Northern Ireland Assembly, 15 January 2001

81 contributions from 33 members. The official report.

The Late Mr Tom Benson MLA

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is my sad duty to inform the House of the death of Mr Tom Benson, a Member for the Strangford constituency. Mr Benson died on Christmas Eve, 24 December, and was buried on 28 December. He was a member of the Ulster Unionist Party, whose leader, the Rt Hon David Trimble, I now call.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few brief words about the death of my Colleague Tom Benson on Christmas Eve, two months after he suffered a stroke.

Tom Benson gave 30 years of service to the Royal Ulster Constabulary before becoming active in party politics. He was elected to Ards Borough Council in 1985. The extent of his commitment to local government is clearly evidenced by the fact that he served as mayor of Ards Borough Council, chairman of the South Eastern Education and Library Board, and chairman of the Association of Local Authorities.

Tom Benson’s contribution did not end there. He was an elected member of the Forum and then of this Assembly. He consistently gave dedicated service, both in the Forum and the Assembly, to politics in Northern Ireland. He gave consistent support to us during negotiations for the agreement and subsequently in the implementation of the agreement.

I am sure that many other Members, like myself, will feel that they have lost a friend. However, Northern Ireland has also lost a dedicated public servant.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It has been decided that, instead of further tributes in the House at this time, a service of thanksgiving for the life of Tom Benson, in which his family will be able to participate, will be held in the Senate Chamber. The date and time of the service will be arranged by agreement with the family.

As a token of our respect for Mr Benson, the House will now be suspended until 11.00 am.

The sitting was suspended at 10.35 am.

On resuming —

Weather Conditions (Christmas Period)

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement on the response of the Roads Service to the severe weather conditions over the Christmas period.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The exceptional weather over Christmas gave rise to considerable difficulties on the roads. We experienced the most significant widespread snowfall for nearly 20 years. Because of the public interest and the important operational and policy considerations surrounding the issue of salting the roads, I felt that it was important for me to make a statement to the Assembly.

I have already undertaken a preliminary review of the Roads Service response to the extreme weather conditions from 27 to 31 December and, in co-operation with the Regional Development Committee, I intend to reappraise the policy considerations pertaining to the salting of roads.

Before I deal with the detail of the operation over Christmas, it will be helpful to Members if I set out the current policy concerning salting.

Roads Service spends £5 million per year on salting roads in Northern Ireland, or £70,000 each time the entire designated network is salted. This allows for salting of that portion of the network which carries approximately 80% of the traffic in normal conditions. Unfortunately, this money can be washed down the drain if rain falls and washes the salt away. If Roads Service were to extend its salting schedule to those roads that carry 90% of the traffic, the bill would immediately double to £10 million annually. That does not include £18 million of additional costs for capital equipment. Salting the entire network would require a capital investment of £36 million, and quadruple the running costs to £20 million per year.

Strict criteria were established in a review undertaken in 1996 and are applied regularly in order to determine which roads are included in the salting schedule. The purpose of having criteria is to ensure that optimum use is made of the limited resources available. The criteria are based primarily on the levels of traffic using a road, with other relevant considerations taken into account depending on the individual situation. Only last year, the Northern Ireland Audit Office reported on the Roads Service winter maintenance policy. Its report said that

"NIAO welcomes the objective criteria now being used by Roads Service to select roads which are salted or provided with salt bins or grit piles."

The data-gathering system deployed by Roads Service in deciding whether or not to salt is at the leading edge of technology. There are 17 weather stations across Northern Ireland, covering different climatic conditions. Linked to each weather station is an ice-detection sensor positioned in the road surface. The information collected by these stations is transmitted to a central computer and is accessed by Roads Service duty engineers, via their laptop computers, on a 24-hour basis.

The computers display thermal maps showing the variation in predicted road surface temperatures across the entire salted network and other weather forecast data for Northern Ireland supplied by the Met Office. Based on this and local knowledge, each duty engineer decides whether or not it is appropriate to salt in his local area. The timing of the salting is carefully judged to benefit the majority of vehicles and, as far as possible, is completed before freezing occurs. The Roads Service does not normally undertake salting during heavy rain, as the salt would simply be washed away, or on dry roads, since ice would not form even if the temperature were to fall below zero.

A number of general points should also be made about the limit of what can be achieved by salting roads. If it rains, the salt is washed away, and if the temperature falls below zero, the wet surface may freeze. Salt does not act immediately. It needs the action of traffic to turn salt and ice into a solution before it becomes effective. The effectiveness of salt is dramatically reduced as the temperature falls. Salt is not as effective on fallen snow.

Between 27 and 31 December, the Province experienced exceptional weather conditions. The minimum road surface temperature measured by the road sensors was below -10ºC. The minimum temperature measured on the surface of the snow by the Met Office was -18ºC. The main band of snow reached the Foyle Basin by 1.00pm on 27 December and had reached all parts of Northern Ireland within four hours. It reached the greater Belfast area by 2.45pm. There were accumulations of snow of up to seven inches in depth in the east of Northern Ireland, and in the greater Belfast area in particular.

The Met Office forecast had given prior warning of some snow, which prompted the Roads Service to initiate precautionary treatment of the salted network. Prior to the onset of the severe weather, a major Roads Service operation was put into action, involving approximately 400 people, including engineers, technicians, drivers and associated staff, as well as a fleet of 135 gritters, many of which had to be fitted with snow ploughs.

The Roads Service informed me that on 27 December, during the 12-hour period prior to the snowfall, salt was spread on all roads on the salting schedule. For example, salting in Belfast commenced at 3.30am and recommenced at midday. However, the effectiveness of the salt was reduced because of the very low temperatures, the depth of the snow and because the action of salt on snow is not as effective as it is on ice. As a result of the exceptionally low temperatures and the prevailing weather conditions, a blanket of snow lay until Sunday 31 December.

At the end of the four-day period, a total of 17,000 tonnes of salt had been used. This represents one third of the average winter salt used over each of the past five years. Also, 50,000 miles were covered by the gritters and snowploughs when salting. This is equivalent to journeying twice around the world.

The entire Roads Service operation cost more than £850,000. This was additional. Therefore, such was the severity of the conditions that in four days we spent 17% of the winter maintenance budget.

I trust that this summary of events has demonstrated the difficulties encountered by the Roads Service during the recent cold spell. I hope that Members will agree that the 400 or so members of Roads Service staff involved in the salting operation deserve credit for their efforts in what were very exceptional conditions. In particular, the drivers of the gritters deserve special mention.

Immediately after the Christmas holidays, I instigated an internal review of the approach undertaken by the Roads Service. I received a full briefing on that last week, and overall, given the conditions and the resources available to them, the Roads Service staff performed exceptionally well during this period.

It is important, however, that lessons be learned. The following actions have been agreed as a result of the interim review. The present communication links will be reviewed to ensure that the public is kept informed; the establishment of priority routes for treatment will be considered to guarantee access to key public services in snowy conditions; the criteria for the establishment of self-help salt boxes will be reviewed; consideration will be given to a general winter service leaflet drop to all households prior to the winter season; the salting schedule will be provided, (for example, to local papers and on the Internet); district councils will be invited to work with the Roads Service to clear pedestrian areas and town- centre footpaths during extreme weather conditions; and the arrangements for dealing with a prolonged emergency will also be reviewed.

Given the size and prolonged duration of the operation, most things went well. Inevitably some things went wrong. However, I believe that the issue of winter salting is important for the entire population of Northern Ireland and their public representatives. Now that we have a Regional Development Committee, I feel it is appropriate to revisit the issue. The last review was five years ago, and we should examine the decisions taken at that time. I will therefore initiate a reappraisal of the current policy when I meet members of the Committee this Wednesday, and I will request their involvement.

In conclusion, I am aware of the common perception that salting and ploughing can ensure ice-or snow-free roads, regardless of the severity of the weather. As I mentioned earlier, this is not possible. No matter how much we choose to spend, ice-and snow-free roads cannot be guaranteed, as the recent spell of bad weather has proved.

Over the Christmas period, Northern Ireland experienced its worst weather for almost 20 years, leading us to mount the biggest ever response operation. The Roads Service has at no time displayed complacency. The points that I outlined indicate that we must build on our strengths in these areas and analyse further areas for improvement.

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

All of us recognise the exceptional weather conditions that existed during the period referred to by the Minister in his statement. No one, not even I, can blame the Minister personally for those conditions. However, as Chairman of the Regional Development Committee, I share Assembly concerns about the operational response of the Department and the Roads Service to this difficult situation.

I thank the Minister for his statement on the Department’s handling of road gritting during the recent, severe cold weather spell. I further thank the Minister for agreeing to come to the Regional Development Committee’s meeting on Wednesday to discuss this issue and consider a reappraisal of those policy considerations which relate to road gritting and salting. The Committee looks forward to that meeting. It may well be that the criteria used for the selection of roads will be subject to further review and consideration.

However, I must say that —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Will the Member come to his question.

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

I am somewhat disappointed by the lack of detail in the Minister’s statement. I hope that further detail will be forthcoming. I have one specific question for the Minister. While I acknowledge that the extreme weather conditions at the time were severe, the public perception is that the Department failed to keep the main arterial routes open.

In particular, the M2 and the M22 were severely affected. It seemed to the public, from anecdotal evidence, that the route from north-west Belfast to Belfast International Airport was closed for a considerable time, and that when it was reopened it was treacherous. Why was that important arterial route not kept clear for the free passage of traffic?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

This is the first occasion on which I have spoken here since the deplorable attack on the Belfast premises of the Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee. I utterly condemn such attacks on the property of any elected representative.

As for the issue that he raised, there will always be locations where individual public representatives and members of the public are concerned about what they perceive to be the non-salting or the inadequate salting of a road. That will always be a difficulty in such extreme weather conditions. I undertake to respond to Mr Maginness verbally on Wednesday morning and, if necessary, in writing, in relation to the salting of the M2 and the motorway network.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Like him, we offer no criticism of the Roads Service staff who were employed in attempting to deal with the great crisis.

However, a number of issues are outstanding. The Minister will undoubtedly be aware of the real anger that many people felt all over Northern Ireland, and particularly in my constituency of Newry and Armagh, about the lack of gritting on what are classified as minor roads. Can the Minister assure me that he will undertake an urgent review of gritting schedules in my constituency? We need to ensure that roads classified as minor roads, but which are nonetheless important link roads, receive equitable treatment in wintry conditions.

Will the Minister tell us how much grit was available in regional depots in advance of the extreme weather conditions, and whether those supplies were considered adequate? The Minister said that the Met Office gave a warning about weather conditions. When was that warning received? Were adequate measures put in place to ensure that it was dealt with?

Finally, I want to ask —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

This is an opportunity for individual Members to ask individual questions, not questions with as many legs as a centipede.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Mr Speaker, I am grateful for your indulgence.

Given the stringent criteria used by the Minister’s Department, surely his Department is left open to some criticism. The road network around Parliament Buildings was gritted, yet roads throughout Northern Ireland were not.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I have no figures for the precise amount of salt available in the Newry and Armagh area, but I will undertake to see if it is possible to establish them. I draw the Member’s attention to the figure of 17,000 tonnes of salt that I cited for all of Northern Ireland.

I attempted to cover the issue of advance knowledge in my explanation of the role of road sensors — which are the responsibility of Roads Service — and Met Office information, both of which are used to ensure that advance salting takes place.

