent to comply with the rest of the European Union. Nevertheless, the Committee stresses the value and appropriateness of an early review on the part of the Minister and the Department of the implementation of the Regulations to ensure that they are achieving their objective, which is the equitable treatment of part-timers relative to full-time workers.

I urge support for the motion.

Mervyn Carrick (DUP, Upper Bann)

I agree with Dr Birnie. I welcome the extension of statutory rights of equal treatment to part-time workers. Although the Committee raised several issues with the Minister, it is aware that the legislation needs to be brought into force. Apart from the absence of the hypothetical comparator referred to by Dr Birnie, the Committee was concerned at the absence of a code of practice, which many of the bodies responding to the Department’s consultation process had asked for. Although that is not a flaw in the legislation itself, we believe that a statutory code of practice would give extra weight to the legislation and give clear guidance to part-time workers on their rights.

Many part-time workers are employed by small organisations that do not have the resources to make the advice available. A code of practice conveys good practice guidelines. I note that a similar document supporting legislation on recruitment and selection helped to change the culture in that area, as well as providing useful guidance for employers and employees alike.

The Committee also examined guidance on the Regulations that has been made available in all jobcentres. Although easily readable, the guide, we found, was confusing in some areas, and at times it gave misleading or perhaps unlawful guidance. Our views on that have been submitted to the Minister. In particular, the lack of statutory guidance on what comprises objective grounds for an appeal under the legislation leaves the whole issue to be sorted out at a tribunal. The onus is on the individual to identify his or her rights as a part-timer. We consider that employers should periodically review how individuals are provided with information on their rights as part-time workers.

I note that House of Commons staff are specifically mentioned in the corresponding legislation. Individuals in the Assembly have not been included in the Northern Ireland Regulations that we examined. I am especially concerned that staff working in the Northern Ireland Assembly should be covered by the legislation.

I too wonder how the effect of these Regulations will be evaluated. There should be some form of future inspection to ensure that the Regulations have been implemented properly and are being adhered to by employers. Despite my reservations, I agree with the Chairman about the importance of the Regulations.

I support the motion and commend it to the House.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the extension of the statutory right of equal treatment to part-time workers. The Committee raised several issues with the Minister. One of those issues was a code of practice that would give clear guidelines to part-time workers on their rights. The Committee believes that a statutory code of practice would not only add weight to the legislation but also guarantee protection for the most vulnerable workers, especially those working in smaller firms.

As the moment, part-time workers on fixed-term contracts cannot pursue a claim to win equal rights, even if they can find a full-time worker with a similar contract to act as a comparator. The absence of comparators is a serious weakness in the legislation and means that a large number of workers in low-paid jobs such as cleaning and catering, mainly women, will have limited protection. Similar limitations mean that the rights and terms of employment of term-time workers — a subject much discussed in the Assembly — cannot be properly addressed.

The rights of casual and temporary workers, home workers, agency workers, and other non-timed piece workers cannot be addressed either.

However, the legislation is welcome as a step in the right direction, although it is also a missed opportunity to really put in place legislation that would impact on the huge number of part-time workers in the North — approximately 200,000. The estimate that this legislation will impact on only 7,000 of those part-time workers indicates some of the legislation’s weaknesses. It is obvious that the legislation promised businesses and employers a light touch, and certainly a minimum of red tape. However, I welcome the introduction of the legislation. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

We also welcome the introduction of legislation that puts part-time workers on the same footing as full-time workers. That is important. However, we have several important concerns on which we would be grateful for further clarification from the Minister.

Obviously, the Regulations are of particular interest to the Women’s Coalition, because 83·1% of part-timers are women. Some 36% of women work part-time, compared to 6% of men.

We are aware that these Regulations are the implementation of the European Commission Directive on part-time workers, brought into Great Britian legislation, and now extended to Northern Ireland. We are concerned that, in the rest of the UK, the Directive has been given the narrowest possible interpretation. However, on listening to the Minister, I have been given some assurance that several areas of concern could be alleviated — for example, the issue of the rates of pay. There is a marked incidence of low pay among part-time workers in Northern Ireland. The figures show that, in 1999, 22% of part-time employees earned less than £4 an hour, and, of those, 80% were women.

The earlier notes to the Regulations gave an example of a justified difference in hourly rates where employees are shown to have a different level of performance, measured by a fair and consistent appraisal system. I am assuming that the Minister, in his opening statement, said that there would be no difference in hourly pay between full-time and part-time workers. We welcome movement on that issue.

Our second point is on training. We are all aware that training has been much less available to part-time workers. In the Minister’s opening statement, we heard that this also is to be clarified and that part-time workers will have access to training. That is vitally important, given that the majority of part-time workers are women. It is vital that they have access to training.

Dr Birnie raised the issue of comparators. Mr Carrick raised the point of the code of practice, which is important. We have a further question about situations when differential treatment is justified on objective grounds. It is important to understand what "objective grounds" means, so that we do not leave too many loopholes that could be used by unscrupulous employers to discriminate against people.

Those are the main points on which we wish to seek assurance. We support the calls from Dr Birnie and Mr Carrick for an early review of the implementation of the Regulations to ensure that they are being properly applied and that there is absolutely no discrimination against part-time workers.

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

I thank all the Members who have spoken on this issue. I share their objective of ensuring that part-time workers enjoy the same level of protection as full-time workers — the same guarantees in their terms and conditions of employment and, insofar as it is necessary, the enhancement of those terms and conditions to the highest possible standard.

We should not assume that all, or many, employers of part-time workers are unscrupulous in their approach or that they are intent on denying workers their rights. It has been pointed out that only a small number of part-time workers will be affected by the Regulations to be implemented under the legislation. However, many part-time workers already enjoy the same standards as their full-time counterparts, and that is the case throughout the public sector. If, as Mr Carrick suggested, there are deficiencies in the conditions of employment of part-time staff in this institution, I would be very anxious to hear about them and to be assured that all part-time workers were receiving the level of protection required by the legislation. I would be very concerned if that were not so.

Points were made on the comparators used to determine terms and conditions for workers. The Regulations require a comparator to be in a job broadly similar to that of a full-time worker,

"having regard … to qualifications, skills and experience".

Part-time employees are allowed to compare themselves to their predecessors in their posts, and that should be particularly helpful to women returning to work. I am very aware that a significant majority of part-time workers are women. All the evidence shows that many women receive a lower level of remuneration than their male counterparts. I trust that the Regulations that are to come into force under this legislation will go a long way towards enhancing the situation of women.

On the subject of review, I am anxious to ensure that we monitor the implementation of the Regulations, and I am sure that that will happen. We shall be assisted in that by the statutory agencies involved and by the trade union movement, and I shall welcome all their comments, observations, reports and evaluations. We are at the first stage of this legislative process in Northern Ireland. It was introduced shortly after suspension. Before that, there was very limited opportunity for making detailed comment on such legislation, as Dr Birnie pointed out, but that should not prevent the Committee and others from making additional evaluations, which might be helpful to us as we move forward. I trust that I have covered most of the main issues.

The legislation is a significant advance and I commend it to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 be approved.

Drink-Drive Offenders

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the Courses for Drink-Drive Offenders (Experimental Period) (Extension) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000.

The Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 provides for an experiment in the use of courses as a sentencing option for convicted drink-drive offenders. On satisfactory completion of the course, the offender may receive a minimum of three months reduction and a maximum reduction of one quarter of the period of disqualification from driving.

