Northern Ireland Assembly, 22 January 2001

194 contributions from 47 members. The official report.

Assembly: New Member

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Mr Tom Hamilton has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the Strangford constituency to fill the vacancy resulting from the death of Mr Tom Benson.

Contaminated Beef

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety or the Minister of Agriculture requested to make a statement today on the issue of contaminated beef in Newry?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received no indications that a Minister wishes to make a statement, other than those that are on the annunciator. However, as the Member and the House will be aware, Ministers can make requests for statements at relatively short notice.

Transport: North/South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council Meetings

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister notice that they wish to make a joint statement on the North/South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council transport meetings that were held on 19 December 2000.

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

The First Minister and I wish to make a statement to report to the Assembly on the recent transport sectoral meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council, which were held in Belfast on Tuesday, 19 December 2000. The First Minister and I have taken the lead on transport in both councils. It is vital that transport issues be addressed in these two new institutions to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland can reap the greatest possible benefit from sharing knowledge and experience, and from co-operation with our neighbours in the South of Ireland, in Great Britain and the other members of the British-Irish Council.

I will make the report on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting, and the First Minister will make the report on the British-Irish Council meeting. This statement has been agreed by Mr Sam Foster, who attended both sectoral meetings, and we make it on his behalf also.

Transport was one of the six areas for enhanced co-operation through existing bodies, North and South, agreed at the inaugural plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council held in Armagh in December 1999. The North/South Ministerial Council transport sectoral meeting held on 19 December 2000 was the first meeting in this sectoral format. The Irish Government were represented by Mary O’Rourke TD, Minister for Public Enterprise, and Noel Dempsey TD, Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The First Minister, Mr Foster and I represented the Executive.

The council considered three broad transport issues at the meeting — strategic transport planning, rail safety and road safety. The council noted that there is already substantial co-operation between the relevant Departments and agencies North and South, on a range of strategic transport planning and road and rail safety issues.

With regard to strategic transport planning, the council identified a number of opportunities for co-operation between North and South. These included potential benefits from the exchange of information on the transportation aspect of Northern Ireland’s ‘Shaping Our Future’ document and Ireland’s development plan and its proposed national spatial strategy. This exchange of information is important to ensure that each jurisdiction can benefit from the research and analysis that the other has carried out. The council also recognised that there was scope to develop our major cross-border road, rail and bus services through enhanced co-operation, exchange of information and experience to enable us to have the best possible transport system in place. Further possibilities for co-operation were the implementation of public and private partnership, transport and the development of sustainable transport.

The council discussed rail safety and agreed that there were opportunities for further co-operation between North and South on legislative proposals for railway safety and standards. It also acknowledged that there would be benefits from the exchange of information and experience on railway safety and on specific accidents or incidents. The council agreed that early meetings with officials would be convened to prepare detailed work programmes on strategic transport planning and rail safety for consideration and approval at a future council meeting.

The council also discussed and approved a programme for enhancing North/South co-operation on road safety. The programme will include joint road safety campaigns and consideration of the possibility of joint promotion of road safety educational initiatives. Departments, North and South, will also exchange information on road safety programmes, targets and priorities. They will explore the scope of a common approach with regard to road safety to the mutual recognition of penalty point offences between both jurisdictions. No driver should regard the border as providing the opportunity to escape his or her responsibilities. An early meeting of officials is to be convened to consider the detailed arrangements and timescales for taking this programme forward with a view to reporting back to a future meeting of the council.

The council also dealt with a number of items of business relating to other North/South Ministerial Council sectors. The council appointed Mr John McKinney as the chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body. The council also appointed the members of the board of Tourism Ireland Limited, the newly established North/ South tourism company. The council agreed that the recommended candidate would be acceptable for appointment as chief executive to Waterways Ireland. The name of the candidate will be announced in due course following agreement on salary and conditions of service.

It was agreed that the next North/South Ministerial Council transport sectoral meeting would take place in March 2001. A copy of the communiqué issued after the meeting has been placed in the Assembly Library.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I would like to report on the British-Irish Council meeting. Transport was identified at the first British-Irish Council summit meeting in London in December 1999 as one of the issues for discussion among the Administrations in sectoral format, and it was agreed that the Northern Ireland Executive would take the lead in this area.