In the greater Belfast area there were two advance salting treatments — one at 3·30 am and one at midday. I did not make reference to the Newry/Armagh area but I will establish what advance preparation took place in the Member’s constituency and write to him regarding that matter.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Any reasonable person will recognise that the turn in the weather was severe and quick. As Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, I ask the Minister if he feels that urban areas have an advantage over outlying rural areas in the gritting programme. Outlying rural districts have more problems as a result of such a turn in the weather than do rural districts. As a result, farmers in those areas have difficulty foddering their stock. In the Minister’s reappraisal, will he announce an enquiry into allegations that some farmers who asked to be supplied with gritting material were refused? Those farmers said that they would pay for it but the Department for Regional Development would not sell it to them. That is a serious matter — if it in fact arose.

Regarding the vehicles that required attachments, there is evidence to suggest that in some cases the attachment was at one district office and the vehicle was at another, and due to the snow the vehicle could not get to the place where the attachment was. The Minister must examine that claim.

The Department did the best it could in such a freak storm, and I do not think that anyone here will want to indict the Minister or his officials. However, the Department for Regional Development must instigate a complete review of the situation and deal with the points raised by public representatives — just as Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) did when it got into trouble.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

My reassessment will include a review of the criteria for the establishment of self-help salt boxes. In rural areas, particularly where the farming community needs to gain access to the more heavily used routes, salt boxes ought to be — and for the most part are — provided. However, the Department for Regional Development will endeavour to see where additional measures of assistance can be taken.

I am not aware of any problems regarding the provision of snowploughs and their required attachments, or of a problem where an operation took place in one division while the work to be carried out was in another. If such problems exist, I will undertake to investigate them and ensure that they are ironed out immediately before further snow falls. The Department’s difficulty in reviewing the criteria will be one of resources. Whatever happens as an outcome of the reassessment will have implications for the budget of the Department for Regional Development. However, I am happy to take those and other views on board.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It may be because this is the first sitting since recess, but Members appear to have got out of the good habit of being concise in their questions. I appeal to Members to be as concise as possible as many Members wish to put questions. Standing Orders set a time limit of one hour for these questions, and we want to try to get as many asked as possible.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom na daoine ar an talamh a mholadh as an obair ar fónamh a rinne siad. I commend those who worked so hard on the ground over the Christmas period, although it is clear that Members who are sporting healthy tans did not experience the problems that some of the rest of us did with the winter gritting schedule.

I would like to see fresh, innovative thinking from the Minister and the Department. I would also like to see the establishment of an interdepartmental task force consisting of representatives from the Department for Regional Development, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the farmers’ unions. This body could aid the Minister to examine the possibility of tasking farmers to grit some of the network which is not being reached, and of remunerating them to do so. This is already in order with respect to some snow clearance work, but it could apply similarly to gritting in rural areas. Given the current crisis in agriculture, this would supply a good supplementary income for farmers. Will the Minister assure the House that he will consider establishing such a task force, with these aims in mind?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Members will recall that one of the seven reassessment points that I mentioned was that I would invite district councils to work with Roads Service in the clearance of pedestrian areas and town centre footpaths during extreme weather conditions. I am prepared to analyse what help district councils could provide, and what co-operative arrangements we could enter into with them to assist in dealing with very extreme climatic conditions. If other matters pertain, particularly to the rural community, I will be happy to invite district councils and others to assess whether the current methodology is the best one, and, if not, how we can improve upon it.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I also welcome the statement. I agree that Roads Service staff did the best job they could in the conditions. Local difficulties arose, but we need to recognise that these were freak weather conditions. In his statement the Minister talks about salt, about its disadvantages and the fact that it does not always work, especially with snow. I take on board what the Minister said about money and the fact that we do not have these conditions all the time, but I have been told by people from other countries that there are other types of salt which work with snow. In the review, will consideration be given to the type of salt that should be used?

In some ways it was good that the snow fell during the holiday period, but if it had happened during a time when many people were going to work, I am sure that the main roads would have been salted.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I press the Member to put her question.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

They are questions, Mr Speaker, but I appreciate what you are saying.

Will the criteria of roads, especially school routes, be looked at? Finally, is the Minister satisfied with the level of co-ordination between sections of Roads Service and other agencies?

I also welcome the review. It is very prompt work by the Department.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Alternative de-icing materials is an issue that raises its head from time to time and one on which I requested information immediately after the Christmas holidays. I am informed that there are a number of alternative materials such as calcium magnesium acetate and calcium chloride.

The fact remains that salt is still the main material used on the European roads network. Urea is used on steel bridges, including at least one in Northern Ireland, as well as on airport runways because it is less corrosive to steel and aluminium. However, it is less effective, more environmentally damaging, and twice as expensive as salt. Clearway is used to de-ice runways, but costs 30 times more than salt. Even those authorities using Clearway struggled to keep airports open throughout the four days mentioned.

There are many other materials, the cost and effectiveness of which range widely. I have to reiterate that there is a need to be cognisant of the substantial additional cost that would be incurred if we were to consider some of the much more expensive materials that I have itemised. We will look at these. However, to consider using materials that cost up to 30 times more than salt would substantially inhibit the amount of such material that would be available. It would reduce, rather then increase, the extent of the roads network which could be covered in extreme weather conditions. I will write to the honourable Member in response to that particular issue.

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

Heavy snow was forecast for the afternoon of the 27 December, yet traffic was at a standstill on the M2 and the M5 with lorries jack-knifed and vehicles abandoned. Whilst the conditions were extreme, it was taking drivers up to four hours to travel a distance of about seven miles. Will the Department undertake to investigate why there were so few emergency vehicles? There were none on that stretch of the M2 and M5 for long periods during the rush hour despite heavy snow having been forecast well in advance.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I will undertake to analyse the time period. I heard the reference to the M2 and the M5 and I take it that the Member was referring to the afternoon of 27 December. I will undertake to establish, if possible, the number of vehicles that were salting that route at that time, and I will respond in writing.

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

I cannot welcome the statement because it pre-empted a motion I tabled last week, which is no longer going to be discussed. Nonetheless, may I invite the Minister to go back to his office, put on his wellington boots and stick the boot into Roads Service management, who allowed this complete fiasco to happen. It may happen only once every 20 years, but the lack of forward planning and preparation was scandalous.

For instance, the Minister referred to 135 gritting machines. Drivers and technicians were deployed in Newry, but the snowploughs were in Armagh city. The vehicles could not do their work. Something is drastically wrong when that happens. The Minister also talked about considering the establishment of priority routes. Will he reconsider the old classification of roads: A, B, C and unclassified? That classification is almost 100 years old and does not take into account the location of nursing homes, health centres, GP out-of-hours services, hospitals and other essential services.

Will he also consider ensuring that at least one food retail outlet is available in all rural areas? During the Christmas storms many people were stuck without transport, water, food, heat and power.

Finally, will he use his good offices and those of his Department to try and help co-ordinate responses to these circumstances? There was no co-ordination among the district councils, the Water Service, the Roads Service, the Ambulance Service, out-of-hours GP services and the police. It was a complete fiasco. We cannot wash our hands and say that we are all absolved just because the men and women on the ground did a good job. We have got to sort this problem out.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I hope that, upon mature reflection, Mr Fee will reconsider the advocacy of physical violence upon some of the staff.

I readily concede — I have said this several times to my officials and to public representatives — that there is a huge disparity between the public expectation of snow- free and ice-free roads and the reality on some occasions. There must be, and there will be, no complacency whatsoever in the Department for Regional Development; however, we must operate within existing confines.

I understand the Member’s frustration, and that of the people whom he represents, in relation to the situation in his area. It is often the case that in traversing the main roads of Northern Ireland members of the public will have the perception that a main thoroughfare has not been salted if vehicles are sliding or there is a sparkle on the road. If they do not see a salting vehicle they again have the perception that the road has not been salted. It is very difficult to bridge the gap between public expectation and what happens on the ground. I repeat that there is not, and there will not be, any complacency.

I will review the arrangements in relation to Newry and Armagh as for every other part of Northern Ireland. I reiterate, however, that, given the extreme circumstances, with a temperature of minus 10 degrees Celsius, or even lower, on the road surface, salt was not fully effective. People assumed that roads were not salted when in fact they were. I assure Members that we will review the conditions that people were faced with from 27 December to 31 December. [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am not quite sure what the Morse message being transmitted was, but we will try to make sure that it is picked up.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I too thank the Minister for his statement, and I join in the widespread expression of thanks to the Department for Regional Development’s staff on the ground — it is well deserved in many cases. I welcome the proposed review and the possibility of the inclusion of district councils in the solution to the problem.

I want to turn to an issue, on page two of the statement, which has already been touched on by many Members. The problem lies with the objective criteria. We are seeking greater subjectivity, particularly for the 20% of the population who are not covered, as Dr Paisley mentioned, by the present criteria. People want to know that their children can get to and from school safely. They want to know that those involved in community care — doctors, nurses and home helps — can exercise their duty of care. Farmers want to know that feed lorries and milk tankers can get through. Householders want to be sure that refuse can be collected. In short, the rural population wants proper services. Perhaps it does not mind the 8% increase in regional rates so much, providing that it gets value for money from it. Can we be assured that a review will take this on board?

As regards salting materials, the Minister talked about the cost difficulties in relation to the materials being investigated. However, is there ongoing research and development into alternative salting materials that could be utilised in severe weather conditions?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question, or series of questions. First of all, I accept, with regard to the salting of 80% of the network, that the remaining 20% is untreated. Mr Hussey, who is a member of the Regional Development Committee, will be aware that I will be in front of the Committee on Wednesday, and I have no doubt that we will look at the possibility of extending the salted network.

I reiterate that if we were to increase the 80% coverage of traffic in normal conditions to 90% —bridging the gap by only half — the bill would double from the existing £5 million to £10 million. That figure does not include the £18 million of additional cost for capital equipment.

If we were to do the entire road network the running costs would quadruple and the one-off initial capital investment of plant would increase to £36 million. Of course, we will consider these issues and discuss them in Committee session, but, as I have said, I have to be cognisant of the cost factor.

The Member mentioned the 8% increase in the regional rate. I understand that Members may learn later today whether people are accepting this increase, and Mr Hussey may then find them less accepting than he appears to think that they may be. However, that is a separate issue.

I will be in front of the Committee on Wednesday, and I will consider these complicated issues and their resource implications. We will discuss them, and I have no doubt that the Member and the rest of the Committee will give their views on Wednesday.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and ask him to accept my appreciation of the Roads Service staff’s work during recent exceptional circumstances. However, does the Minister accept that there is a danger in the uneven level of salting, or gritting, across the Province? Quite often there is a differential between district councils, and one can actually see where one ends and another begins. Each council seems to have a different policy, which is dangerous. Can we have more co-ordinated arrangements between district councils to make road travel safer? Does he understand that there is a concern about the safety of the public and school children? We thank God that recently an accident was spared involving children on a bus. Can something be done about salting school routes on small country roads to ensure safe travelling?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am conscious that in various divisions section engineers use their own judgement about whether there will be salting, when it will occur and to what intensity it will be undertaken. I am conscious of the Member’s comments, particularly about people travelling across Northern Ireland. I have heard, historically, of palpable differences between one division and another. I have taken note of the Member’s comments, and I will investigate them to ensure that there is a standard degree of implementation across Northern Ireland.