The aim of the scheme is to prevent reoffending. The purpose of the experiment is to test the viability of the courses and to facilitate the evaluation of their effectiveness in preventing reoffending.

An Order to reduce a period of disqualification can be made where the following conditions are met: where an offender of 17 years of age or over has been convicted of a relevant drink-driving offence resulting in a driving disqualification of 12 months or more, and the court has explained in ordinary language the provisions of the Order to reduce the period of disqualification to the offender, also informing him or her of the amount of the fees for the course and of the requirement that he or she must pay them before the beginning of the course, the court must be satisfied that a place on the course specified in the order will be available for the offender. Then, with the agreement of the offender, the order may be made.

An experiment has been running in the petty sessions district of Belfast and Newtownabbey since 1 April 1998. That experiment will end on 31 December 2000 unless the Department makes an Order before that date to extend the period. The Probation Board for Northern Ireland was appointed as the sole course organiser, and the fee payable to the organiser is £100. Courses include information about alcohol and its effect on the body, on driving ability and on behaviour; an analysis of personal drinking patterns and how they relate to the driving offence; the impact that drinking and driving can have on victims and their families; alternatives to drinking and driving; and personal strategies and sources of advice to prevent repeat offending.

Each course is made up of nine weekly two-hour sessions. To complete a course successfully a participant must attend all nine sessions in full. To date, 12 courses have been completed; 113 people attended and, of those, 109 — 96% — completed all nine sessions. The remaining four participants withdrew for personal reasons.

The main criterion for judging how successful the courses have been is whether offenders who have attended a course are less likely to re-offend within three years than those who have not. From 1993 to 1999, courses for drink-drivers were run experimentally in 18 designated areas in England and Wales. The scheme will become permanent there with effect from 1 January 2001. In England and Wales it was found that offenders who had completed a course were almost three times less likely to be reconvicted of a serious drink-driving offence than those who had not.

Initial indications are that courses in Northern Ireland are effective. Participants have shown a marked increase in knowledge about alcohol and its effect on the body, as well as a better attitude to not drinking and driving. However, more time is required for fuller evaluation of the impact of courses on reoffending. The Order before the Assembly will extend the current experimental scheme for a further period of five years, to the end of 2005. The Lord Chancellor will make a separate Order designating all petty sessions districts in Northern Ireland. That will allow all relevant drink-drive offenders in Northern Ireland the opportunity to attend a course. It will also allow the collection of data on a sufficiently large sample of offenders to permit the carrying out of reconviction rate analyses.

I commend the Order to the Assembly.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Drink-driving is a very serious issue. Nothing that has been discussed today, or the Courses for Drink-Drive Offenders (Experimental Period) (Extension) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000, should be understood as taking the issue of drink-driving with anything less than the seriousness and gravitas it deserves. Many innocent people have lost their lives through drink- driving. The Minister brings the motion to the House to try to help people who have been disqualified from driving to see the seriousness of their conviction and to stop them from reoffending. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on behalf of the Committee.

The Statutory Rule was brought before the Assembly’s Environment Committee on 7 December 2000, and it was unanimously recommended that the Order be affirmed by the Assembly. I fully support that recommendation. However, the Committee had several questions, and officials from the Department of the Environment appeared before us. We still have some concerns that I ask the Minister to consider.

If someone is keen to drive again, surely it must look like a very attractive offer to have his or her suspension reduced if he or she satisfactorily completes a course approved by the Department. We are concerned that the actual take-up rate is very low — some 6% of all offenders. The fee to join the course is £100. To many in the House, £100 may not seem a lot of money. However, for some people who would like to take up this course, and would greatly benefit from it, the fee could be regarded as a substantial amount. Is it not possible to provide the course at a lower cost? Has the Department considered some form of support from the car insurance industry? After all, it is in its interest as much as anyone else’s for the courses to be successful.

The Committee was told that the experiment is to be extended throughout Northern Ireland. However, we were also informed that there will only be four centres — in Belfast, Ballymena, Armagh and Londonderry. Surely this will disadvantage people from outside those areas. For example, how can people from Enniskillen, Larne or Newry be expected to travel to a two-hour session at night? Remember that they do not have a driving licence. Those are questions that have exercised the Committee, and I hope that the Minister will take them on board.

I assure Members that the Committee and I support the Order and urge the House to do likewise.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I would like to reiterate the points made so expertly and comprehensively by our Committee Chairperson to reflect the views of the Committee.

This motion represents an enlightened approach to a significant and growing social problem. I commend the point about the vested interest, almost, of the driver who has been convicted and disqualified, and who wishes to drive again and be reinsured.

In those circumstances, the insurance companies impose a significant increase in the cost of insurance cover. It is important to encourage a greater uptake of this important form of counselling and awareness training. A 6% uptake is really a record of failure, but the concept of the course itself is worthy of strong support. We should try to redress the difficulties faced in obtaining a more appropriate level of uptake. If the Minister could address the insurance brokers directly they may be prepared to make an allowance upon successful completion of the counselling course. I understand that one broker already provides that incentive.

The statistics demonstrate that those who complete the course are three times less likely to reoffend than others with similar convictions who did not opt for the course. All the evidence points to the value and efficacy of that approach, but we must find ways and means of encouraging more and more people to avail themselves of it.

I strongly support the measure. Does the Minister agree that it would benefit us all if we could encourage more convicted drivers to take up the course? One effective means of doing that would be to provide the incentive of an insurance premium deferral or reduction upon successful completion of the course. We would all gain from that.

Go raibh maith agat.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I support the Minister’s proposals. As Dr McCrea mentioned, we also want to keep in perspective the reasons why drink-driving remains one of society’s ills. The television advert launched by the Minister only a few weeks ago highlights the gravity of drink-driving and the need to curtail it.

There has been a decline in drink-driving cases, which we welcome, but much more must be done. The graphic nature of the advert hits home to everyone, but those of us who are parents can relate especially to what happens to the wee boy playing football in the security of his back garden.

At the same time, we must look at the proposal to extend the experimental period, because, in its own way, it addresses some of the important issues. The road accident figures for the past year make horrific reading. They are just up on this year, with 577 alcohol-related and drug-related accidents, 34 fatalities and 1,072 total casualties, ranging from the slightly injured to the seriously injured.

Many of us believe that we should consider zero tolerance of drink-driving. Many people would like to see that. The experimental method in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom has not been very successful. However, it has had a marked level of success. The fact that a solicitor or a barrister, pleading on behalf of an offender, can ask for his client to attend the nine-stage course as a means of rehabilitation through treatment and education is a positive way of addressing the issue. However, I wish to see more of those who have been convicted taking up the course. Perhaps that tells one a lot about the people as well; perhaps they need their jobs more and perhaps they are prepared to redress the wrongs that they have done.

It is fair and just that a successfully rehabilitated offender should be allowed back on the road after a series of courses that will treat and educate him. Many have made mistakes; many are genuinely sorry and wish it had never happened. None the less, it did happen, and they make amends for it.

Can the Minister provide figures broken down into separate categories for driving offences involving drugs and those involving alcohol? Is the Minister considering adding to the existing categories, perhaps creating one specifically for accidents caused by excessive speed? Excessive speed is the biggest killer on the roads and also causes the greatest number of casualties. Dr McCrea mentioned assistance for those travelling to take part in courses. Will such assistance be made available? The four locations are not accessible to everyone in the Province, and the Minister should consider that.