As the Deputy First Minister has said, he and I are taking this matter forward because we recognise the benefits to the people of Northern Ireland from co-operation on transport with other British-Irish Council members.

The first meeting of the British-Irish Council transport sector was held in Belfast on 19 December 2000. The Deputy First Minister, Mr Sam Foster and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive. Her Majesty’s Government was represented by Lord Macdonald, Transport Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Irish Government was represented by Mary O’Rourke, Minister for Public Enterprise, and Noel Dempsey, Minister of the Environment and Local Government. Representatives of the Administrations in Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey also attended.

We had a wide-ranging discussion covering various aspects of transport. It was recognised that transport cannot be viewed as an issue in isolation. Members of the council agreed on the need for an integrated and sustainable approach to transport issues that would take account of the relevant economic, social and environmental context.

The key issues for each of the member Administrations were identified in discussion. It was acknowledged that members placed different emphases on particular issues. For example, the smaller, remote islands are heavily dependent on their sea and air links, while for other Administrations, including ourselves, road and rail development, as well as adequate access to ports and airports, is vital.

The meeting also recognized that consideration of issues such as urban congestion would bring benefits to all and agreed the need to consider the impact of new technologies on transport. All members agreed that road safety is a key issue where the sharing of knowledge and expertise may help to make significant reductions in the unacceptable number of people killed or injured on our roads.

As a first step, the council considered a range of options with a view to identifying those where co-operation among members would be of greatest benefit. The options identified included sharing knowledge and experience in areas such as the development of public and private partnerships and other sources of funding. Co-operation on the development of sustainable transport policies and programmes to improve road and rail safety were also considered. Particular emphasis was placed on the examination of the potential for improved linkages with peripheral regions and on the difficulties in relation to air links with London, where the pressure on slots at Heathrow has limited the access to London from regional airports.

From Northern Ireland’s viewpoint, we emphasised the importance to us of improved road links, such as the Heysham to M6 route, and of the potential riverside quay on the Mersey, which would significantly reduce the turnaround time of ships in Liverpool. Development of this infrastructure will greatly assist access from Northern Ireland to Britain and to Europe.

The council agreed that the Northern Ireland Executive would convene an early meeting of senior officials to examine options and prepare detailed recommendations for work in a number of initial priority areas. These priorities will include exchanges of information and experience, particularly in relation to public and private partnerships, including the consideration of a possible mechanism to facilitate such exchanges. They will also address regional air links and the potential for co-operation on road safety and integrated transport. The recommendations will then be submitted to a further British-Irish Council meeting for approval. A copy of the communiqué issued following the meeting has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for their reports providing evidence of welcome and useful work, for the general good, in transport. I will ask a question about the North/South aspect and then one in relation to the British-Irish Council.

Could the NSMC, in its future sectoral meetings, investigate why, notwithstanding the many millions of pounds of, often European-backed, funding directed to the Belfast-Dublin rail route, the speeds of the trains are still very low by European standards? Intercity speeds of over 100 mph are common, whereas the Belfast-Dublin route of 100 miles still takes over 2 hours.

With respect to the British-Irish Council, I welcome the evidence of work on air links. Could it investigate the frequency — [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Does the Member have a question? The purpose is to ask questions.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Yes, there is a question. Could it investigate the frequency, reliability and cost of Irish Sea ferry links?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I take the Member’s point regarding the comparison of rail speeds in Europe and in the British Isles. This is a detailed technical question that comes up most clearly when comparing the speeds achieved by Eurostar trains in France to the speeds that can be achieved in England. I think that the question simply relates to technical matters with regard to the track. We can look into that and perhaps get a more detailed answer.

At the British-Irish Council, we looked at the frequency of Irish Sea ferries. It is relevant to the question of obtaining a riverside berth on the Mersey. Obtaining such a berth would result in a reduction in turnaround time of about one-and- a-half hours. That would be quite significant in terms of assisting the frequency of sailings on the Irish Sea.

I should also state that obtaining a riverside berth on the Mersey would be of particular advantage in facilitating access to the rail network that links us, through the Channel Tunnel, to all parts of Europe. This would be of significant benefit to exporters in Northern Ireland as they would not only have a higher frequency of sailings but could then, through trans-shipment onto rail, link into a network going through the tunnel and addressing any destination in Europe.