The Member mentioned school bus runs, particularly the one that was in the news recently. As the second point in the internal review, I am considering the establishment of priority routes for treatment to ensure that there is access to key public services in snow conditions. In conjunction with the Regional Development Committee, I will be examining how to include access to schools as part of that review.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister clarify whether there has been a change in the working conditions of those employed in gritting roads in the South Armagh and South Down areas? It appears that their working conditions were changed in December 2000. Can he also explain why the salt boxes in many housing estates were not seen to, considering the forecast of bad weather conditions? Those boxes ought to have been filled with sand and salt prior to the arrival of the heavy weather in December. In my area, there were incidences where people could not get out of some housing estates. Things would have been much easier for them had there been some sand and grit available.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am not aware of any change in working conditions during December, although I will undertake to investigate the issue. I will be revising the criteria for the establishment of salt boxes. It is difficult to indicate whether criteria will be applied for the establishment of these boxes. If no criteria are applied, tens of thousands could be supplied. The Road Service can and will respond to requests for salt boxes. We are currently reviewing the provision of such boxes.

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

The Minister’s statement is very comprehensive given the circumstances we have just been through. Given that the primary criterion used is "the one thousand vehicles per day" criterion, does the Minister accept that most rural car owners travel, on average, 10,000 miles more per year and, as a result, they pay £750 extra on fuel duties and VAT duties? Does he accept that car owners in the more provincial rural areas need and aspire to having roads treated equally to those living in the Belfast metropolitan area?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

As the Member is also on the Regional Development Committee, this point, among others, will come to the surface at the meeting on Wednesday, where they will be looked at and analysed. I am very concerned about the numbers of people in the rural community who feel that urban centres receive a higher concentration of resources than they do. However, we must have criteria. The current criteria were developed in 1996, and we are reviewing them now in conjunction with the Regional Development Committee. The Member and I are conscious of the higher concentration of vehicular traffic existing on main roads, as well as the necessity to try to ensure that a concentration of resources is present there. I fully accept, however, that we cannot do that to the exclusion of the rural dweller, and I look forward to the discussion that we will undoubtedly have on Wednesday.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

We have to be very thankful that there were no weather-related deaths on the roads over this period. That is one thing that some of us perhaps forgot.

In the event of further sudden adverse weather conditions, what contingency plans does the Minister have to deal with disruption and gridlock on roads throughout the Province, particularly rural roads? The M2 was closed for a short time, and since that is the main road between Coleraine, Londonderry and Belfast, it is very important that it should be kept open.

I agree that urban areas have an advantage over rural areas, and that people in rural areas are more vulnerable than those in towns. That has to be considered. It was good that the frost and snow did not last any longer, and since we have government now in our own hands and in the control of local people, we hope that the situation will not arise again. Will the Minister consider using local contractors or farmers under the direction of the relevant area engineer? That might be more cost-effective.

I have written to the Minister, and hope that I will be having a meeting with him at a later date.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Member raises a number of issues, some of which I hope I have dealt with. As I have said, I undertake to establish the circumstances with regard to the M2 on the afternoon of 27 December. I appreciate and accept the central nature of the M2 corridor. Given that I use it almost every day, the member would expect me to say that.

I accept the issue of rural dwellers from the Member, as I do from others. We will have to examine that, given the circumstances that prevail, but I will not go over the concentration on the other areas. However, I will not go over the issue of the exclusion of rural dwellers again.

The issue of using farmers and small contractors has emerged in the past and we will examine that as part of the review.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I encourage Members to listen to the questions that other Members are asking and not simply repeat them. That takes up time, and we may not be able to get through all the questions that Members wish to ask. Of course, the Chair accepts that sometimes a Minister does not give a full enough answer to a question. Then it is perhaps best to ask a different question, or to couch the question in another way — in a probing fashion — to elicit a different response, rather than simply reiterate questions to which the Minister’s response is "I have already answered the question." I encourage Members to think in that way.

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. As a member of the Regional Development Committee, I look forward to meeting him on Wednesday in relation to some of the country roads in my area, at Glenarm, Carnalbanagh and Feystown. Some of the comments from the people living in the town areas were interesting. We sometimes forget that folk in country areas experience this weather quite often throughout the year.

Under normal circumstances, when an adverse weather forecast is received from the Met Office, at what time do the gritters and salters get out on the roads? How does that compare with what happened over the Christmas period?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Member referred to the issue that is central to my statement — the extremity of the conditions. Normally — for example, on recent nights, when temperatures have been anything between minus one and minus three — Roads Service might salt in the evening, but certainly in advance of the early-morning rush hour. It might complete the salting of the road network by, for example, 6.30 am. Of course, it depends on the overnight weather conditions.

That compares starkly with the conditions we faced between 27 December and 31 December. The surface snow temperature was minus 18 degrees Celsius and very heavy snow throughout most of that period meant that the gritters were working almost continuously. That is why I wanted to go to some considerable lengths to pay tribute to the staff of the Roads Service. I accept the many commendations from Members, including Mr R Hutchinson, to the staff who worked throughout the holiday period in severe climatic conditions and I will pass on those commendations.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A Cheann Comhairle, I welcome the statement. I suppose it covers the basic questions that have been feeding in to the Department.

When looking at the rural versus the urban situation with regard to covering 80% of the road network, what percentage of Fermanagh and Tyrone roads would that figure cover? I imagine that the area would be very low in terms of the number of roads covered, given that we have a large network of minor roads and that people have to negotiate these to get to services. What impact was there on access to key services such as emergency, care, refuse collection for those in rural areas compared to those living in Belfast? I know that in some areas refuse collection did not take place until after the thaw. Farmers had to wait for milk to be collected — if they had enough tank capacity to last until then.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

We are concentrating on the rural provision, which I have already covered, but I am happy to respond again before the Regional Development Committee and on subsequent occasions in the Assembly.

Rural dwellers need to be catered for and there is a need to ensure that there is adequate provision in terms of the winter maintenance budget in their areas. It may be difficult, but I will endeavour to establish what proportion of the overall Northern Ireland 80% roads coverage relates to the Fermanagh/South Tyrone area.

We are debating the period 27 December to 31 December. Just nine days before the beginning of that difficult weather period, the Assembly voted on the Budget. In that Budget, the Roads Service received a nominal uplift in road maintenance. I do not wish to dwell at length on the matter, but I am constrained by the budget allocated to me. If we consider any amendment or enlargement of the salted road network, then the consequences for the allocation of resources may be considerable.

I would expect to receive the support of Members if we decided, as a result of this review, to enlarge or enhance the salted network.

12.00

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

The greatest disappointment in my area during those terrible days was the situation on the main A1 route to the border, at Killeen. The route was completely impassable at times, and yet the roads from the border to Dublin were completely clear in spite of the fact that there was similar snowfall there.

We have heard about reappraisals and a review — and everyone agrees that these are very necessary — but reviews are for the future. I want to ask the Minister what the situation would be on routes such as the A1 if we had a repeat of the Christmas snowfall later today, tomorrow or next week.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

There has been some reference, both in the House and in the public domain, to the A1. The salting of the A1 from the border to Sprucefield is controlled by the southern division. The road is divided into four separate salting sections. All of these sections were salted at 20 grams per square metre. This started at 6.30 pm on Tuesday, on the A1, and recommenced at 4.30 am on Wednesday. Salting was done again at 2.30 pm, and continued thereafter until 31 December. Considerable effort was put into the salting of the A1. As I said in my statement, the eastern part of Northern Ireland was the most heavily affected by the snow, and that, of course, includes the A1. We will look at that route again, as we will look at others.

I take the Member’s point about the Republic of Ireland, although I am not sure about the extent of the snowfall there. We will be able to establish that. I will respond to the Member in writing, as I will to the other Members who have made specific points.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement and put on record my thanks to the Roads Service staff who worked through the exceptional weather conditions to try to keep the roads free.

I welcome the Minister’s invitation to local councils to assist in clearing footpaths in town centres. Does the Minister accept that some local government vehicles could be easily adapted to have snowploughs added, thereby providing additional assistance during such exceptional weather conditions?

Will the Minister also undertake to advise of the specific cost of ensuring that all school bus routes are gritted? The general figures that he talked about today were given to me by Lord Dubs over two years ago. If devolution is going to mean anything, we should be getting more precise information and be aware of what those costs are. Does the Minister accept that gritting school bus routes would protect children’s safety and also open up the main rural routes to emergency services, should they be required? Will he ensure that there is greater transparency in identifying what costs would be involved and the benefits to the rural community which would ensue?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

As I have said, I wish to invite district councils to work with us in clearing pedestrian areas and town centre footpaths. I am aware of very extreme conditions that prevailed in some pedestrian areas on the north coast over the period, and some measures were taken to try to alleviate the situation. I understand that several years ago the Roads Service did try to establish a working relationship with district councils. In fact, some small, localised arrangements do exist among a small number of councils.

However, I want to revisit that issue to see if it is possible to expand those arrangements across Northern Ireland. It would obviously help if, in doing so, we were able to utilise some of the local councils’ vehicles, but we will have to examine the implications of that. I understand that, on previous occasions, the councils experienced difficulties in trying to establish this relationship, but further progress will be sought.

Mr Beggs also mentioned the cost of gritting the bus routes. The establishment of priority routes will be an issue, including the treatment of bus routes to schools, which has been mentioned on several occasions by Members.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and join in offering the thanks of my party to the staff of the Roads Service who worked in extreme and trying conditions to keep the traffic moving. This was the first serious snowfall since 1982 and there has been a general increase in the mildness of winters. Given these facts and the town and country argument about who is getting more of the cake, will the Minister indicate the cost of having on hand sufficient machinery and manpower to cope with an emergency that occurs perhaps once every 15 or 20 years and give parity of treatment to every road, rural and urban?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

During the period between 27 and 31 December temperatures were the most extreme — minus 18C — and snowfall was the highest across Northern Ireland since approximately 1982.

It would cost £36 million of capital investment to provide a winter maintenance schedule that would ensure that every road in Northern Ireland was salted, irrespective of the number of vehicles that normally use some roads, and to ensure that we had enough gritters and the snowploughs to do that. An extra £20 million would also be needed on an ongoing, annual basis to ensure that this could continue to be done.

In addition, trying to ensure that all the roads were salted in approximately three to three-and-a-half hours, as happens with many at the moment, would cost a substantial amount more. So, the short answer, I am afraid, is that this service would cost considerably more money than we have available to us at present.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister pass on my thanks to his 400 men? In the circumstances, they carried out personal tasks for many of us, such as accommodating funerals and helping with other emergencies — this was welcome.

The Minister has already mentioned the variations in the treatment of roads in different areas. Can he tell us why the M1, an arterial route, was less well salted than roads in the more remote areas of west Tyrone, and is he aware that the figure of £870,000 is twice that of the budget for minor works to roads throughout west Tyrone?

I am bearing in mind that this was a holiday season with a third less traffic on the roadway than normal and no school buses running. Would it have been a dire emergency in normal times, or would the cutting edge of the traffic have made better use of the salt?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

In relation to the Member’s latter point, I think I made this point clear, and I know that Roads Service personnel did in media interviews at the time: it is a fact that traffic on a salted road enables the salt to take effect. The greater the flow of traffic on the road, the more effective the salt becomes. Conversely, the less traffic there is on the road, the more difficult it is for the salt to work effectively.