The extension of the experimental scheme for another five years keeps Northern Ireland in line with the position on the United Kingdom mainland. It builds on the limited success of the scheme and gives offenders the chance to address their mistakes and learn from them. I hope that that will allow offenders to contribute to society more fully than previously.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Article 36(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 states that a court can reduce the period of disqualification imposed on a drink-drive offender, provided that the offender satisfactorily completes a rehabilitation course. By providing for the continuation of that power until the end of 2005, the Order will facilitate a comprehensive evaluation of the experimental scheme. Such an evaluation is necessary if we are to assess the scheme’s ability to deter those who participate from reoffending within three years of the relevant conviction. The scheme is a significant road safety measure and will contribute to a reduction in road casualty figures. I hope that, in due course, it will become permanent, but in the meantime I look forward to its continuation and to the evaluation of its effectiveness.

I shall answer the questions asked by Members. I take on board the points that Members have made about the course. These days, when there is terrible carnage on the roads, it is important that we do all that we can to ensure that the number of accidents is reduced. Indeed, it has been suggested that we should have a policy of zero tolerance.

I was asked why the courses could not be provided free or at a reduced fee. It is reasonable that the participants finance the courses, although the cost of the course must not be a disincentive for potential participants. The Probation Board has set the fee with that in mind. The cost of running one course has been estimated at £1,000, which means that 10 participants are necessary for a course to break even. Thus far, the average number of course participants has been just under 10. I assure Members that fee levels will be considered when we make a decision on the scheme’s permanency. I am sure that Members appreciate the difficulties.

Dr McCrea referred to the locations in which the courses will be available. Under the extended experiment, courses will be available in Belfast, Ballymena, Londonderry and Armagh, and the offender will choose the location. The provision of courses in other places will be considered, if experience suggests that that is necessary. One of the first points that I made was about the situation for people from isolated areas, such as Enniskillen, my home town, Newry and other areas. My staff will examine that point.

Insurance companies in Northern Ireland do not normally offer reduced premiums to those who have completed a course, although one broker claims to offer such a reduction. Offenders are advised that there is a possibility of obtaining reduced premiums from an insurance broker, but it is up to them to trawl the market. My officials will pursue the matter with insurance brokers and companies in Northern Ireland. However, we cannot make promises, as it is a matter for the individual and the insurance company.

How will the Department increase uptake from the current level of 6%? For the extended experiment, the name of the course will be changed from ‘Rehabilitation Courses for Drink Drive Offenders’ to ‘Courses for Drink Drive Offenders’. That should, to some degree, address the perception that courses are for people with an alcohol problem.

12.00

From August 2000, all offenders referred have received a letter and information leaflet from the course organiser, explaining the purpose of the course and outlining its content. Leaflets are to be redesigned to present information in a simpler and more attractive way. The Department will issue a press release early in 2001 to highlight the extended scheme and what it offers. Solicitors will receive direct mailing, and magistrates will be informed of the extended experiment.

Mr Shannon asked whether courses were available for persons convicted of drug-related road traffic offences and whether they could be extended. He asked for the present breakdown of drink-related and drug-related offences. Alcohol-related offences are the main offences taken into consideration at present. Although drug-related offences are rarer, we shall consider them too.

This presentation on behalf of the community in general is most important as far as road safety is concerned. I trust that I have addressed Members’ questions to their satisfaction. My officials will identify any questions or points made that I have overlooked, and I shall write to those concerned. I thank Members for their interest in the debate and for their commendation. I am glad that everyone is in favour of the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly approves the Courses for Drink-Drive Offenders (Experimental Period) (Extension) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000.

Draft Financial Investigations Order: Assembly Ad Hoc Committee

Coats Barbour: Job Losses

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what has been done to avoid the impending job losses at Coats Barbour, Lisburn.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The recent announcement of proposed redundancies at Barbour Campbell Threads is regrettable. However, this was a commercial decision taken by the company because of global market conditions.

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

This company is a mainstay in the Lisburn area, and the consequences of 60 job losses at this time of the year, or indeed at any time of the year, cannot be overstated. These job losses will take about £1 million out of the local economy — spending power that will be lost to local business, which will have to grapple with the knock-on effects. It is conceivable that some businesses may be forced to re-examine staffing levels to take account of the loss of these manufacturing jobs. In essence, we are not just talking about 60 jobs, because more may depend on this long-established company’s subcontracts and the money it injects into the Lisburn economy.

Like many other companies in this sector, Barbour Campbell Threads is not immune to the volatility of world markets and the pressure on margins caused by cheap imports. I understand that little can be done on the home front to create a level playing field for this sector. However, I ask the Minister to explore the potential of raising this matter in a European context. In addition, can the Department’s agencies, particularly the IDB and LEDU, undertake a comprehensive review of textiles to determine what can be done to protect remaining jobs and safeguard some of the Province’s older companies?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I deeply regret the fact that a consultation process has begun with the trade unions. It may be that some redundancies will take place in the first quarter of 2001, with the remainder towards the end of 2001. However, I want to make a couple of points. First, while the company advised the IDB of the impending job losses, it did not seek financial assistance. I understand that the decision reflects on the inability of the Hilden operation to match the cost of synthetic thread products, which can be sourced more cost-effectively from Asia.

I also understand that they have a strategy of focusing on speciality products and that the company is receiving Industrial Research and Technology Unit assistance on a number of technical matters. These include a method of bonding and sewing threads using an innovative curing system rather than the current solvent-based system.

My Department initiated a review last June. We appointed Kurt Salmon Associates as consultants. The report has been completed, although I have not yet received it. However, I hope to make a statement about it after the recess because a number of Members have asked me questions on those matters and have great concerns. However, what can be done is being done.

Ironically, in the next few days when certain figures will be released, Members will find that there is still a degree of buoyancy in certain sectors of the textile market. However, in this particular case the company has taken a strategic decision to protect its position, bearing in mind that it is a substantial company currently employing some 300 people.

I understand and sympathise with the Member’s concerns that such a large concentration of job losses in the Lagan Valley area has a knock-on effect. However, I believe that the company has made the strategic decision to specialise in areas where it will not be facing the wall of Asian competition with its low-wage economies, as it is very hard to compete under those circumstances.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his reply to my Colleague from Lagan Valley, Mr Davis. I wish to place on record my and my constituents’ concern at such a potential loss of jobs at such a historic company — one which has its roots deeply imbedded in the Lagan Valley constituency.

Is the Minister aware that rumours have been circulating for a protracted period about the firm? Will he ensure that there is no asset-stripping in the concern? Will he also ensure that all the grants that have been provided — for example, through IDB — are secured and that there will be no attempt to remove machinery, et cetera, from the country?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

First, I will say to the Member for Lagan Valley that the company has made no request for financial assistance. The company took a strategic decision, and this announcement was made. To be precise, Hilden is to become a centre of excellence for speciality threads to be used in the manufacture of car airbags, seatbelts, sportswear and upholstery products.

With regard to what the Member describes as asset- stripping, IDB, of course, has rules about how assets are treated if those assets are currently in receipt of IDB resources. That may not be the case in this matter, but we are acutely aware of the sensitivities of these matters. Any company that has an agreement with us has to honour its terms and conditions. It is a legally enforceable document — and I draw that to your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I stress that the company will remain a significant employer in the Lagan Valley area. It has a clear strategy as to what it wants to do. It was its decision and the company has made no recourse to us for assistance.