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

I welcome the meetings that have taken place and the reports from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Last week we launched a consultation document on the regional transport strategy. A central theme in that document is the importance of quality public transport throughout Northern Ireland. In relation to the detailed transport programmes that are being drawn up between now and the next council meeting, will particular emphasis be put on public transport, in particular the improvement in public transport vis-à-vis the railway network between, for example, Derry and Dublin? Will working parties be set up in relation to those particular areas so that the Assembly can be informed, on a systematic basis, of the work at hand?

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

That is a very relevant question, given that transport is a vital lifeline supporting the economic and social fabric of the North of Ireland. That is why the First Minister and I tried to ensure that these sectoral meetings would take place. As the Member is aware, transport affects every part of life here and therefore it is critically important that we try to ensure, as far as possible, that we develop systems that can improve the lot of everyone in Northern Ireland.

In relation to the specific elements of the questions, there was considerable discussion on how the public transport sector would provide the service required — not just in the greater urban areas but throughout the North of Ireland, especially in rural areas. General transport between North and South was also discussed. I can assure the Member that the studies approved at the two sectoral meetings will centre on those issues, not least of which will be the rail factors that he referred to.

Everybody is aware that the Executive recently agreed to the publication of a rail safety Bill, which will provide new safety-focussed legislation on the operation of railways in Northern Ireland. The authorities in the South are also engaged in producing new safety legislation. Cross-border- services legislation facilitated in both jurisdictions needs to be compatible, and we must ensure that it goes forward in parallel.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Can the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister tell the House — in the light of section 23(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and several articles and schedules of Statutory Rule 481 of 1999 — how they propose to give effect in Northern Ireland to any agreement reached on 19 December?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member has raised an interesting point. Of course, we expect the Minister for Regional Development to carry out his Pledge of Office. It is regrettable that he has not done so fully heretofore, but I am sure that he recognises that he is under a duty to do so. The Member will also bear in mind that some of the issues touched on at the BIC relate to work that is done in other jurisdictions.

With regard to North/South and east-west transport links, we are at the terminus. We are particularly interested in developments in the other jurisdictions. Of course, a number of the financial matters that we dealt with fall within the responsibility of other Departments. Matters involving finance and legislation are clearly within the purview of the Executive. But what the Member really should have said was that he is going to encourage his Colleague to carry out his responsibilities and not shirk them.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the statement by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the North/South Council meeting and British-Irish Council meeting in relation to transport. I think that it is very timely, particularly in light of the First Minister’s last comment.

Given the controversy that arose at the weekend over whether Bairbre de Brún would have been nominated by the First Minster for the forthcoming scheduled meeting of the British-Irish Council, I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister whether that meeting was raised at the Executive meeting last Thursday. If so, was the question of Bairbre de Brún’s nomination dealt with? The reason why I am asking this, Mr Speaker — and I seek your indulgence — is that we have heard throughout this morning’s statement of how important it is to have transport, and other matters relating to the Executive and Assembly, dealt with in both of the institutions. That is even in the first paragraph of the statement. The last part of the First Minister’s response to Peter Robinson was that his own Minister should live up to his responsibilities. However, the First Minister is currently failing to do that in respect of the North/South Ministerial Council. It is important —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member is aware that questions on statements have to relate to the statement concerned. The Member has, in the course of his question, adverted to another sectoral BIC — reputed BIC — meeting and what may have happened at the Executive Committee. If the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister wish to make a response, I am quite content to call them to do so.

There is no requirement for them to make a response because the matter raised by the Member is tangential to the statement that has been made. They are not prohibited from responding, of course.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

May I finish my question? It is very basic.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Please do so as concisely as possible.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Are the statements consistent with the First Minister’s refusal to nominate Sinn Féin Ministers to any of these institutions?

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

Discussions at Executive level are confidential and the Member will be aware of that. Certainly, he would expect the First Minister and myself to respect that confidentiality in relation to the details of that plenary meeting of the British-Irish Council tomorrow.

The two Governments have taken a decision whereby — because of the ongoing negotiations — that plenary meeting will be postponed until a later date. The two Governments will be making an announcement to that effect this morning.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

In both statements, reference was made to public/private partnerships in the rail network. What progress has been made in developing public/private partnerships in Northern Ireland? I would remind the First Minister that Richard Branson was paraded before us prior to the vote on the referendum.