Mr Gibson raised the issue of the M1. Let us return to the issue of public perception, which I recognise to be a factor. When Members of the public get into their vehicles there is an expectation, even in times of extreme weather conditions, that a main route like the M1 or the M2 will be clear. Whether the motorway had been salted one, two, three or even four hours before, there is an expectation that it should be clear. That is not always the case, particularly in the very extreme circumstances that we were faced with in this four-day period. However, I undertake to have the degree of salting of the M1 on those days examined, and I will write to the Member concerning that.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. While I welcome the Minister’s statement, it is unfortunate that it has obviated the need for a proper debate on the matter. This is a perennial debate — year in, year out, we have the same argument about the lack of gritting. The issue was worthy of a proper debate in the Assembly, and it is unfortunate that we are not having that.

I would like to commend all those workers who went out and did their best, especially in my council area.

Will the Minister quantify the cost to the Health Service and the community of the increase in fractures? Also, I was surprised to hear one of his officials saying that there is no statutory obligation on the Department of Regional Development to grit the roads. I want the Minister to bring that matter to the Executive and to ask the Executive to make gritting a statutory obligation.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The time is up, so I have to ask the Minister to respond in writing to the Member’s questions.

However, I wish to make some comments. First, if Members had not insisted on thanking and commending all of those who worked so hard during the emergency before asking their questions, all those who wanted to ask questions would have been able to do so.

Secondly, if Members had not asked questions that were merely repetitions of previous questions, forcing the Minister to repeat a previous answer, we would have had more than enough time for all Members.

Finally, Members should check their questions to be sure that they are being put to the proper Minister. For example, a question on the effect on the Health Service has to be a question for the Minister of Health and not for the Minister for Regional Development.

However, I accept that with the degree of cold and the freezing up of the thinking processes during the recess, Members are not quite into the full way of going. Perhaps Members will recall those points when we come to questions to the Ministers later today and at other times.

Electronic Communcations Bill: Second Stage

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

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Electronic Communications Bill (NI 9/00) be agreed.

I would like to begin by explaining the need for this Bill and its importance to the development of e-commerce and e-government in Northern Ireland. I will then deal with the detailed content of the Bill and its implications for the Government, for business and for the ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland.

The need for legislation stems from two European Union directives. First, the 1999 directive addresses a community framework for electronic signature. An electronic signature is a secure personal code which, combined with a device or a piece of specific information, uniquely identifies an individual. All Members of the House will be familiar with the automatic teller machines, or the holes in the wall, as they are commonly called. You insert your cash card, you key in your personal number and you take out cash, that is if you have any cash.

The combination of the card and the personal identification number (PIN) make up an electronic signature. There are other more sophisticated forms of electronic signature but in essence they all boil down to the same thing: a swipe card, or some other device, plus a piece of personal information that is known to you and is unlikely to be known by many people — for example, your PIN, your mother’s maiden name or your date of birth. Some telephone services ask you to verify your identify by providing such information. The 1999 directive established a common legal framework for electronic signatures and the related arrangements for accreditation and certification across the member states of the European Union. This was done to ensure that different definitions did not constitute barriers to electronic commerce across the European Union, and all member states must comply with this directive by July 2001.

Secondly, there is the 2000 directive on electronic commerce, which creates a legal framework to ensure the free movement of information society services between member states. A key requirement of the directive is that each member state has to amend any legislation that contains requirements that are likely to curb the use of contracts by electronic means. Member states must comply with this directive by January 2002.

In response to these two directives, the United Kingdom Government brought forward the Electronic Communications Act 2000, which received Royal Assent in May 2000. The Act is a key element in the Westminster Government’s vision of making this the best place in the world to conduct e-business. In particular, it provides for the removal of legislative barriers to e-commerce, as required by the EU directive.

The purpose of the Electronic Communications Bill that is before the House today is to ensure that Departments in the Northern Ireland Executive have the same powers as their counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales to permit, and indeed to promote, electronic commerce. Specifically, the Bill will allow Northern Ireland Departments to modify existing Northern Ireland legislation for the purpose of authorising or facilitating the use of electronic communications.

These powers were conferred on Ministers of the Westminster Government and on Ministers of the devolved authorities in Scotland and Wales under the Electronic Communications Act 2000. During key stages of the passage of that Bill through Westminster, the Northern Ireland Assembly either had not achieved devolution or was in a state of suspension, and the Bill, therefore, did not bring us into line. The purpose of the Bill before the House today is to bring us into line now with England, Scotland and Wales.

A great deal still needs to be done by each of the devolved Administrations to identify and deliver the programmes of subordinate legislation necessary to remove barriers to e-commerce. Under the powers proposed in this Bill, legislation may be amended that will affect all Government Departments and enable a range of transactions to be carried out electronically. Those could range from vehicle registration and taxation to companies’ registration and social security claims — a wide range of interfaces between citizens and the Administration. An interdepartmental group of officials is already working to identify the specific pieces of legislation in need of change. A consequential programme of amending legislation will be drawn up and prioritised to bring appropriate Northern Ireland legislation into line with the requirements of European Union directives.

This Bill in itself will not directly affect Northern Ireland’s businesses and citizens; it will merely enable Northern Ireland Departments to amend their legislation. Subordinate legislation made under the powers conferred by the Bill will have a more direct impact on business and citizens than the Bill itself. Where a responsible Department considers it necessary, it will be subject to an affirmative procedure in the Assembly.

I have already said that the Electronic Communications Act 2000 is a key element in the UK Government’s vision for e-commerce. However, it will also facilitate a quantum leap in the electronic delivery of Government services to the public. Legislation was made in July 2000 in the Republic of Ireland for the same purpose. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have agreed that Northern Ireland should be part of the revolution in electronic commerce and in the electronic delivery of Government services. It is important that we keep abreast of the developments currently taking place in both Great Britain and the Republic on both the East/West and North/South axes.

It might be helpful to give a brief summary of the Electronic Communications Act 2000. Its main purpose is to help build confidence in e-commerce and the technology underlined, and to remove any statutory barriers to using electronic signatures and data storage. The Act covers a number of separate aspects. First, it covers an approval scheme for businesses and other organisations, providing cryptography or secure encoding support services such as electronic signature services and related confidentiality services.

Secondly, it covers the legal recognition of electronic signatures and the process under which they are verified, generated or communicated. That effectively affords electronic signatures the same status and the same legal status as a written signature on a piece of paper. Finally, it removes obstacles to the use of electronic communication and storage in place of paper storage in other legislation.

Approval schemes for cryptography services are a reserved matter under section 4(1) and paragraph 29 of schedule 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 — I hope Members are able to follow that — so the provisions of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 already apply in Northern Ireland. Cryptography involves the electronic encoding of a document so that its content can be accessed and read only by the sender and intended recipient. The recipient must have the necessary code or key to enable the message to be decoded. Suppliers of cryptography services will be permitted in the first instance to be self- regulating in setting and complying with industry standards. However, the UK Act provides for Government regulation in the future, should it be needed.

The legal recognition of electronic signatures is similarly dealt with in section 7 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000. The Bill before us relates primarily to the third and final issue — the removal of obstacles to the use of electronic signatures and data storage in other legislation.

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

Clause 1 of the Bill contains powers designed to remove restrictions in existing legislation that prevent the use of electronic communications and storage, and to enable the use to be more clearly defined where it is already allowed. A large number of existing statutes make provision for a wide range of services requiring the use of written signatures. These include applications by businesses or members of the public to the Government for licenses or grants — for example, applications for driving or fishing licenses, claims for housing benefit, social security benefits and so forth. The powers afforded by clause 1 can be used to modify legislation to enable such transactions to be conducted electronically. That would make such transactions quicker, more efficient and more convenient, both for businesses and members of the public.

It is important to note that the Bill does not remove the option to use any of the traditional means of transacting business. Citizens will still be able to fill out the traditional paper form and send it in in the normal way. The Bill will provide for legislation to be amended so that the ordinary citizen can do these things electronically over the internet. Citizens and businesses will still be able to conduct business by letter, by telephone or by attending a Government office. This legislation simply adds the option of doing all of that electronically.

The uptake of this electronic option might be gradual, but Government should make the option available now and encourage people to use new technology to improve the quality and responsiveness of Government services to businesses and to individual citizens. The number of citizens with online capability is increasing, and as every parent in the Assembly knows, when the present generation of children leaves school that will increase dramatically. Each of us is aware of how much more sophisticated our children are in the use of electronic communications than our generation.

Clause 2 contains standard provisions commonly bestowed on the executive arm of Government to make subordinate legislation so that complementary and supplementary provision can be made if necessary.

Clause 3 is a complicated and technical-sounding provision. It is designed to prohibit the introduction in any subsequent legislation of what is called "key escrow". I shall briefly explain what that means, as I did not know myself until recently. It was explained earlier that the secure transmission of an electronic document requires the use of a secure private code or key. Key escrow would require such private keys to be deposited with a trusted third party, such as a bank. There are concerns that if banks or similar agencies stored codes or keys of this kind, other interested parties could possibly gain access to them without the knowledge or approval of those using those codes to send or receive documents.

Our parliamentary counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales rejected the imposition of a key escrow scheme. Clause 3 of our Bill similarly seeks to prohibit this requirement. If someone believes that they have a legitimate right to access an encrypted document, they will have to apply to a court, giving good reason why they should be able to see it. The situation is similar with paper documents today — if anyone seeks access to private documents, they have to get a court order. It will be the same for electronically stored data.

Clause 3 allows for arrangements to be made to ensure that an electronic transaction can be continued in the event of the key being either damaged or lost. In such cases there will be a back-up that will ensure that electronic transactions are not entirely nullified by the loss of, or damage to, a key or code.

Clauses 4 and 5 are formal and self-explanatory provisions.

In summarising, I would like to take a couple of moments to put this Bill in context. The electronic age has been upon us for some time and businesses and the public are rapidly realising the benefits, in speed and convenience, which the new technologies make possible. The Government have to take full account of these developments to ensure that citizens and businesses in Northern Ireland are afforded the best possible services, on a par with those in any other part of these islands or, indeed, in any other part of the world. Our colleagues in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland have already taken similar powers to those we propose today that the Assembly should give to the Executive. We in Northern Ireland must align ourselves so that we can stay abreast of the progress made possible by new information and communication technology.

It has already been stated that the powers proposed in this Bill will not directly affect individual citizens or businesses. They will simply permit Northern Ireland Departments to amend legislation, where necessary, in order to legalise the use of electronic signatures and the storage of data by electronic means. The consequential subordinate legislation made under these powers will have a direct impact on citizens and businesses in that they will give them the option of conducting transactions electronically.

Much work is already in hand across Departments to capitalise on the new technologies. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, through the information age initiative, is encouraging the development of an innovative, knowledge-based economy in Northern Ireland. Corporate frameworks, technical strategies and e-business strategies are being developed to ensure that we have the capability to offer more efficient and more effective public services in the information age.

An Internet portal for the Northern Ireland Administration is being constructed and will form one of the main electronic interfaces between the Administration and the public. Information will be readily available in a format that will relate to people’s needs and not to how the Government providers are organised. The information will be available in a format that is user-friendly to an individual citizen rather than in a format convenient for bureaucracy.

The technology and capability are already available to enable the Government to conduct their business electronically. However, we need to amend our laws to accommodate these developments, and this Bill will provide us with the necessary powers. We will try to deal with any questions that arise in the course of debate. My Colleague Mr Nesbitt will respond to questions that are raised when he winds up.

I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank Junior Minister Haughey for bringing this Bill before the House on behalf of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The House will generally welcome the main principles of the Bill. In November the Committee of the Centre considered the Bill’s policy issues and agreed with the need for this legislation to be brought forward. It will bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland should play its full part in the UK’s overall drive towards the modernisation of Government services. The adoption of this Bill is an essential part of that.