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

I add my dismay to that of my two Lagan Valley Colleagues concerning the number of job losses at Barbour Campbell Threads. One of the issues raised by many of its workers was the lack of consultation. I am glad to hear that consultation started in June, yet well over a year ago I spoke to some people from IDB about concerns that had been raised. One of the biggest issues was the lack of consultation between the workforce and the management.

Also, machinery was removed from Barbour Campbell Threads and sent to Hungary, and Coats Viyella has another venture in Asia. Is the streamlining a bit more sinister than we thought? In the past, it was suggested that Lisburn would be a centre of excellence, but how many people will be employed in it? Very few, compared to the current numbers.

The work force at Barbour Campbell Threads is a tightly knit community, and two or three people in the same family could lose their jobs. The impact on the quality of life for many in that community will be horrendous. Many of those people have been kept waiting to hear when they will lose their jobs; they could not find other employment, because they were not told when they would be made redundant. If they wished to take redundancy, the company would not let them. People have been badly put upon, and the Minister should take that into consideration.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I sympathise with the people who find themselves in those circumstances. It is not a unique situation; people elsewhere, particularly in the textiles industry, have experienced exactly those problems. However, the Member must be aware that consultation with trade unions is a matter for the company and the unions.

I appreciate the local circumstances and that individual families can be disproportionately affected, but I must point out two things. First, there is the whole question of outsourcing, which is the process by which companies based in the United Kingdom carry out part of their functions overseas. That will be a growing problem. Some indigenous Northern Irish companies are now, as a matter of policy, outsourcing in regions such as Sri Lanka, north Africa and South Africa. That will not change, and we will be confronted with that in a range of situations. We will have to return to the issue because, sooner or later, someone will seek assistance for outsourcing. That will be a big issue for the House.

We must also consider the general position in the Lagan Valley. There are 41 IDB client companies in the Lagan Valley area, employing almost 5,000 people. I shall put that in context: selective financial assistance of £80 million has been made available in support of projects worth some £240 million in the past five years. There has been substantial IDB activity in the constituency. Even in the worst case scenario, Barbour Campbell Threads will still have 230-240 employees and will still be a substantial force. They have the technical ability to turn the plant into a centre of excellence, as has been discussed for some time. Funding has been made available, and the Industrial Research and Technology Unit has assisted them with the technical aspects. We are trying to take the necessary steps to protect the long-term future of the company.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The size of the company makes this a serious blow to the local economy. What investment has IDB made in Barbour Campbell Threads? Does the Minister know how many jobs will be available when the new centre of excellence is created?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I shall write to the Member with details of the assistance that has been available for the long term. I repeat that we were not asked for anything additional.

It will remain a significant player in the constituency. Also, Coats Viyella has decided to sell certain parts of its businesses, and a number of Northern Ireland companies in its clothing and household furnishing sector are for sale at the present time. The thread business is going to remain the core business for Coats Viyella. I cannot say how much long-term funding was put into it, but I do know that in 1997 a letter of offer was issued to Barbour Campbell Threads in the sum of £1·4 million. To date, £733,000 has been drawn on the basis of that letter of offer, so there is an ongoing arrangement, which I assume is linked to either sales or employment targets. It might be better if I were to write to the Member with the precise details, but that is the statistical situation at this stage.

Question proposed:

That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker]

Toome Bypass

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I brought the issue of the Toome bypass to the attention of the House by way of an Adjournment debate because of the anger and frustration felt by people west of the Bann at the Minister’s shock announcement that this project was once more going to be put in suspension, delayed or cancelled.

It may be that the Minister is playing hardball with the Executive or with the Minister of Finance and Personnel, or it may be that he is playing politics with a very critical, strategic issue around the Toome bypass. If he is playing hardball with the Executive or with the Minister of Finance, knowing that this is a vexatious issue that has caused hardship for a great number of years, he may feel that by creating a lot of controversy around his remarks he can force the hand of the Minister to give him the extra moneys that he is looking for.

I suggest that the Minister would have had a more responsible and responsive position had he carried on this debate in the Executive, and not outside the Executive, and that the place to decide these issues of urgency, of hardship and of crisis is in the Executive and not outside it.

It is barely a year since the Minister’s predecessor, Peter Robinson, arrived in Toome, to a fanfare of TV, newspaper and Department of the Environment personnel coverage, to launch, in a blaze of publicity, the Toome bypass project. We, along with the assembled gathering, were told that the money had been secured. We were told that construction would commence by the end of 2001. It may be that it will commence towards the end of next year, but we do not know. We are waiting for the present Minister to indicate, perhaps in a more realistic way, what his intentions are regarding an issue that is critical, that has caused hardship, and that we know from the reduction of the acute services in the Mid-Ulster Hospital could cause death itself.

Some 21,000 vehicles — a conservative estimate — travel this road daily, and some 5,000 people in construction, education and the health services travel from areas west of the Bann to Belfast and back.

Each day we have two-mile-long queues, and average speeds are seven to 14 miles per hour. This occurs for one or two hours in the morning and for one or two hours in the afternoon.

These are critical issues for people who live west of the Bann. The road infrastructure west of the Bann is bad enough as it is. A bypass around Magherafelt has been awaited for many years. We are disadvantaged, yet we are being further disadvantaged by this Minister. He lives west of the Bann, and one would think that he would have a vested interest in ensuring that the Toome bypass be put in place quickly. Perhaps, politically, the Minister would be chopping off his nose to spite his face — I do not know.

I want Members to consider the critical issue of health and the Health Service west of the Bann, where people currently have to travel from Magherafelt to Antrim in emergencies. Travelling times have increased. From Swatragh to Magherafelt took 19 minutes. The time taken from Swatragh to Antrim rises to 36 minutes. Travelling time from Draperstown or Ballynascreen has risen from 13 minutes to 36 minutes. The small towns of Tobermore, Bellaghy, Moneymore, Castledawson and Magherafelt have all had extra travelling time imposed upon them, just on the one simple issue of health. They are also bedevilled by the traffic congestion that ensues on the way.

Increased travelling times to Antrim will increase mortality rates. That is borne out by the Ambulance Service. It tells us that in cases of acute pain — such as when people are in a traffic accident or are having a heart attack — people’s lives are in danger unless they are dealt with inside of eight minutes. We now have a situation where it takes 16-36 minutes for people to get from west of the Bann to a hospital in Antrim — principally because of the difficult situation caused by the absence of a Toome bypass.

We can play politics with this issue, and it would be the simplest thing in the world to do so. However, I contend that this is too important an issue, too critical an issue, and an issue that has been outstanding for too many years, to play politics with. It is an issue that is economically damaging. We talk about the price of fuel, but if people are sitting in a traffic queue for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening, just imagine how much fuel is being used up. That is apart from the damage that is being done to the environment. It all mounts up over time.

I notice Mr Peter Robinson talking through his hand as usual. Perhaps he will take his hand away from his jaw and let us know what he is trying to say — he being the Minister who promised this bypass less than a year ago. However, the DUP is playing its usual funny little games.

We could play politics with this issue, and we could develop it into a political debate. Unfortunately, it is all the people west of the Bann who are suffering as a result of this delay at Toome. It is all the people — DUP, UUP, PUP, Sinn Féin and SDLP — who are affected, damaged and hurt by this delay. It is a daily delay at Toome. It occurs seven days a week, not just on the five working days.