As regards the British-Irish Council, were there any discussions concerning improvements of the road from Stranraer to Carlisle?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

As regards the latter point, the A75 (Stranraer-Carlisle) was mentioned. In particular, we mentioned that that road now bypasses all towns, except for two small villages, which are to be bypassed at a later date. The Scottish representative was not in a position to make a statement in regard to that matter, however, over the course of the last decade, there has been quite a considerable improvement to the A75. This has considerably reduced the journey time from Stranraer to the M6 at Carlisle.

The issue of public-private partnerships was discussed as it is of considerable interest to us. If we are to tackle transport investment and investment in other matters, we must look closely at public-private partnerships. This has been referred to in the Programme for Government. We have a limited experience of operating public-private partnerships. The experience in England is much greater. The discussion at the British-Irish Council involved ourselves and the Republic of Ireland representatives asking Lord Macdonald to make experience of operating these partnerships available to us, which he has agreed to do. That will enable us to take greater advantage more rapidly of public-private partnerships.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

Why do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister consider it important to tell us who represents the Irish Government at these affairs, and not tell us who represents Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey? I am not sure if the intention is to elevate the Irish region and diminish all other regions involved in the British-Irish Council. It is important — not simply because one is elevated and one is diminished on my paper — because Members ought to know the identities of those who they may wish to contact in relation to the subject matter being discussed. If Members are told the makeup of one group, they should be told the makeup in all cases.

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

There is no intention to elevate one administration above another. Lest there be any doubt, Lord Macdonald represented the British Government. Mr Phillip Pain, director of the Isle of Man airport, represented the Isle of Man. Jersey was represented by Mr Colin Powell, adviser of air and shipping services, whilst Guernsey was represented by Deputy Michael Torode, vice president for the State of Guernsey transport board. All those details are in the Library, as I said earlier.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

There has been mention recently in the media of the difficulty of pursuing driving offences from one jurisdiction in another. Did the meeting discuss a system for the transfer of penalty points for driving offences between jurisdictions, east-west or North/South?

The Deputy First Minister rose.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The matter was discussed with great interest, and from our response you can see our eagerness on the issue.

This is a very serious point. The Irish representatives pointed out that a significant percentage of traffic accidents occur in the border region. There are a number of factors in that, but part of the reason is that people, when they cross the border, think that they can take greater risks because they are not going to be liable to penalties in the same way. For that reason, there is a clear need for some correspondence with regard to penalty points imposed in one jurisdiction applying in others. We also discussed the mutual recognition of disqualifications between jurisdictions.

A penalty point scheme was introduced in Northern Ireland in October 1997, and it has to be said that the majority of points imposed are for excessive speed. The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland and the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions in London intend this year to bring forward legislative proposals for mutual recognition of penalty point offences between Northern Ireland and GB. That would extend to mutual recognition of disqualifications.

The Republic of Ireland intends to introduce a penalty point system from the end of 2001. There was discussion at NSMC and at BIC of the desirability of mutual recognition between North and South on these matters. Following the introduction of penalty points in the Republic of Ireland, the opportunity will exist to address the practicalities and the need for legislation for mutual recognition between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

In addition, of course, with the arrangement for mutual recognition between GB and Northern Ireland, there is then the prospect of having mutual recognition of points and disqualification throughout the British Isles. That is appropriate, because the whole of the British Isles is a common travel area. That is a very good reason for having a commonality in relation to road offences so as to protect the safety of other road users.

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

Are the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister aware of the widespread welcome for Tourism Ireland? Can they outline what functions Tourism Ireland will undertake and when it will assume responsibility for them?

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

The new tourism board is actually a very important and crucial part of the arrangements in relation to North/South co-operation and in their implementation. Some time ago, the view was taken that the tourism board should be able to fulfil, on a wide scale, the type of functions that would increase the attraction of the island of Ireland and benefit tourism in the North of Ireland.

That underpinned the setting up of the new tourism board, which is now developing. I believe that it will be able to develop substantially and will deliver according to Northern Ireland’s need for a fundamental development of tourism. A new chairman has been appointed. He comes from the North of Ireland and has vast experience in the tourism business. I believe that he will have the confidence of everyone, and I look forward to his contribution.

I assure the Member that this is one of the key areas for development. It is key to the economy. It is key to the development of the industry and it will be pursued vigorously.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister explain why they failed to raise the issue of tax on people flying within the United Kingdom at the British-Irish Council meeting? If they did raise the matter it is not in the report.