I noted what Mr Haughey had to say in his concluding remarks. It is important that the Government recognise the benefit of electronic communication for delivering government efficiently. This will take more than legislation and words; it will take adequate resources for e-Government actually to be delivered. Of course, we have the service modernisation fund. In the last spending round, some £14·9 million was applied for but nothing was achieved.

We cannot deal with this issue realistically without resourcing it adequately. I know that the Ministers will take that point on board.

Clause 2 subsection 3 makes provisions for regulations made under clause 1 to be subject to negative resolution of the Assembly and that, in certain circumstances under clause 2 subsection 4, regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution of the Assembly. It is important that these regulations are subject to the scrutiny of the Assembly. I hope, and I am fairly confident, that the regulations will allow the involvement of technology in this particular field. It will improve safeguards and will help to reassure Assembly Members and the public.

I am pleased that clause 3 prohibits the imposition of a requirement to deposit a key for data with an intended recipient, except when that person is the intended recipient. This is an important human rights safeguard. Mr Haughey indicated that a bank could be a trusted third party. I wonder if everybody would be as trusting in such a third party as he would be.

I support the general principles of the Bill and look forward to further debate and discussion at Committee stage.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I enthusiastically welcome this legislation and I hope that its provisions can substantially enhance the potential growth of e-commerce and e-government in Northern Ireland.

There are essentially four types of electronic communication: business-to-business e-commerce, business- to-consumer e-commerce, citizen-to-government e-government, and individual-to-individual transactions.

In 1998 it was estimated that there was $43 billion in global business to business e-commerce. By 2002, it is estimated, this figure will increase to $300 billion. In 1998, business to consumer e-commerce was worth $7 billion worldwide. It should be worth $80 billion in the year 2002. E-commerce is the way of the future. It creates price—transparency, competition, and consequently economic growth. E-commerce is part of the emerging global economy. As Members know, it is an issue the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee has been dealing with. Northern Ireland companies have to compete in this global economy.

Economic growth will be concentrated in those countries and regions that are most tuned in to the information and communication technology revolution. Governments have a duty to facilitate these opportunities rather than cramping growth through over-regulation. It is incumbent upon Government to provide for security, integrity and confidentiality of transactions and to guarantee standards to enhance business confidence that the rule of law applies to cyberspace.

I hope that the Minister will work with UK Ministers and our European and international partners to create common European and international standards. I strongly believe that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment should move swiftly to establish an e-commerce taskforce for Northern Ireland, in order to promote the use of information technology in business and to help identify specific opportunities.

We have only got to look at the success of the recent LEDU television advertisements in promoting e-commerce. E-government can provide a more efficient, transparent and accountable service. First, it improves Government services and connections with its services. It allows greater economies of scale in procurement. It is a more effective means of delivering services. It is a more consumer-friendly way of delivering services, providing 24-hour access, seven days a week, and often avoiding the need for queues. Finally, it is a much more comprehensive system.

The problems with e-government are related to matters of trust and access. They include a competitive communications market, universal access, digital signatures, on-line privacy and consumer protection, all of which I hope will be addressed. It is hoped that this draft legislation will go some way towards addressing these concerns.

However, there are broader issues that must be addressed by the Assembly and the Executive. Targets have been set in Westminster for the delivery of e-government — it should be possible to deliver 25% of Government services electronically by 2002. In my opinion, the Executive have a duty to place increasing numbers of its services on-line. It is also important that Government services be effectively linked together to provide the joined-up government that so many of us desire. In addition, care must be taken to improve access. There is a danger that a divide will open up between the wired and the non-wired. Alliance is keen to provide portals in as many public places as possible, and there is a potential role for post offices, in particular, in this respect.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you may recall the recent visit by the Committee of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to Nortel Networks in Monkstown. Northern Ireland is at the forefront of this new field of technology, which will be of universal benefit to citizens and, more importantly, of major benefit to the people of Northern Ireland. I welcome the opportunity to address the issue, and I look forward to the Bill’s progress through the Assembly.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I thank the two Members who asked questions. Although I say that with a smile, I genuinely appreciate the Chairman of the Committee of the Centre’s warm words of support. He stated that he welcomed the general principles behind the Bill. I also thank Mr Neeson, who enthusiastically welcomed the Bill in his opening comments.

I wish to address the specific points of funding and resourcing, which were raised by Mr Poots. Such questions are helpful, because we are all concerned about funding. No specific funds were allocated to e-government in the Budget for next year. However, Departments will be able to bid for Executive funding for service modernisation, new directions and infrastructure capital renewal. Departments will also need to look to their existing budgets, which already include significant resources for information technology and ensure that they are used to best effect to move the e-government agenda forward. Some key steps in the e-government agenda, as outlined in the draft Programme for Government — such as the production of a corporate, strategic framework and a corporate information technology strategy — are not particularly resource intensive. Therefore, while we need and are looking for resources, certain activities are not entirely resource-orientated.

Mr Neeson referred to e-commerce and e-government as the way forward. I do not want to intrude on the domain of other Ministers by outlining their departmental plans, but, from an e-government point of view, we are working on an interdepartmental basis on a number of fronts. A corporate strategic framework for e-government is being developed and will form a basis upon which "citizen- centred" services will be delivered in the future. The intention is that services will be integrated across organisational boundaries to meet our customers’ requirements. A corporate information technology strategy is also being developed to ensure that the diverse range of technologies that exist in Departments are comparable and operate to a common standard.

A public service network is under construction, which, over time, will provide a wide range of value-added services for all Departments and, eventually, all parts of the public service. Targets for electronic service delivery for Northern Ireland Departments are currently under consideration along the lines of those announced by the Prime Minister for Great Britain — and I will say more about that in a moment.

Finally, I would just like to add that from the point of view of Government and e-government and the importance that Government puts on e-government, we now have the "UKOnline" web site. The local version "Online NI" went on-line on 4 December. That will become the electronic interface between Government, businesses and the public.

I also referred to e-commerce and the importance of that as well — never mind the importance of e-government. Figures published by a commercial enterprise in September 2000 showed that 21% of the population here have had some regular use of the Internet. My Colleague has already highlighted the fact that the next generation coming through the schools will be much more computer- literate and more competant users than we are — those of us in my generation at least.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Hear, hear.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

"Hear, hear." to whoever said that. Oh, it was my Colleague.

That compares with 45% in Great Britain and 21% in the Republic of Ireland. The 21% figure for Northern Ireland is up from just 3% in 1998. That shows a significant growth, but it also shows that we have much further to go.

On 11 September 2000 the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, announced the results of an international benchmarking study conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry. The Minister said

"The survey reveals that 75% of businesses in Northern Ireland are now using at least one of three key connectivity technologies — e-mail, web site or electronic data exchange — a 32% increase, compared with 43% last year. This represents the fastest growth of any UK region."

So we are taking a leap forward in e-commerce.

I said that I would refer to targets in more detail. It is right to refer to targets; they give us something to aim for and a means of knowing whether we have achieved all that we committed to deliver.

As far back as October 1997 the Prime Minister set targets for electronic service delivery. They were that within five years — therefore by 2002 — a quarter of all dealings with Government would be able to be done electronically, with 100% capability by 2008. Early assessments in Northern Ireland Departments show that they were well placed to meet the 25% target. The Prime Minister revised the targets in March 2000, and 25% of all services are now to be delivered electronically by 2002, with 100% capability by 2005.

The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales have indicated that they will adopt similar targets, albeit within the control of their own Administrations. It is important that we should respond no less speedily. I take note of Mr Poots’s comments about welcoming the aspect of comparability within the United Kingdom — this ties in with that as well. I emphasise that it is important that we should respond no less speedily than the rest of the UK — indeed, than the rest of these islands — in developing our electronic delivery of the key services.

In the draft Programme for Government the Executive Committee has given an undertaking to set local targets for electronic service delivery and to monitor progress. It is planned to put a paper on targets for electronic Government services in Northern Ireland to the Executive in the future.

I think that that should answer the questions which were asked. If I see from the transcript that I have overlooked any matters, I will address them in written form.

I thank Members for their forbearance and for being present. I particularly thank the two Members who asked the questions. The Electronic Communications Bill is a vital component for our transition to the electronic age. It paves the way for Departments to offer a speedier and more comprehensive service to our citizens, on a par with our colleagues in Britain and the Republic of Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House, and I urge that the Second Stage be agreed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Electronic Communications Bill (NIA 9/00) be agreed.

Planning (Compensation, etc) Bill: Consideration Stage

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

As no amendments have been tabled, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the seven clauses of the Bill, followed by the three schedules and the long title.

Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Electronic Communications Bill: Referral

Assembly Committees

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

I call Mr McGrady.

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

Not moved.

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

I call Mr McGrady.

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

Not moved.

Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

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

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to 6 April 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill (NIA 8/00).

The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee welcomes the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill, which will implement in Northern Ireland the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co- operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.

Members must appreciate that an extension of the Committee Stage is necessary in order to allow the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee sufficient time to give due consideration to the important issues raised in the Bill while at the same time considering other current issues. Although I am seeking an extension until 6 April 2001, it is hoped that the Committee will be in a position to bring its report to the Assembly at an earlier date. I ask Members to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to 6 April 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill (NIA 8/00).

Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill: Royal Assent

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

I wish to inform Members that Royal Assent for the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill has been signified. The Bill became law on 20 December 2000.

Assembly Business

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I have clarification on the timing of the matters that have just taken place on the Floor? I understood — but this is subject to your clarification — that if Question Time were to finish before the appointed time of 4·00 pm, the House would adjourn until 4·00 pm and then the business would continue. This has happened on other occasions. I would like your clarification on what is correct procedure when Question Time ends early.

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

If Question Time finishes early the practice has been to continue with the business in order to save time. However, I am in the hands of the House in respect of this issue. If Members feel strongly about it, we will look at it in the future.

Motion made:

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

Troubles Victims (North Antrim)

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I tabled this Adjournment motion subject because it is essential that victims be accorded a recognised place in the process so that Members can discuss their needs and adequately reflect what victims and victims’ groups require. I am concerned that victims have been written out of the political process, and it is essential that they be given a voice.

The best way to do that is to examine it on a constituency basis. Many points may be raised, but there are issues that must be raised in relation to each constituency. That is why I have tabled this motion with particular reference to my constituency.

In the New Year’s Honours list, Const Billy O’Flaherty was awarded an MBE. He is one of the most deserving recipients of that award, and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him. While it is a most fitting award, it is little to receive in return for what he lost in a cowardly IRA attack on 11 July 1989 on the Antrim coast. Constable O’Flaherty lost his arm and leg when the car he was travelling in was targeted by a roadside bomb. In spite of his horrific injuries, Constable O’Flaherty was the lucky one. Another RUC officer, Alexander Bell, lost his life in the same attack.

In total, three young men were targeted by the bomb trap on a scenic stretch of the Antrim coast road that July day. It was roundly condemned at the time not only by members of the DUP, but also by members of the SDLP. The spokesman for that area, Mr Sean Farren, who is now a Minister, condemned it in very verbose terms. However, I wish that his condemnation had been consistent, because today that same Member is partly responsible for ensuring that the people who carried out that attack are included in this Government.