The Minister allocated £460 million in the recent Budget. In detail, where is this money going? Can he tell us of an area in the North of Ireland — in the Six Counties — that is in greater need of this money than the area affected by the Toome bypass? Can he detail exactly where and into what areas that £460 million is going? Can he tell us that he is not playing politics with the Toome bypass but is committed to alleviating the hardship that is being inflicted on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis on the people west of the Bann?

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter. However, it is unfortunate that we must be here today. I must express my exasperation at Sinn Féin/IRA, who have the nerve to complain about the starting of road improvements on the Toome bypass. It is somewhat two-faced for a member of Sinn Féin to raise this issue. Terrorists have brought great expense to the Province over the past 30 years. Cash has been pumped into Northern Ireland to fix and to renovate after the work of the terrorist army linked to Sinn Féin.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Are we discussing the Toome bypass, or do we want to get into a debate about paramilitary organisations?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I am listening carefully to what the Member is saying. I am sure that he will return to the subject in question.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

This has further led to the lack of real investment in any future development in Northern Ireland. These people complain that they are treated as second-class citizens. Surely we are being treated as second- class citizens at the hands of these terrorists, who have prevented any real development in Northern Ireland. How can Sinn Féin have the face to ask for more money in Northern Ireland when, in the past, they have easily allowed Government money to go up in smoke?

I am surprised to hear the DUP Minister for Regional Development announce that his Department has difficulty in funding major work. In January 2000 Gregory Campbell’s predecessor, Peter Robinson, announced at a press conference in the O’Neill Arms Hotel in Toomebridge that the Toome bypass would go ahead. Mr Robinson gave a commitment to the people of Northern Ireland, claiming that he would listen to the people and explain why decisions are taken. Mr Robinson said that construction would start in late 2001 and would take approximately 18 months to complete. The finance was to be provided by the 1998 Chancellor’s Initiative package.

Mr Robinson described the Toome bypass as a major development that would help the people of Northern Ireland and relieve traffic congestion. Did Mr Robinson not plan ahead at the time? Why was there so much hype, if there was not enough money to pay for the bypass? Could Mr Robinson not have told us the state of his Department’s finances at the time, rather than indulging his party in a blaze of publicity?

It is now apparent that a major challenge to the policy has taken place, both at departmental level and with the DUP Minister. Both Mr Robinson and Mr Campbell are prepared to engage in political stunts rather than address the real needs of the people of Northern Ireland.

The Toome bypass is absolutely necessary to link industry with the east and the west, whether it is stock in transit, people travelling to and from work, or sightseers on a tour of our beautiful Province. Direct rule has prevented the direction of finance to the most needy areas of Northern Ireland. Now, with the devolved Administration, we have the opportunity to prioritise as we, the people of Northern Ireland, see fit. Toome is a significant bottleneck, a narrow bridge over a river flowing north from Lough Neagh. In modern life, people do not want to be delayed. Aeroplanes or boats do not wait for customers if they are stuck in traffic congestion.

Excess pressure is put on commuters and frustration arises. Over the years, Mid Ulster has been socially and economically neglected, and it seems to have been considered unimportant in many regards, including road infrastructure. Being centrally situated, the area is ideal for businesses targeting the whole of Northern Ireland. Fifty-four of the top 1,000 Northern Irish businesses are situated in the Sperrin area. If Mid Ulster were more accessible, industry would be more attracted to set up in the region, thus producing more jobs and encouraging people to live there instead of in the city.

Unemployment rates in the area are significantly higher than the Northern Irish average. There is a higher proportion of self-employed men and women in Mid Ulster than in Northern Ireland as a whole. There are a huge number of farmers in Mid Ulster, and we all know the problems they face at this time. Unfortunately, with the present depression in agriculture, it is becoming more commonplace that farming alone cannot bring in sufficient income for a satisfactory standard of living. The result is increased commuter traffic.

A bypass at Toome is essential for the future of the region west of the Bann. We must make Mid Ulster more accessible, for otherwise our efforts to promote the area for tourism and other industries will be wasted. The people of Mid Ulster want to share the benefits and attractions of our area with everyone across Northern Ireland and beyond. The bridge at Toome will carry traffic in both directions and will therefore benefit everyone.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take your advice and be very brief. I understand that there are several Members waiting to speak, and that the Minister will want to respond. All those who have spoken said that they did not want to play politics with this issue. What did they do then? They played politics with it.

I have a special interest — if not a vested interest — in this subject. I am very proud to have been born in the village of Toome. I attended primary school there — they have not yet put up a blue plaque on the wall, but perhaps they will. I represent Toome on Antrim Borough Council.

This debate is not new. Since first elected to Antrim Borough Council, I have met with every direct rule Minister to present this case. No one needs to be told that this road joins the two major cities of Northern Ireland and several surveys have been carried out on traffic density. Approximately 20,000 vehicles pass through the village every day and it is estimated that the number will increase to approximately 30,000 by 2017. Where was the planning during the decades of direct rule that did not envisage this level of traffic density on this main road bridging our two major cities? With the ending of direct rule, and the start of our own Assembly, the people of the area — and of the whole of the north-west — had very high expectations that this programme would receive a high priority in government.

I want to pay tribute to my colleagues on Antrim Borough Council who, for decades, have been pressing successive Ministers for this bypass. One of my colleagues on the council can affirm that even during the latter part of the 1980s — when it was not politic for local government Ministers to be meeting with Ministers of State to discuss issues such as the Toome bypass — Antrim councillors were regularly meeting with Ministers to press for this development. The council has also worked very closely with the local community group in Toome, Tidal, in providing finance for a variety of surveys on the density of traffic going through Toome and the environmental impact on the village.

Any delay in this programme will be disastrous for the people of the village and will have wider implications for the economy of the north-west as a whole. For years, the people of Toome have had to suffer the impact of traffic congestion, pollution, noise and delays. In addition, there is now what is called "rat running" — cars taking short-cuts through the small rural areas surrounding Toome village, with the attendant destruction of the rural and farming communities in the area.

All these issues impact on the people of Toome and mean a poorer quality of life for them. They also have a dramatic impact on economic and tourist development. Environmental plans and the commencement of a new industrial development strategy for the area are badly needed if unemployment levels are to be reduced.

We need the road for many reasons. We need it for the people of Toome, for economic growth in the whole of the north-west and to improve road safety. We need it, as Mr J Kelly said, because of the importance of acute services and the fact that the Ambulance Service has to move between the Mid-Ulster Hospital and the new Antrim Area Hospital. We need speedy access to our ports and airport, and to provide tourism, not only locally, but throughout Northern Ireland.

I do not subscribe to the view of one of Mr Kelly’s colleagues, who wrote to my local paper recently to say that the Minister’s decision not to proceed with the bypass was sectarian. I do not believe that there is some sad little civil servant sitting in a car in Toome counting the number of Catholic cars and Protestant cars going through the village. I would, however, impress on the Minister the need to proceed with this project for the benefit of the people of Toome and the whole of the north-west.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I am delighted at the interest — albeit belated — that some Members have shown today in Toome and the Toome bypass. To the best of my knowledge some of them have never made a statement about Toome in their lives. It is always good to find that there are some takers and comers along the road, but I will return to that shortly.

Some Members told us that they are endeavouring to assist in getting the project off the ground, but they are giving misleading information. The Minister never said that he was going to put the Toome scheme into suspension, as one Member from Mid Ulster said — a Sinn Féin/IRA Member. To the best of my knowledge, the context was that if necessary funding were not forthcoming, all the schemes that were being processed at that time might not be carried out in the timescale that was mentioned. That was the tenor of the Minister’s speech.