Can they also indicate when the next meeting of the British-Irish Council is to take place? Is the fact that tomorrow’s meeting has been postponed not symptomatic of the crisis in that strand of the Belfast Agreement?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am sorry that the Member resorted to such phraseology at the end of his question. His premise is completely erroneous. As the Deputy First Minister stated, and as it has been trailed in some newspapers this morning, the British and Irish Governments have decided to postpone the plenary session of the British-Irish Council for a few weeks, because of ongoing political discussions. The view taken by the British and Irish Governments was that to hold a meeting would be a distraction in the context of those discussions. We hope that those discussions will result in significant progress in the implementation of the agreement. Therefore we see those developments — if they progress as we hope — as being part of the success of the agreement. I look forward to the Member being disappointed on this matter.

As regards airport tax, if his Colleague did his job properly and attended the meetings he could have raised the issue.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I do not normally take points of order during statements. I will call the Member at the end if he has a point of order to make.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In December 1999 it was agreed that transport would be one of the six areas for enhanced co-operation. At that time it was welcomed as an item for discussion because of its impact on the environment and on those involved in transport and in the road and rail infrastructure. Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister indicate the reason for the delay in calling a North/South Ministerial Council meeting on transport until a year later?

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

This matter is one in which the Member is probably already well informed. There is no secret about the fact that the relevant Minister has consistently refused to participate in sectoral meetings in relation to that area agreed by the Assembly and to which the Pledge of Office applies. A decision then had to be taken on how to proceed, and it was that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would start the process of involvement in sectoral meetings in relation to transport. In the circumstances, this was the type of approach that would find favour with all who wish to see the crucial issue of transport developed, not just within the Programme for Government but also the programme of relationships with our nearest neighbours — Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister advise if the importance of the trans-European network is recognised by the British-Irish Council? In that context can they advise if there were, or are, plans to discuss the importance of upgrading the east Antrim rail link to Larne or upgrading the A8 road to Larne, to improve safety and reduce congestion? Is it recognised that these routes are important not only for us but for people in the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and the north of England?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

We recognise the importance of trans-European networks and, as the Member has mentioned, that they have implications for some road links within Northern Ireland. At the meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British- Irish Council we did not deal with those specific matters. At the NSMC meeting there was a discussion with reference to rail links, although not specifically the Larne link. Of course, in the context of the British-Irish Council, we are more concerned with the links from Northern Ireland across England to Europe. We therefore did not directly address the question of the A8 or the rail link to Larne. They are extremely important — the A8 in particular — but that discussion did not come up in the context of the British-Irish Council.

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

I welcome the statement particularly in relation to developing stronger North/South co-operation on roads development along the border from Newry to Derry. Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minster confirm that the Minister for Regional Development did not take part in the North/South Ministerial Council? Can they inform the House in what way the same Minister has been involved in the Programme for Government, particularly in relation to infrastructure and roads development? The Minister said before Christmas that he would be willing to meet the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in the Republic on the question of transport.

Finally, I welcome the appointment of John McKinney as chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body. When will the Omagh office be up and running?

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

The answer to the Member’s first question is self-explanatory — no, the relevant Minister did not take part in either the North/South Ministerial Council meeting or the British- Irish Council meeting. In relation to his second question, an office of the Special EU Programmes Body was opened in Omagh on 4 September 2000 in temporary premises in the Omagh District Council office. It will relocate to permanent premises shortly. The Omagh office will have overall responsibility for monitoring and promoting the implementation of the common chapter and will also be responsible for managing the cross-border priority of Peace II, including responsibility for grant making. It is a matter for each of the bodies concerned to decide on the premises to occupy, when to occupy them and how to administer them.