When we reflect on the consequences of people’s actions, we are right to point out the inconsistencies that have appeared in people’s agendas. The reality is that people ought to have condemned that attack, but their condemnation should have been carried through and consistent to ensure that the people who carried out that attack are not one day accorded a privileged place in the Government of Northern Ireland.

Today they are the forgotten victims of the troubles, largely because of where they were attacked and why they were attacked. For that reason, the timely reminder and recognition of their sacrifice in the New Year’s Honours list is important. However, it fails to record the lives that have been destroyed, the effect on families and the difficulties experienced by families in North Antrim coping with disability perpetrated during the troubles. Those are the real costs of the troubles.

Often the number of murders in a particular area diverts us from the real message. Whether it be an atrocity in places such as Kingsmill or Omagh, where 10 people were killed, or the attack that claimed the life of Alexander Bell in the constituency of North Antrim, the effect on families is identical. North Antrim might be thought to have escaped the worst of the troubles. Statistically that argument may be made, but it cannot be sustained when you see the individual grief and the individual effects on those who have been terrorised.

North Antrim, like every area, lived and continues to live in fear of the gunmen. At the time of the murder of Mr Bell, the view was articulated that the ambush demonstrated the power of the IRA to strike at will and to strike fear at will in any part of the Province. Over the past 30 years, 42 people have been murdered in the constituency of North Antrim. In the past 10 years in North Antrim, 352 people have been injured, according to RUC statistics, and 11 people have been murdered by paramilitaries. That is an appalling indictment at a time when we are told that ceasefires have been in place and when we are in the midst of a so-called peace process.

While big atrocities such as Kingsmill, Omagh, Darkley and Tullyvallen are burnt into the collective minds of people in the Province, the thousands of individual victims who were murdered in most callous ways have, for many people, become faceless, nameless statistics. Who among us will remember Miss Elizabeth McAuley, who was killed by an IRA bomb outside her flat in Main Street, Ballymoney on 13 April 1972, or Yvonne Dunlop, a mother of three young children, who was burnt to death in an IRA firebomb attack on a clothes shop in Bridge Street, Ballymena, in October 1976, or, more recently, the murder of the three Quinn brothers in Ballymoney in my own constituency.

Who will remember those grievous attacks? That is the human face of the troubles, and one that has largely been forgotten. To forget is human.

In recognition of this, we in civilized society have taken time and formed traditions to remember the dead. The fallen of the wars are remembered each November, while 1 July has become the day when we contemplate the tragic and terrible loss at the Somme.

It is in such a spirit that I have tabled this issue for debate today, for it is my contention that in the process of appeasing and including gunmen in the Government of Northern Ireland, their victims have been forgotten. I believe that this is not because of the natural dimming of our memories, but more because of a dynamic policy at the heart of Government to neglect the victims. To remember the victims demands justice, and it is quite clear from the process that we are in that victims do not receive justice. They receive it neither financially, nor in recognition and respect. That directly affects people in my own constituency who have been murdered, as well as their families, some of whom I have mentioned.

To properly remember the victims of the troubles, we must practically help and listen to them. Towards the end of this debate, I hope to put forward some ideas on how we can practically improve their lot. I do not believe that cold marble statues do much to reach the real core of the problem. As I speak to victims in my constituency, it becomes abundantly clear that the best memorial to their loved ones would be to remove the gunmen from Government. However, that appears to be far from occurring.

Today, we have the ludicrous farce of an agreement that purports to establish a human rights agenda, yet includes, at the heart of Government, those who have been most responsible for the abuse of human rights. The apologists for those organisations sit opposite me in this Chamber. Victims of terror have delivered their damning indictment of this agreement and have concluded that there should be no terrorists in this Government. Unfortunately, such heartfelt pleas fall on deaf ears, because those who have suffered in silence appear to be condemned to continue to suffer in silence. They should not be ignored. They should be given a voice and have their position articulated fairly.

The core of the problem is that in order to really deal with victims, especially in my own constituency, there must be justice. For many groups and individuals, this should be the priority. However, the vast majority of murders remain unsolved, and while in many cases the widows and orphans know who is responsible, those people remain free. The Omagh victims, as we know, are far from satisfied, and many other victims of major atrocities have not been satisfied in terms of justice. In the case of some of the murder victims in my own constituency, people have never been made amenable to the law. With that appalling gap, people are right to ask where the justice is in this society that has failed them.

The agreement has not helped to heal those problems, yet it was supposed to. In fact, it has disgraced the sacrifice of victims and failed them. Not only does it not give justice, it also destroys the very concept of the rule of law by freeing those people who destroyed the peace in the first instance, who wreaked injustice, leaving victims in their wake.

It is important to compare the treatment of ex-prisoners’ groups with that of victims’ groups, because that allows us to analyse how fairly people are being treated. Whenever we look at it in this way, it shows us something of the political world that we live in. One of the clearest indicators of what is fundamentally wrong with this process is the treatment of these innocent victims. Their isolation and agony is in stark contrast to people who are involved in what are commonly known as ex-prisoners’ groups. Their apologists and ex-prisoners receive considerably more, yet those who have suffered the most receive the least.

To a large extent, this motion was prompted by my colleague Mr Dodds, and I am glad that he is present for the debate. The Minister of Finance and Personnel admitted, in answer to a question from Mr Dodds, that £4·5 million of European Union Peace money and £1·5 million of Northern Ireland Government money have been thrown at ex-prisoners groups. When we compare that with allocations to victims’ groups, we find that they received only a third of that amount.

The allocations from Government funds came from taxes paid by ordinary decent folk from throughout Northern Ireland who expect to see their taxes spent on hospitals and schools, and not used to keep murderers in the luxury to which they have grown accustomed. Many of us in the Assembly have fought for increases to pensions and winter fuel payments, for better benefits for the weakest in society and for relief for students, who represent the future. It is galling to see money wasted on people who are quite clearly the destroyers of yesterday. I am sure that Sinn Féin/IRA could provide their prisoners’ groups with resources from Irish America, but they want the British Government to pay for those groups.

Few homes in my constituency have not been touched by terror, and many families continue to live under the shadow of the gun. During the troubles the paramilitaries funded themselves through racketeering, drugs and an array of criminal activity. Now they can relax, knowing that the Government will continue to extort money from people while saying "Well, you do not want to go back to the bad old days, do you?" All the time, victims tell me that they still live in the bad old days and that the bad old days have never left them. Thousands of people in Northern Ireland continue to live in fear. This Christmas, many homes had an empty space at the table for fathers or sons who never returned. Today, those victims are marginalised, while the Government pursue their so-called inclusive society. It seems that the gunmen are more important to the Government; the victims are left out.

The Government and all those who signed up to this process made the decision that terrorists were more important than democrats or victims. Today we see the fruits of that policy. The research that I have done in my own constituency shows that the sum of £6 million that I mentioned is the tip of the iceberg. It does not include money channelled through the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, district partnership boards and other Government-linked intermediary funding bodies.

The biggest offender is the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust. In one instance, it gave £14,000 to a fly-fishing course for prisoners in the Maze and a further £8,000 for a follow-up course. It would be worth seeing how that amount was justified on the application form. Creative accounting reaches new levels in such applications.

The views put forward by the leaders of the groups concern me. An extract from ‘An Phoblacht’ was sent to me — obviously, I attach a health warning — in which Avila Kilmurray, Director of the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, says

"politically motivated ex-prisoners of war are at the forefront and actively continuing their struggle with their clear commitments to community development".

That concerns me, because it affects victims in my constituency. Victims’ groups do not receive such recognition. Many people feel that the agencies established by the Government do not engage in the same way with victims’ groups or allow them to channel their resources, energies and commitment in the same way that ex-prisoners are encouraged to do.

Under the European peace and reconciliation programme, victims and ex-prisoners were to be treated equally. However, it comes as no surprise to find that the funding body that saw fit to throw money at ex-prisoners is the same one that froze funding for one victims’ group, after several members of its committee were, in the natural course of events, replaced. Only when a NIVT-funded office in my constituency was turned into an arms dump and people caught there red-handed were the funders forced to freeze hundreds of thousands of pounds that had been earmarked for that organisation.

Such double standards are operating at all levels in the peace process as once again Unionists are being treated like second class citizens. Those who give their all in the fight to preserve democracy, law and order must not be treated like this any longer. Society owes them a great debt and today we, in the Assembly, must address the issue of how to repay those who have given so much and lost so much.

Like many of the issues attached to the troubles in Northern Ireland, the victims issue is an emotional and highly charged one. It is also a complex issue, and it is important not to take advantage of it for any of those reasons. I am startled by the way organisations treat victims groups compared with how they treat ex-prisoners groups. There is certainly a view that if you are an ex-prisoner group you will get considerably more from the Government, and be treated considerably better. That perception — real or imaginary — is there, and it has got to be addressed by the Government directly. It has to be addressed, whether by the Northern Ireland Office in the issues that concern it with regard to European funding, or by the Northern Ireland Executive in the issues that directly concern it and through the funding channels directly available to it.

Many of those involved have been active for decades, doing much of the same work on a voluntary basis. Victims groups are self-help groups that aim to give a voice to those who feel forgotten and excluded. Yet they are being quite clearly ignored.

Current events in our country have opened many wounds, and many victims hoped that those wounds had healed. The pain of seeing their loved ones’ killers walking free, and their fear for the future, has encouraged many victims to speak out. I am not the only representative who regularly receives mail from constituents who are concerned about the way that they, as victims, have been treated.

The establishment of support groups and packages costs money. In North Antrim I would argue that no provision is being made. If no provision is being made in my constituency — where, as I have said, 11 people have been murdered in the past 10 years, where more than 300 specific troubles-related injuries have taken place and where 42 people have been murdered in the past 30 years — what provision exists in constituencies where there might be slightly fewer victims, or in those where there are considerably more? How much of a disparity actually exists? It is essential that we learn a lesson on how to treat people fairly, especially if they are victims.

Another complaint I receive regularly from victims concerns the amount of money being spent on the education, training, leisure and recreation facilities for prisoners and ex-prisoners compared to the amount spent on similar facilities for victims. Victims receive very little. Indeed, they receive no special treatment in this regard. Yet they would tell me that they see the people who perpetrated the crimes against them being given a considerable amount of resources and latitude by the Government.

The Inmate Activities Branch is responsible for the education and training budget of prisoners. Even the most cursory glance at the branch’s figures reveals that £450,000 is needed to pay for full-time teachers. Overall, the education of prisoners has cost taxpayers £818,000. At that level, since the start of the troubles, it is possible that £24 million has been allocated for that. Twenty-four million pounds is a lot of money over that period of time. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, in his recent report, said that £26 million had been allocated to compensate victims. That works out at less than £8,000 per victim — a grotesque amount. The £24 million used for the education of prisoners — when extrapolated — results in considerably more for each prisoner.

A constituent of mine whose husband was murdered withdrew one daughter from university and actively discouraged another daughter from going there because she could not afford that luxury for her family. Yet her husband’s killer took advantage of the education system and graduated with honours while in HMP Maze.

When families see that and write to you about it, that must provoke you to act. One of my constituents had lost so much that she had to discourage her daughter from going on to third-level education. This woman later discovered that her husband’s killer benefited greatly from the money that is pumped into the prison regime.

I am not saying that prisoners do not have rights — they do — but there must be balance in the system, and that balance is currently askew.