There was talk about the fanfare of publicity in Toome a year ago. I remember that morning well. My hon Friend Mr P Robinson attended as Minister, and everywhere the cameras went, Mr J Kelly followed or tried to get in front of them. One could see his neck stretching out every time a photograph was being taken of my Colleague and me. He wanted to be sure he was in it. When it comes to fanfares and cameras, the said person is far from shy; he wants to be there in the forefront, if humanly possible. There is so much hypocrisy about this issue that it is sickening for those who have been campaigning for Toome for over 20 years. However, let us push aside some of the minutiae that are being brought up.

This is and has been an important issue. It is so important for the area west of the Bann and for Mid Ulster that the Member of Parliament for Mid Ulster and an Assembly Member for Mid Ulster — the same person, representing Sinn Féin/IRA — is missing. He is not here for this important discussion. This issue is so important that it has frustrated Members and engendered anger in their bellies. However, it seems that the matter is not so important to the Member of Parliament. Of course, MP does mean "Missing Person" so far as the constituency is concerned.

There has been so much hypocrisy about the Toome bypass. It is interesting that they say that they are worried about people’s lives. There is a fly in the ointment; they were not interested in people’s lives during the past 30 years of terrorist violence, when people were murdered and maimed and the ambulances needed to get through Toome to get not to Antrim Area Hospital but to the excellent services at the Royal Victoria Hospital. We have heard an awful lot of hypocrisy; they want to grab the headlines, rather than deal with the situation.

I am glad that the hon Member for Mid Ulster (Mr Armstrong) has found out where Toome is. I must be honest — over the 28 years that I have been in public life, I had never, until now, heard him making a statement about a Toome bypass. However, it is better late than never, I suppose. It is good that he has found out that Toome and the rest of the constituency actually exist. However, it ill becomes people to chide those who are endeavouring to do their best for the area, when those people have done nothing for the area themselves.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member give way?

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I certainly will not give way.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Mr McCrea, you have been asked to give way.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I said that I would not give way. Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that it is the Member who decides whether he will give way — not the Chair.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I asked the question — that is all.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I was delighted that one of the first ministerial acts by my hon Friend the Member for East Belfast (Mr P Robinson) was to come to Toome and announce the proposals for the design of the bridge. Now, that was not regarded as sectarian, but it is regarded as sectarian to consider the wider financial aspects. Toome was not an isolated scheme; all schemes of similar magnitude were considered as part of the overall package. The people west of the Bann appreciated the fact that a DUP Minister was taking their interests into consideration and putting something in motion by unveiling the design proposals for the bridge and the bypass.

When the Chancellor announced his initiative and talked about his proposals, few elected representatives actually heard him — it is amazing how they listen to what they want to listen to, and then shut off. They welcomed the Chancellor’s statement, not realising, of course, that the Chancellor said that the scheme would happen as one of a series of proposals that would benefit from the money accrued by the sale of Belfast port. It was simply and directly connected to that sale.

At that time Minister Robinson prioritised the roads programme, and Toome was a beneficiary of that. Mr Campbell followed Mr Robinson’s policy, but — and he would be right to tell people all about this — the moneys allocated to his Department were changed. It would have been possible to make a start on all the schemes that were included in the proposal in year one. That is what the Ministers — past and present — wanted to do, but, of course, they did not have the money. Not even the Jews down in Egypt, who were receiving special help from the Almighty himself, were able to make bricks without straw.

The debate may be helpful. Although the money for year one was safe, the capital roads budget for years two and three seemed to be under question. To the best of my knowledge, we are politicians and this is a debating chamber for politicians, though that is not always evident, given that some contributions are always read, and sometimes badly read. If those speaking in this debate today are politicians of conviction — though it seems that we are not politicians if we are bringing politics into this — and if this debate means something to the parties and is not just "huff and puff", today could mark progress in this Chamber.

If the Members from Sinn Feín/IRA, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP who have spoken are making commitments on behalf of their parties to do everything in their power to ensure that the finances for the road budget are restored, progress will have been made today. But I have a feeling that, as usual, when their arms are twisted up their backs, they will cave in and prove themselves to be jellyfish, rather than men.

However, I would be happy to be proved wrong. If that is the case, we can be assured that the Members I referred to are not seeking headlines but are trying to ensure that the Minister has the finances to do the job. My conversations with the Minister have convinced me that no one would be happier to make sure that this scheme and others in the programme were processed properly.

I ask the Minister to ensure that there is no delay and that everything necessary is being done. Have the necessary procedures been put into place and into operation to ensure that there will be no delay in the programme for the Toome bypass, if the funds become available? We have seen that the goodwill in the Chamber has grown, and I have no doubt that the issue will be easily overcome. Are the planning process, the environmental studies, the vesting programme — if that is the way forward — being processed now to ensure that there will be no undue delay in the creation of this bypass?

Unlike some who have spoken, I have campaigned with genuine conviction for the creation of a Toome bypass for over 20 years. Mr McClelland of the SDLP said that he is familiar with the congestion because he comes from the area. I appreciate that, and I understand his conviction, because he has experienced the problem himself. I too speak with conviction, for I believe that the bypass would benefit not just the west of the Province but the entire region. It would be beneficial because it would remove the west-east divide. There should be one Province with the people of Northern Ireland enjoying all its benefits.

There are two industrial sites in the area, one of which is at Creagh, on the verge of Toome. The other is on the Ballymena side of the town. This road is vital to attracting industry. It is important to ensure that people and industries do not avoid this area because of congestion, delays and pollution. Many issues hinge on this decision. That is why I know that my hon Friend will listen carefully to those whose belief in this issue is genuine and not based on political gain or belated interest. The Toome bypass is necessary to the well-being of the people of that vast area in the west and in the adjoining constituencies and council areas.

That is why I ask my hon Friend to ensure that nothing impedes progress. I hope and believe that all Members of the Assembly will unite in pressing for additional finances for the second and third years. If they do so, there will be no problem in ensuring that the Toome bypass becomes a reality, and that is what really counts.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I call Mr David Ford, and ask him to remember that time is moving on.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

An advantage of speaking at this stage in a debate is that one does not have to repeat everything everyone else has said. A disadvantage is that one directly follows the Member for Mid Ulster, who has dictated the Minister’s winding-up speech to him.

I certainly acknowledge the Minister’s quite clear problems in the realm of finance, but I do not think that they are entirely inflicted on him by others. Sometimes I wonder if they are not inflicted by the "hokey-cokey" policy of the DUP. Perhaps if one pulls Peter out to put Gregory in, one pulls out Peter’s proposals and aspirations at the same time. I trust the Minister will show this afternoon that he has not forgotten all the commitments that we thought were given earlier this year.

One project in the Department for Regional Development’s proposals that is worrying to me when compared to the Toome scheme is that to upgrade — I believe that is the euphemism — the Westlink in Belfast. I certainly acknowledge that there are problems with freight going through the city and that the Westlink can get thoroughly jammed. However, examining the possibilities, there are alternatives — particularly with public transport, but also with roads — which could reduce the demand for over £40 million worth of improvements on that stretch. There is a real fear on the part of many experts that all it will achieve is to speed the traffic jams up to three quarters of a mile through the city with a deterioration in air quality for those living in the area.