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

Was there anything agreed on 19 December 2000 at the North/South Ministerial Council which could not have been agreed by way of normal relations between two countries outside the politically inspired institution?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member makes the valid point that, prior to the existence of the North/South Ministerial Council, there were frequent bilateral meetings between Belfast and Dublin, and, indeed, formal agreements on joint operations. I recall, in particular, the joint agreement in relation to the operation of the rail link where, from 1953 for a number of years, a North/South group of civil servants ran the railways. Nobody got worried about North/South institutions and bodies, even though they were exercising executive functions in that context. What we have now in the North/South Ministerial Council is an opportunity to regularise those links and put them on a coherent basis. The Member is right to say that it could have been done on a bilateral basis, but we think that it is better done on a coherent basis. By asking that question, the Member is drawing attention to the absolute hypocrisy of the Minister who is prepared to engage in North/South activity on a bilateral basis but will not do so on a structured basis. There is no coherence in that position at all.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas agus is maith an rud gur tharla an dá chruinniú thábhachtacha seo roimh an Nollaig. I welcome the fact that meetings happened before Christmas, and I am particularly pleased to note a number of positive developments towards harmonisation nationally. Was the subject of free transport provision for senior citizens in the Six Counties discussed? Has any progress been made on this matter so that senior citizens can begin to benefit from the free transport from which senior citizens in the rest of Ireland have benefited for many years? Was there any specific recognition of the scope to develop the A5-N2 Derry-Dublin road through Strabane, Omagh, Aughnacloy and Monaghan — one of our key transportation corridors?

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

I have a more than passing interest in the provision of transport for senior citizens. The issue is included in the Programme for Government, and therefore it is a matter for the Executive and the Assembly. I firmly believe that it should be proceeded with very quickly because its absence is putting people, particularly those living in rural areas, at a disadvantage. Passing reference was made to the matter, but it should be regarded as a matter for the Assembly and the Executive as part of the strategic element of transport development.

On the subject of the Derry to Dublin road, there was a long discussion about two key elements in road development — major trunk roads and smaller roads, which are essential to people’s everyday lives. Members will agree, however, that it would be wrong for Executive representatives at these sectoral meetings to focus on specific road links. There have been questions about the Larne link and the Derry to Dublin link. It is essential that all key trunk roads are dealt with efficiently and quickly, and that the lesser roads service is improved to the standard which people in border areas are entitled to expect.

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

I too welcome the statement on transport, planning and safety. Will the Deputy First Minister comment on the success, or otherwise, of the very hard- hitting Christmas and new-year drink/driving campaign? Can he comment on the co-operation and co-ordination between the two jurisdictions on this campaign? Can he also indicate what other measures they can take to reduce the awful death toll on our roads, North and South?

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

The measures identified by the First Minster in relation to the penalty points system are crucial. There has been a large degree of co-operation in the running of the road safety campaign. The anti- drink/driving advertising that was broadcast on television over Christmas made for harrowing viewing, but it was also very effective in that it brought home to everybody exactly what can happen when such an accident takes place.

We will try, through the studies agreed at the sectoral meetings, to develop measures that will ensure that road safety, and the specific element of drink/driving to which the Member referred, is dealt with on a cross-border basis so that there will be no easy passage, North or South, for those who break the law on road safety.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I note that the First Minister has expressed regret that the Minister for Regional Development, in line with his election commitment to oppose North- Southery, did not attend this meeting and will not be attending similar meetings because of the waste of resources involved. Can the First Minister assure the House that his ban on Sinn Féin’s attending similar meetings will continue, or is the sanction just the First Minister’s being "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member’s quotation from Shakespeare was, in my view, a little autobiographical on his part — but that is an entirely separate matter. It is inappropriate to describe the meetings that have taken place as a waste of resources. The cost of both sectoral meetings, at which representatives on transport interests from every jurisdiction in the British Isles met in Belfast, was £4,500. The representatives established contacts and shared experiences.

It amounts to extremely good value for money that for so little we have had the opportunity to exchange information and arrange co-operation. I am sure that the measures will save considerable sums of money, benefit transport and save lives. I think that most people will recognise the silliness of the Member’s point.

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

We have been told this morning that the members of the board of Tourism Ireland Ltd have been appointed, and the news has quite rightly been welcomed. Are the Ministers satisfied that the board boasts a broad base and can represent all aspects of tourism when developing international marketing strategy?

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

The larger the board, the greater the lack of cohesion. In many ways, the level of representation was determined by the agreed size of the board.

Nevertheless, we are generally satisfied that the tourist industry in its widest sense is represented on the board. We are very pleased that those practitioners who have vast experience of dealing with tourism in the most difficult times in Northern Ireland are represented. We are also pleased that the board has been invested with excellent leaders. That is very important.