At present, victims are still meeting in their homes, because they do not have enough money to hire premises. In my constituency, there is the ludicrous situation where one ex-prisoners group office became an arms dump, despite the fact that victims were crying out for an office where they and their friends could go to seek help. The money is never available to realise that dream, as it is squandered on many ex-prisoners groups.

A clear disparity that is, frankly, disgusting has developed, one that has been fostered by a policy created by this Government and perpetuated by this Executive. Paramilitary experience and support structures have given the ex-prisoners a head start, and victims groups are struggling to make this up. The expectation that some funding would result in the same product for both victims groups and ex-prisoners groups is, in my view, misplaced. Victims have neither the experience nor the capacity to develop as quickly as the latter. This disparity must be addressed by the funders in the forthcoming round of funding. While prisoners have been included, I believe that victims have been excluded.

The perception that my area has not suffered has led to further exclusion and suffering of those on the periphery that have, in fact, suffered most. There may not be as strong a sense of shared suffering as there would be in an area such as South Armagh, where victims will feel lonely and isolated, but when the wakes and the funerals are over, when the press interest after some atrocity has died down, people are left to grieve alone with their loss. For decades that burden has been carried alone or with the help of very few members of the family.

Many families in my constituency have suffered terrible practical and financial loss. They may have lost the breadwinner — the largest wage earner; they may have lost an heir; younger members of the family may have been forced to go out to work rather than finish their education. There have been funeral costs, the settlement of any outstanding debt, fathers who have had to raise families alone, people who were injured in attacks and were unable to work again, people who suffered mental ill-health due to the effects of the atrocity they were caught up in, businesses destroyed and jobs lost. There have been intimidation, racketeering and boycotting, and all of these issues have taken their toll on the business community.

According to the comprehensive lists compiled by the RUC, 42 people have been murdered in my constituency. However, I fear that the real figure may be considerably higher. Some RUC men from that area who were stationed elsewhere and murdered elsewhere have been listed as having lived in the area where they were stationed.

For example, few know that Robert Millar, the second RUC officer murdered, and the first member of the security forces murdered in South Armagh, was from Ahoghill. He was killed along with Samuel Donaldson on 12 August 1970. Robert was only 26 years old and just out of the forces training depot. Many others were brought up in the area, and their relatives still live there today.

A Member who sat on one of the previous Assemblies here, Mr Edgar Graham, whose death on 7 December 1983 at Queen’s University is commemorated on the memorial on the wall just outside this Chamber, was born in Randalstown and educated at Ballymena Academy.

Finally, the statistics never fully list the thousands that were injured or, indeed, affected as a result of the violence. Those who assume that North Antrim has escaped the worst of the troubles will find it shocking to learn that in the past decade, at a time when a peace process was said to be in operation, there were 11 deaths as a result of the security situation, and 352 injuries occurred. When this is broken down it is quite shocking.

In Ballymena subdivision, two people were murdered, and 150 were injured. There were 32 shooting incidents and 10 bombs.

In Ballymoney, seven people were murdered, 133 people were injured, 29 were caught up in shooting incidents, and 16 were caught up in bombs. Part of the rural hinterland of my constituency is carried by the subdivision based in Larne. Two people were murdered in that subdivision, and there were 69 injuries, 15 shooting incidents and 24 bombs. That is to say nothing of some of the more recent attacks.

This does not show the entire toll of suffering of the injured and those forced to leave the area or to escape. Many people, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you will know from your work in other fields, were maimed or disabled in attacks and have never been able to work again. The financial and social strain placed upon families has been immense and, in the absence of statutory help from the health and social services, families have literally been destroyed. Predominantly Unionist areas became prime targets for the IRA’s economic war and, as a result, towns such as Ballymena suffered multiple bombs, which led to the loss of millions of pounds of stock and trade. I believe that it was only the natural resilience, work ethic and closeness of the community that allowed those towns to rebuild and restart their activities.

What can be done? That is a fair question. Throughout the troubles, the compensation paid to victims has been an insult. As an Assembly, we must ensure that a full and fair review of the whole area of compensation for victims is carried out. The review of the criminal injuries compensation, conducted by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, made 64 recommendations. While, with our help, this will improve the system in the future, there must be recognition that the system has failed past victims. Each case must be reviewed and proper compensation paid to families and the injured. Today many still struggle with loss or disability and, although for many it is too late, we must ensure that it is not too little. In the absence of justice, the least that we can do is give something back to the victims of violence.

The first issue that must be resolved, therefore, is to investigate past criminal injury compensation. That compensation was, in most cases, responsible for adding insult to injury. In the light of the recent award to a Member who received a few stitches in his head because he was hit by an RUC baton, I received a letter from a constituent. The constituent indicated that Mr Kelly of IRA/Sinn Féin had received £9,000. She, however, lost her UDR husband in a gun attack in the 1970s, and she was left to raise five children. What do Members think she was paid? She was paid less than £7,000 in compensation.

People will see that that in no way extrapolates to a fair amount of payment. Indeed, many have argued that payments to Republicans are a policy of appeasement — literally to buy off gunmen. When one divides the £26 million paid out on the death of victims by the number of victims, it averages out at approximately £8,000 for each victim in Northern Ireland. That is considerably less than the amounts many people receive for minor criminal injuries. The insult is palpable and is there for everyone to see.

Over the last 30 years this has engendered a sense of isolation, especially in my area, as victims are forced to rebuild their lives unaided. They represent a minority of the population, and the statutory care for them from the health and social services has been negligible. The impact of the troubles may have been statistically greater in other areas, but doctors in those areas would have treated more than one victim of the troubles and, therefore, could put together specific care packages. That has never been the case in North Antrim, and the symptoms of stress and other disorders have not been recognised. Help, therefore, has not been provided.

Consequently, "victimhood" has actually increased in areas where the numerical impact of the troubles is not seen as being as great as in other areas. The peace process further accelerated this exclusion, because victims had little incentive to participate. The benefits that persuaded ex-prisoners’ groups to accept it, far outweighed the great losses faced by victims. With the erosion of the rule of law through prisoner releases, the destruction of our defences through the Patten Report and the idea of demilitarisation — and with security sources telling of ex-prisoners returning to their murder gangs, or even joining dissident groups — it is not difficult to see why victims have a problem with the agreement. As those who have suffered most from the violence, the victims want peace, probably more than anyone else could even imagine — but they simply ask what price they have to pay for that peace.

If there is to be peace, there must be justice, and without truth there can be no justice. To that end, and in the hope of peace, we must dedicate ourselves to the promotion of the truth.

In conjunction with the review of compensation, I propose some specific measures. The Government could act to the direct benefit of victims. Victims’ groups have conducted independent needs analyses to establish what programmes and projects need to be implemented to meet their real needs and to enable them to make progress in their grief. The following areas have been identified as essential in helping with the recognition and reconciliation process.

First, centres should be created to provide training and education facilities, medical counselling and trauma facilities, specifically designed for those who have suffered as a result of terrorist violence. These should be safe environments where victims can deal with the past and plan for the future positively and with a sense of security and community. It has been impossible for many groups to obtain funds to acquire such buildings and offices, despite the essential quality services they hope to provide for those who have been socially excluded for a considerable time.

Secondly, training projects and programmes should be set up to help with the regeneration of areas most affected by violence and to promote the social inclusion of those who have been deprived of educational and employment opportunities because of their suffering. In many cases families lost their only financial provider in the atrocities, and the need has been identified to provide adequate employment-related training to allow other family members to fulfil this role — I refer particularly to widows.

Thirdly, we need to target training programmes and projects for males in the 25-plus age bracket and for females who wish to return to work if an opportunity to do so arises.

Fourthly, we need programmes and projects to help with employment and income generation to enhance opportunities for those whose prospects have been stifled by the effects of terrorism. It has been emphasised that there is a need for adequate IT training facilities to prepare victims for employment in the growing IT sector. In this age of increased social and business dependence on telecommunications, e-commerce and e-business, it is important that adequate training be provided for this group.

There is a clear need to provide sufficient training and employment support for young people in areas where terrorism has prevailed. A need has been identified to provide opportunities for young victims to channel their energies into positive projects and activities. An integrated and inclusive society should be promoted by capacity- building projects, empowering victims’ groups and local communities to play a more active role in the development of their communities.

A key area has been recognised through needs analysis — the urgency of a human rights centre. This needs to be established in order to conduct research and training and to raise awareness in this specialised field, which is currently ignored by many of the so-called existing human rights groups. I seek parity of treatment in the allocation of funding. Capital funding should be set aside specifically for victims in each constituency to fund the establishment of support groups, the acquisition of suitable premises, the employment of appropriate staff and the foundation of sustainable projects to help those who have suffered. This will ensure that projects which reflect and implement good practice and added value are achievable. Plans and strategies to ensure sustainability are of central importance.

Victims’ groups that are already in place in my constituency, some of which have received support from the Government, do their best, but they are not given the appropriate resources to meet a growing agenda that victims present them with.

Any criteria must ensure that funding for victims benefits those who are victimised as a result of paramilitary terrorism and that funding for victims reflects good practice and value for money. Funding should be for projects which are victim-led and have a high degree of user involvement in decision-making; demonstrate accountability and consultation openness; involve active networking partnerships with other victims’ groups locally, regionally, nationally and internationally; encourage self-development, positive motivation and confidence building in order to promote social development, social inclusion and economic regeneration for people who feel isolated and excluded from society; work towards achieving sustainability; and have a clear and realistic exit strategy from the special support programme for peace and reconciliation into mainstream funding.

There is a need for firm direction. The firm direction on this issue has to be Government-led, as the resources that are required are immense and the demands are great. If we do not take this action, it will say something about what we really feel about the victims in Northern Ireland. In my own constituency it grieves me that so little has been done when so much has been asked for. It may not be asked for in the most articulate way, but it is asked for in a way which is covered in the tears of those who are grief-stricken and in a way that demands a response from the Government.

I hope that the Government pick up the challenge and decide that it is about time that the victims were recognised, even if that means pointing the finger at the structure that is now in place, which we call the institution of government here in Northern Ireland. If we do not reward, adequately respect and adequately demonstrate a genuine consideration for the victims of Northern Ireland, we do not deserve to be called a civilised society. We have only paid lip-service to the notion of civilised society if that is the case.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I feel somewhat nauseated listening to Ian Paisley Jnr lecturing us about violence and its effects. He is a member of a party which, from its inception in the early 1960s in this part of Ireland, created victims of violence, sent young men — young Loyalists, young Protestants — on the foot of its sectarian propaganda and its rampage against the Nationalist community —

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the Member well knows, discussions in another place indicated that this debate was specifically about payments to victims’ groups and to ex-prisoners, and the effect that that has on a particular constituency. I hope that this debate, because of the ramifications involved, will not be allowed to degenerate into a party-kicking exercise on the issue of criminal violence in Northern Ireland. I had the opportunity to do that. I did not take that opportunity. I specifically targeted my comments at direct victim atrocities in my constituency, and I hope that that is allowed to continue, otherwise this will degenerate into a filthy, muckraking exercise by Sinn Féin.

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

We should address ourselves to the subject. Please keep to the subject.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thought I was keeping to the subject, in line with Ian Paisley Jnr, who, for the past half-hour, has been regaling us with comments about Sinn Féin/IRA, and so on. I am merely making the point that it is somewhat nauseating to listen to that kind of hypocrisy coming from that quarter and somewhat difficult to keep one’s patience.