By contrast, the Toome proposals would cost under a third of the amount required for the Westlink. There is no alternative, and there would be significant environmental benefits, not only for those who travel through the village, but more particularly for those who live in and around it. Mr John Kelly referred to the problems of ambulances and to the fact that hospital services are now centralised. However, this is not just a problem for ambulances; it is a problem for freight vehicles, private cars and buses as well.

There is a bizarre situation in which the Maiden City Flyer, the most efficient way of getting between Northern Ireland’s main two cities, cannot get through Toome in the morning in time for people to catch the Enterprise to Dublin. It is hard to imagine anything more bizarre than businessmen from Derry driving to Belfast to catch a train to Dublin because of the inadequacies of public transport resulting from the congestion that is solely in Toome.

Of course, the railway might make a slight difference at some stage, but even if it removes the north-west traffic we cannot expect it to take out traffic from the mid Ulster and mid Tyrone areas, and possibly parts of west Tyrone as well. There is a major need for the bypass, for in its absence we shall see the entire area grinding to a halt. There is no incentive for people to use public transport to improve their travelling times for, because of the jams, it is even slower than private transport.

Representing South Antrim — and therefore two thirds of the length of the proposed bypass, rather than the third which others represent — it is my great fortune that I rarely travel through Toome in the rush hour. When I do, it tends to be in the opposite direction to the main traffic flow. However, what I see is quite enough to convince me of the need for a bypass soon.

Reference has been made to the previous Minister’s visit to the O’Neill Arms Hotel to launch the exhibition on the bypass proposals. I have a confession to make. I did not manage to squeeze into any of the pictures; I was not seen beside Mr J Kelly, Mr McCrea or Mr P Robinson. I was in this Building on Assembly duties while the exhibition was being launched. However, I travelled there that evening, which gave me a much better opportunity to see the exhibition, though a slimmer chance of getting on television. I had the opportunity to speak to local people, and it was quite clear that there is deep feeling in the village and its surroundings on both sides that the bypass is needed now. It is very rare that one finds people whose land is to be affected by a vesting scheme for a main road saying "Yes, this area needs it." However, I heard that said in the O’Neill Arms Hotel that night. Clearly, the feeling in the district is that priority must be given to the bypass, and we must take note of that.

Currently, we have a temporary throughpass in the village, which seems to have made a marginal improvement in travelling times. This was clearly accepted by people in Toome, and certainly by Antrim Council, as a temporary expedient until the bypass was built — and it will only be accepted as such.

Why is there such reluctance from the Ministers responsible to do something about the Toome bypass? The Minister for Regional Development travels here most days from Londonderry, and the Minister of Finance and Personnel travels here most days from Derry. Perhaps they are being so careful about their own interests that they do not want to be seen to be promoting the Toome bypass, lest anyone have any suspicions of their personal motives. We could accept and understand that if they felt that they wanted to make progress on the scheme. People would not criticise them of being solely interested in their own circumstances.

To give one hint to the Minister, perhaps he and his Colleague the Minister of Finance could set an example. Instead of coming in two cars, some day they could meet up at Lisnagelvin and travel to Stormont in one car. That would at least cut down the traffic jam through Toome slightly. I am not going to suggest that they bring the Minister of Education as well — I am not trying to be unrealistic. The Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of Finance could co-operate that far, and the people of Toome would appreciate it. I have no doubt that what they would appreciate much more is giving this scheme its proper priority within the region — doing something to put the bridge and bypass in place immediately.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I sit on the Regional Development Committee, and, with family roots in Tyrone, I have used this road through Toome for most of my adult life.

This is an important development as it is a key access route to the west of the Province. However, we are now hearing that there is no money available for this, and it may have to be put back. That was not always so, and listening to Mr McCrea we hear revisionism at its best. We had a press release on 25 January, wherein Minister Robinson announced, quite clearly — and there was no question about it then — that the Toome bypass would be built. He went to the O’Neill Arms to produce an exhibition and unveil plans. He even had a very public row with Mr J Kelly to make sure it made the headlines on the news that night. He went into enormous detail about the length of the bridge and how this would be and that would be. However, the new Minister, Mr Campbell, claims that there is no money for funding. At that stage there was no doubt at all, and this was the Department for Regional Development’s press statement:

"Funding for the bypass is being provided from the 1998 Chancellor’s Initiative, which announced investment for the physical infrastructure in Northern Ireland."

There was no doubt at that stage — no doubt at all — that this was to happen.

The question is "What is the game?" You could argue that Minister Campbell has been hung out to dry and has been left to carry the rap for a complete volte-face in the Department. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Mr McCrea told how he has been after this for 20 years. I wonder who was the MP for Mid Ulster for many of those 20 years. The only reason we are able to have Minister Campbell bringing this development forward is that the Ulster Unionist Party produced the agreement. Otherwise we would still be looking for funding for all this.

Is there now an opportunity for Mr Campbell to do some lateral thinking? Perhaps there is a chance to look at the Toome bypass as a public-private partnership (PPP) — to develop it as a toll road. You could argue that it is clearly defined, it is outside the village and people will have a choice of coming through the village or taking the faster route. It would save £13 million of Mr Campbell’s budget. Has he thought about that? He tells us regularly that there is no money for roads — they are underfunded — and he is absolutely correct. There is a serious crisis in Roads Service. Does his vision of the future include looking at alternatives, now that he has this opportunity of a complete turnaround — no money when Mr Robinson said there was? Perhaps he will comment on that when he gets the opportunity.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion from my Colleague Mr John Kelly, Assembly Member for Mid Ulster. I reaffirm our position that the Toome bypass should be put in place as quickly as possible. It is a long-awaited scheme, and we have heard how long people have been lobbying about it.

Unfortunately, the then MP for the area did not deliver that particular scheme, even when at the time he was propping up the Conservative Government. Even when he was maintaining his own position and theirs, and allowing them to continue to run down the services and the infrastructures, he could not extract a concession from them to make funds available for this simple bypass.

The scheme itself cannot be delayed any longer. It has been planned for a long time. People living west of the Bann have suffered decades of discrimination by the Stormont regime and the British Government. We are talking about discrimination not against Catholics, but against the people of the west — Catholics, Protestants and Dissenters. They have all lived in that area.

From early on in the Unionist regime there was an awareness that repartition might be considered at some future stage. Therefore nothing at all was developed in the west. All the infrastructures, all the industries and all the hospitals were put east of the Bann. The attitude was that the rest of the population could come to the east if it wanted to avail of those services. However, the people were not provided with the necessary infrastructure to come and get the good of those services.

If one looks at the river Bann on the map one will see that the M2 stops just beyond Antrim, the M1 at Dungannon, and the railway at Portadown. There is no infrastructure right across from east to west.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

The Member’s point is very interesting. Does he agree that the same east-west divide is highly apparent in the Republic of Ireland — so much so that it has repartitioned the country itself for purposes of positioning the west of the country better for EU grants?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I agree completely. I could not have put it any better myself. We have often said that the west of Ireland has been discriminated against by the Dublin regime, by Stormont and by the British Government. In the South we now see a rebalancing. They are actually talking about repopulating the west of Ireland. We need to ensure that the same happens in the North and we will get repopulation of the Six Counties, so that we will get a fair distribution of resources, infrastructure and wealth.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I want to draw the attention of the Member, and that of the Minister, to the Omagh throughpass. Just like the Toome bypass, it is deemed to be at risk and may be deferred as a result of the 15 November announcement. I find it very unusual that the Member for South Antrim — sorry, the Member for Mid Ulster — Mr McCrea, was putting the onus on all the other parties to secure funding for the Toome bypass and these other road schemes. The Minister’s self-exclusion from the Executive table has cost many communities the money for these schemes.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I agree. Not only has the Minister not come to the Executive and argued for the money to be made available, but the previous Minister took advantage of the situation by making the announcement, laying down the plans and leaving it to the Executive to provide the money. He knew that he was not going to be there for the second round. He simply left Mr Campbell to clean up afterwards.