As the Member well knows, the functions of the board are crucial, and it will move very quickly on the planning, development and delivery of the marketing programmes. As with every other board, and with every other development, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I have no doubt that if we combine continuing peace with this type of integrated approach to developing tourism, the pudding will include the practical results that we want.

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

I want to ask the First Minister about the British/Irish Council meeting. Will he indicate whether discussions have taken place on the need for a special fund for the modernisation of the road structure in Northern Ireland, or does he intend that they should take place with the ministerial representative from Whitehall?

I ask this question in view of the drastic neglect of the roads infrastructure in Northern Ireland over the past 26 years of direct rule and the cumulative and disastrous effect of underfunding over that period. I envisage a special modernisation fund in the form of a one-off payment to compensate for that underfunding and neglect.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

This question of funding is more properly a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It involves general issues about the structure of the block grant and how it is dispersed. It was not raised directly at the British/Irish Council meeting, but of course the question of the funding of Northern Ireland programmes in general is a matter with which we are very much concerned. It happens that the Deputy First Minister and I will have a meeting with the Chancellor of Exchequer on Wednesday morning. That meeting is directed mainly towards the particular tax problems we have with regard to the fuel cost differential between ourselves and the Republic of Ireland; it is partly a tax issue and partly also a currency issue. We plan to raise some other tax issues with him as well, but we are always conscious of the opportunity on these occasions to raise all issues relating to what is called the Barnett formula.

In raising these issues, we have to bear in mind that public expenditure in Northern Ireland is significantly above the UK average. Underfunding of transport, like underfunding of other areas, is a matter of how decisions have been made in the past with regard to allocations within the Northern Ireland block.

When we deal with expenditure and ask for more, we must bear in mind however that we are being treated extremely generously at the moment. We will still ask for more because we believe that some areas have greater needs, one of which is the need for investment infrastructure. In view of the generous provision of public expenditure in Northern Ireland, we need to proceed diplomatically.

Public Expenditure: December Monitoring

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Executive’s decisions on the December monitoring round.

At its meeting on 18 January the Executive decided on some reallocations of expenditure for the short time remaining in the current financial year. These reallocations make use of the resources available from changes in Departments’ estimated requirements, which became available in the December monitoring round. As I explained in my statement on the October monitoring round, the focus is on changes to estimated requirements and the fine-tuning of allocations rather than on any new advances through policy change or new priorities. The Programme for Government still guides our prioritisation of the allocations, but at this stage of the year the process is based on what is possible and necessary in this financial year.

The December monitoring round completes the process of considering what revisions might be necessary to estimates provision. The process for the passage of the next Appropriation Bill, which addresses the spring supplementary estimates for all Departments, has to begin now. Thus the issues addressed in this monitoring round will be the last which can be reflected in supplementary estimates for this financial year.

Last week the Executive decided that the agreement of the Assembly should be sought to a modification of Standing Orders to ensure that accelerated passage for Appropriation Bills is recognised as routine and essential. Last autumn I discussed this fully with the Committee for Finance and Personnel, and I am very grateful for its having signalled that it would be content for this to happen, subject to appropriate consultation on the public expenditure plans. I acknowledge that this year the extent of involvement and consultation with the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Assembly on the Budget cycle has been constrained. In relation to the spring supplementary estimates, I hope that the details I am providing today and further discussion with the Committee will be helpful to all concerned as background to the next Appropriation Bill, which will be introduced in mid-February. That will draw together all revisions to public expenditure allocations subsequent to the main estimates that we passed in June. Thus it will draw together the June monitoring round, the Agenda for Government, the changes to departmental running costs that were agreed by the Executive in July and the October and December monitoring rounds.

Turning to details of this monitoring round, the amount available for reallocation is £67·7 million. Once again, there are unique reasons for the figure being so high at this stage of the financial year. We did not expect to have a substantial amount, but several factors have yielded substantial resources for reallocation. The amount available through revised estimates of departmental requirements is £35 million, of which some £11 million is from additional receipts, either from fees and charges or from disposals of assets. At this stage of the year minor changes to these items always come from Departments. The amount is increased because the revision in the treatment of rate rebates that provided some additional spending power in 2001-02 and later years, as was explained in the Budget that was laid before the Assembly on 12 December 2000, also applies to 2000-01.