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

Do your best.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will indeed do my best, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I agree that the victims of violence should be compensated, but the underlying principle is, and should be, that we give equal value to the suffering of all victims. There is not a hierarchy of victims. There is not a hierarchy of victimhood. All people have suffered. Prisoners are victims of the past 30 years every bit as much as those who have suffered by losing their lives in the past 30 years.

He cannot put those who have gone to prison — for whatever reason — to one side. He cannot put aside those from the Loyalist side of the community who have been encouraged by DUP rhetoric and Paisleyism to take up weapons and to murder people from another community. That has happened and those are facts. Those people are as much victims as those who have lost their lives. They are victims of the last 30 years, and they are entitled to rehabilitation — if one wants to use that word — by education or some other means. If they get a degree, so much the better. Is it not better that people come out of prison with a degree than come out as poorly educated as when they went in?

Should we not be applauding the fact that there are people in our society who are attempting to assist ex-prisoners? Many Loyalist ex-prisoners went to prison because of the rhetoric that came from the DUP and Paisleyism. They are the Coopeys of this world, who were encouraged to murder. That is why they went to prison. The underlying principle should be that all victims should be treated equally. We should not create a hierarchy of victimhood.

Mr Paisley Jnr talks about North Antrim. We can talk about North Antrim — about William Strathearn and others who were murdered in North Antrim, some by the security forces. Others were murdered by serving members of the security forces. For example, those who murdered young Peter McBride were rewarded by being inducted back into the Army. There cannot, and must not, be a hierarchy of victimhood. It is difficult to listen to people from that side of Unionism. By their rhetoric, they have encouraged others to engage in violence over the years, sending many young Loyalists not only to prison but, in some circumstances, to their death.

I have listened to Ian Paisley Jnr talk for the last half hour about memorials and about what ought to be done and what could be done. The best memorial to the victims of the last 30 years ought to be support for our present institutions. Support for the Good Friday Agreement is the best memorial we can offer to all victims of violence, whether they are ex-prisoners, or are still in prison. By encouraging the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, we considerably lessen the chances that other young men and women will become victims of violence. On that note, Ian Paisley Jnr has not uttered a single word about the effects of the current ethnic cleansing in Larne.

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

Not one reference has been made to North Antrim. I submitted a request to speak, and I checked to make sure that the debate was being focused entirely on North Antrim. As Mr Paisley Jnr said, he did not refer to any other than North Antrim victims, and you should make sure that this person is called out of order.

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

I wish to make another point. We have determined to take one hour for the debate and we must allow ten minutes for the Minister’s reply. Mr Kelly, please confine your statements to North Antrim.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member should be reminded that Larne is not in my constituency, which is why I did not refer to it. Part of the Larne subdivision covers the rural part of my constituency. The Larne situation, intolerable though it may be, is not part of this motion. That point should be made clear.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, Mr Paisley Jnr was very wide-ranging in his comments about North Belfast — Mr Gerry Kelly, for example — which is not part of the debate that he is engaging in.

As I said at the outset, there is no hierarchy of victims. Sinn Féin has supported compensation for victims, but that compensation must be based on equality and the fact that there is no hierarchy of victimhood. People from both sides of this community have suffered over the last 30 years, a leasCheann Comhairle. My final words are that we should give equal value to the suffering of all victims. Thank you, a leasCheann Comhairle.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I am surprised that the number of victims in North Antrim is 47. As Mr Paisley Jnr said, most people think of it as an area that has been remote from terrorism. If I compare it with West Tyrone, some of the lessons that we have learned will be of use to you in North Antrim and may develop this argument further. We have 97 direct victims. That does not include the Omagh bomb victims or groups such as those killed at Ballygawley Road, Teebane and Knocknamoe. Those on the almost vacant Benches opposite must surely have been proud of their killing prowess. North Antrim may not have the graveyards and tombstones that exist in every one of our churches and halls. That is a tribute to the violent sectarian activity of the IRA.

What has been demonstrated, and this is not just a lesson for North Antrim, is that not only have they been sidelined as an issue, but also rural spread has been a difficulty. Probably because of proximity and contact — and Mr Paisley Jnr quite rightly pointed this out — the conurbation areas and the prisoner groups could be highly organised. No matter how highly one organises it, £6 million to prisoners does not compare to less than £100,000 to the Voice organisation in West Tyrone that deals with those victims. In actual fact, of those 97 deadly acts, I should say that two were not performed by the IRA. There has to be accountability for the rural isolation.

I would also make one other plea about something that arrived in the mail on Saturday morning. It is alleged that £14 million is to be set aside for RUC victims. In one very poignant case a wife, before she received her compensation, died of a broken heart within a year. The eldest of the family, who had to bring up his brothers and sisters, has been told that he is not a victim and will get nothing out of that £14 million. I ask the two junior Ministers to bear in mind that every member of such a family is a victim.

The first political murder by the IRA was that of Senator Barnhill on the shores of Lough Foyle. The first RUC victim, murdered on the Shankill Road, was from Newtownstewart, in my constituency. The first UDR victim was also from that constituency. I can show you one graveyard with 24 victims’ tombstones. That is the tribute that those brave men have earned for themselves.

I want to say to the people of North Antrim that three decades of deep-seated psychological deficits have got to be restored. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done, not just in North Antrim, but throughout Northern Ireland. The lessons of West Tyrone are just part of that pattern that needs to be put together.

I am hoping there will be a response from the junior Ministers that will be an encouragement, rather than the report I got on Saturday evening at that RUC victims’ meeting. That was an insult to the families that had made such an effort.

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

My Colleague Mr Nesbitt and I welcome today’s debate. The Administration fully endorse the sentiments of the Good Friday Agreement on the need to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence.

I was reminded very forcefully that we have suffered many forms of violence in our community: prejudices, violent words and violent actions. They have all contributed to the obscenity that was visited upon this community in the last 30 years.

To end all that to bring about a peaceful and normal society, and a process of reconciliation, the Administration attach the highest priority to dealing with victims’ needs positively.

We welcome the opportunity to hear Members’ views on that. However, to suggest, as Mr Paisley did in introducing this debate, that there is a dynamic policy at the heart of Government — those are his words — to neglect victims is simply absurd. Such hyperbole is not conducive to rational debate and does not assist the cause of victims or their case.

The actions contained in the Programme for Government demonstrate the Administration’s commitment to dealing with victims’ issues, as does the setting up of the Victims’ Unit. We recognise the need for concerted, co-ordinated effort across Departments, over a number of years, as well as the need for close co-operation with the Northern Ireland Office.

We are determined to ensure that practical help and support is made available to all victims in an equitable, inclusive basis, according to their needs. I assure John Kelly that parity in this regard is central to the approach of the Administration to the question of victims.

The Victims Unit, which I have referred to, aims to co-ordinate activities and raise awareness of victims’ issues across the devolved Administration. In line with the Bloomfield Report, the first priority in providing greater recognition for victims is to assure them of better social, economic, medical, and other practical support. The vast majority of those areas are now the responsibility of the devolved Administration, and we take very seriously our responsibilities to ensure that victims get the best possible service in those areas that the Administration can provide.

The interdepartmental working group on victims has been reconstituted. The terms of reference have been agreed and work is progressing on developing a cross- departmental strategy, on which there will be wide consultation with victims and with victims’ groups. We would welcome Members encouraging victims’ groups in their constituencies to contact the Administration so that their views can be taken on board.

A rolling programme of visits to victims’ units across Northern Ireland is well under way. This forms part of a publicity strategy, which includes plans to develop a web site, printed materials and relevant workshops. The unit has established a help-desk function to respond to specific cases directed to it by elected representatives such as Mr Paisley Jnr, Mr Gibson, Mr J Kelly and other Members who have spoken here and victims’ groups. The Victims Liaison Unit has also been involved in a Social Security Agency project that is examining how to improve services to victims as well as in the development of capacity building programmes, which, as Mr Paisley Jnr and Mr Gibson quite rightly pointed out, are so essential. Certain groups have not had the experience or time, unlike others, to develop the skills necessary to access funding and deal with the administration. Capacity building is therefore very important.

Two programmes have been started — one in Cookstown and one in Armagh — and the initial feedback on those capacity building programmes has been positive. It is also important to build capacity awareness among policy makers themselves, and a separate programme has been designed for that purpose. The programme will begin with a major conference at the end of January, which I hope all the MLAs, who have been invited, will attend. The conference will be followed by four one-day seminars. It is planned that participants from programmes for victims and policy makers will come together later in the year.

A positive relationship has developed at ministerial level, with regular meetings taking place between the Northern Ireland Office and the devolved Administration here. It is supplemented by almost daily contact, regular meetings at official level and joint work on initiatives such as capacity building. The visits carried out by the Victims Liaison Unit are helping to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each unit, and that will be supplemented in the near future by a mailshot to all victims’ groups setting out which unit is responsible for which area. It is important to continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that gaps in services do not appear. We are committed to doing that.

The Victims Liaison Unit is finalising plans to allocate the funding granted to it by the Executive — £200,000 from the October monitoring round, with a further bid for £120,000 from the December monitoring round. Spending options are being carefully evaluated, and since the funding is, relatively speaking, quite modest, it is important that it be used as efficiently as possible.

Decisions have yet to be finalised; therefore, I cannot give details on what direction spending will take. However, in broad terms, it is anticipated that the funding will be directed towards health projects by assisting the four trauma advisory panels, the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund and research into the needs of victims. Mr Paisley Jnr made reference to the need to talk to victims, to set up a mechanism to assess victims’ needs and to hear from them what their needs are. We are well aware of that, and researching victims’ needs is likely to be assisted by funding from the moneys available.

It is likely that funding available from the Peace II programme will be much more substantial. That will provide the Department with considerable resources to engage in a much broader range of activities. However, negotiations are still ongoing, so I cannot provide details on the final arrangements that will be made.

I will refer to several points that I want to deal with specifically. Mr Paisley Jnr, for instance, raised questions about individual allocations from the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust (NIVT) from the core funding available to it. Those questions really need to be directed towards the Northern Ireland Office, because the NIVT operates on moneys allocated to it by the NIO and not by the devolved Administration.

Obviously, I deplore the incident mentioned by Mr Paisley Jnr of arms being found in an office which was partly financed by the funds referred to. However, the devolved Administration have had neither involvement nor input into decisions made under the core funding scheme. In the period leading up to October 2000, grants totalling almost £74,000 were made to a group in North Antrim and, in addition, grants of almost £1 million have been made to regional organisations, one of which operates in North Antrim.

Mr Paisley Jnr referred to educational provision for prisoners, one of whom he said had been able to complete a degree. In fact, many prisoners have been able to do this. He compared that provision with the situation of a family, a victim of violence, in which one of the children had to discontinue education because of the family’s lack of resources. That is a matter of great regret. However, families whose income falls below a certain level can avoid paying fees for third-level education, and they have access to basic levels of maintenance grant support. Indeed, the Memorial Fund has provided educational bursaries for cases just like that, in which families have found themselves in such a position.

Criminal injuries are a matter for the NIO, not for the devolved Administration. In providing practical assistance to victims of violence and their families, the Memorial Fund has allocated grants for respite care, in suitable cases, for needy families.

In the past the NIO has made a direct allocation of £6.25 million for victims, in addition to the mainstream funding being sought. Victims’ organisations that have received this funding are not excluded from seeking money from other sources and particularly from the Peace Fund, which will come on-stream in due course.

Those are the major issues to which Members referred. If I have omitted to deal with any point raised, I will be glad, on notification by the Member concerned, to respond in writing.

Adjourned at 5.03 pm.