We are now in a situation where we do not have the Minister who announced it, and we do not have the funds to deliver it, because there was no plan in place to ensure that the Executive would support it. It was simply a public relations announcement by Mr Peter Robinson at that time.

The village of Toome has suffered severely. It has been destroyed by pollution, traffic congestion and noise. The quality of life has been affected. Even the plaque that Mr McClelland was looking for would be splashed all over if it were put up at the moment, given the amount of traffic that is going through the village.

We have to take all that into account if we are going to improve the situation and improve the quality of life for the villagers. One of the things that we have found down through the years is that villagers often feel that their village will be destroyed by putting a bypass around it. In this situation the village has been destroyed by the failure to put a bypass around it, and the failure to put the bridge in place. We need to address this problem. This is one of the main east/west arterial routes.

It is important that this bridge is put in place and that the infrastructure is developed. Not only is this the main east/west arterial route, but it is also the main arterial route for the DUP/LVF spokesperson from Mid Ulster, South Antrim, or wherever he is currently representing. He now travels between one constituency and the other, so it is vital that this bridge be built, for that would allow him to move between his constituencies quickly.

If we are going to develop the west — and this is one of the main issues we need to address — we have to have the necessary infrastructure. Industrialists say that they cannot get their goods out or their materials in. If TSN is to mean anything in this Assembly, and if the Executive is sincere in trying to implement it, we need to target social need by providing adequate finances and resources. I ask Members to support this. It is unfortunate that the people who caused the whole east/west problem in the past are badly represented in the Chamber. There are only three Members — [Interruption]

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I have to stop you, Mr Molloy.

Minister, are you prepared to give up a short amount of your time to your predecessor, Mr Peter Robinson? In other words, you will have nine minutes between you.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is normal — [Interruption]

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The Member — [Interruption]

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am on a point of order.

It is normal that when spurious or ill-founded comments have been made about a Member, that Member has a right to respond. Instead of coming to me, you went to the Sinn Féin/IRA representative. That is the issue. I do not wish to take up the Minister’s time, but I think that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, should have given me time to answer the points that had been made against me personally.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

You have taken up very well the time that I was prepared to give you.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, on a point of order. Was the Member’s name on the list to speak?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Yes.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

That was not the answer you wanted, was it?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The notes that I prepared before the debate have been borne out by most of the Members’ speeches, in that virtually everyone is agreed that Toome needs a bypass. It would improve journey times and reliability on the vitally important trans-European route between Belfast and the north-west, and it would also deliver environmental, community and safety benefits by substantially reducing the amount of traffic travelling through the village of Toome. I want to assure the House that my Department and I are keen to deliver a well-designed solution as soon as possible.

The proposed scheme is for a 3·5-kilometre — that is just over two miles — dual carriageway bypass to the north of Toome. The estimated cost is £13 million, and the likely contract period is 18 months. To ensure that local people were fully consulted about this scheme, my predecessor, Mr Peter Robinson, opened an exhibition in the village in January of this year. Good progress has been made since then, and the following steps have been and are being taken.

During the statutory planning process, the direction order attracted one objection, but this was resolved by negotiation. The Committee for Regional Development and I have approved the direction order, and it will become operative in February 2001. That will complete the planning procedures.

The statutory environmental procedures have been completed without objection, and a notice to that effect will appear in the press later this week. That will allow my Department to proceed to the next stage of the statutory process, which is the vesting order stage. Roads Service has made an initial visit to all the relevant landowners, and I understand that they have proved co-operative so far. It is planned to publish the notice of intention to make a vesting order next month.

My Department has further demonstrated its commitment to the scheme by advertising for project management consultants to oversee the design and construct contract. It is intended to appoint the consultants in the next 10 days, and the value of that scheme is about £400,000. I also plan a 16-week site investigation contract, to start next month, to obtain detailed ground survey information along the route of the bypass. That contract is valued at £100,000. An advertising — [Interruption]

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for people to instigate a debate like this and then not listen to the answers that are being provided?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

That is not a point of order.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

It is a point of order.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Also, there was advertising last week for horticultural contractors to undertake a contract to harvest and propagate local seeds to provide native planting to be used in the subsequent landscaping of the new road. That is a Northern Ireland pilot of a new UK-wide initiative.

I want to pay tribute to Roads Service staff, and their consultants, for all of their work to date. If all goes well with the land acquisition, the design and construct contract could be advertised in the summer of 2001, with the successful contractor undertaking the detailed design in the autumn and starting work on the ground early in 2002.

However, despite all the progress that has been made, it is vital that my Department receives sufficient funds so that this and the other schemes in the major works preparation pool can proceed on schedule. Clearly, insufficient funds could delay the start date of some of these key schemes.

This matter seems to have escaped the notice of some Members, despite the fact that my predecessor sent them a letter on 20 July which not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times indicated that these schemes would proceed subject to finance being available. It was stated five times in the one letter.

The recent Budget statement by the Minister of Finance and Personnel announced draft allocations for the year 2001-02. That was done since my hon Friend, the previous Minister for Regional Development, made the announcement about the exhibition in Toome. However, using the normal financial planning assumptions, it seems that the funding available to my Department for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 may not be sufficient to enable construction to start on all the schemes in the preparation pool which it is anticipated will be ready to start in that period.

I felt it important to make members of the Regional Development Committee aware of the possible funding shortfall when I met them on 15 November, and I welcome the opportunity today to discuss the matter further in this Adjournment debate.

With regard to the Toome bypass, I want to make it clear that when my predecessor, Peter Robinson, opened the consultation exhibition in Toome last January the scheme was subject to the statutory procedures and the availability of funding. I want to make that crystal clear, and I hope to have to say it only once — not five times. That is the case for every major works scheme. There is no scheme that I know of that proceeds irrespective of funding — none. If people do not understand that, then I do not know what they would understand.

Similarly, when I advised the Regional Development Committee several weeks ago of a possible funding shortfall, that was not a cancellation or a postponement of any scheme. It was merely a statement of the obvious: to build roads, I need resources. I am convinced that, through our consultations with local people and with our extensive environmental studies, we have come up with a bypass scheme that is an excellent solution to a very serious problem as well as being a scheme which enjoys widespread support throughout Northern Ireland.

I have no wish to delay or defer this important project. I am aware of the benefits that it will bring. I am sure that with the goodwill and support of this House the necessary finance can be made available to my Department in the years 2002 and 2003 in order to allow it and the other vital schemes in my major works preparation pool to proceed as soon as is practically possible. I hope to receive the support of this House to get the necessary resources so that these roads can be constructed.

One or two political comments have been made about where I would, or would not, go in order to get the necessary resources. I will do all in my power to ensure that these roads are built. The one constraint that I am faced with in ensuring that I get the resources is the manifesto election pledge upon which I was elected. I will not be departing from that.

Adjourned at 5.20 pm.