Members will be aware also that because of the suspension last year, the full Budget allocated for the Assembly Commission this time last year will not be needed in this financial year. The Executive recognise the need to consider carefully the need for more office accommodation, which may mean that there will be additional requirements in 2001-02 or later years for the Assembly.

However, when the underspend from the Assembly this year is taken into account, there may not be a need for any net increase in the Assembly’s costs, taking the several years together. That position is still highly uncertain, given the need to explore accommodation options for additional Assembly staff. The Executive are happy to work further with the Assembly to ensure that the needs are facilitated and addressed, showing the due regard for economy and effectiveness that the Assembly requires in respect of all public expenditure.

Thus, making use of some of the forecasted underspending from the Assembly’s Budget for 2000-01 does not undermine the Assembly Commission’s plans: the funding of our needs can be addressed fully in 2001-02, if necessary through the end of year flexibility arrangements.

The £67·7 million available for reallocation comprises Departments’ estimated underspending, the revised approach to rate rebates and the amount the Assembly does not directly require for this financial year. The Executive’s proposals for the use of these resources take account of the bids from Departments, the need to retain flexibility to address the Assembly’s needs and the major question of the Health Service’s trusts’ deficits.

Departmental bids for additional spending in this financial year amounted to some £50·4 million, excluding the matter of the Health Service’s trusts’ deficits. Given the substantial amounts available, the Executive have decided to meet a large proportion of those bids, totalling some £39·8 million. It is not surprising that the bids are smaller than would be the case at other stages since only a few months remain in which to make further spending this year. I will say a little about the additional allocations for each Department.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will receive an additional £2 million, mainly for the fine-tuning of disease compensation payment requirements and the cost of assistance schemes and a science service. For the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, a total of £0·9 million is available for several key aspects of the Department’s activities, including museums, the Northern Ireland Millennium Company, sport and other services. While no bids were received from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, its needs in relation to assistance to industry will be kept under review for the remainder of the financial year to ensure that all needs are addressed.

The Department of Education receives £2·6 million, including provision for the Irish-medium trust fund. The Department of Finance and Personnel receives £0·8 million for the fine-tuning of estimates of administrative costs. The Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment receives £0·3 million, again for the fine-tuning of expenditure for European Community initiatives and for the administration of student awards by the education and library boards.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety made a substantially larger bid. Leaving aside the question of the Health Service’s trusts’ deficits, which I will come to shortly, the Executive have decided to allocate £14·5 million to address a range of needs in the Health Service. That includes £3 million for the fine-tuning of estimates for capital expenditure, £3 million for winter pressures and community care, £1·2 million for pressure on the acute hospitals, and £1·3 million to improve premises used by general practitioners.

An additional £1 million will be made available to the Department of the Environment, including £600,000 for historic buildings grants and an amount for planning compensation. For the Department for Regional Development, it has been necessary to add £5 million to the Budget because of a delay in the disposal of assets by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company (NITHC). In essence, that is a rephrasing of a receipt, and thus the proposal, as agreed by the Minister for Regional Development, is that the increase now made for 2000-01 should be offset by a corresponding decrease in 2001-02 when additional receipts will be available from that disposal of assets. The changes do not affect the spending power of the Department for Regional Development and, therefore, make good sense as straightforward aspects of financial management. There would be no need for such fine tuning if the asset disposals had been managed as planned at the outset of the year. The Executive hope that that will be the case in the future, so that there is less need for the adjustment of spending allocations.

In addition to that £5 million, further moneys have been allocated to the Department for Regional Development, including £4 million for structural maintenance on the roads, and £1·5 million for equipment and minor works in the Water Service. In total, the proposed additional allocation to the Department for Regional Development is £14 million.

For the Department for Social Development, there is an additional £3·5 million, including £2 million to deal with fuel poverty, a matter that I know to be of concern to Members from all parties. There is also an additional £1 million for the regeneration of housing in north Belfast and £0·5 million to make up for some of the rental income lost by the Housing Executive as a result of the extensive programme of house sales.

Finally, an additional £0·1 million has been allocated to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to meet the costs associated with President Clinton’s visit before Christmas.

Largely, the allocations represent the fine tuning of the estimated requirements of Departments. They are routine allocations, moving resources from where they are no longer needed to the emerging pressure points in the Executive’s Budget.

The Executive have also considered carefully the difficulties facing the Health Service, which have left an increasing number of health service trusts facing deficits. Financial arrangements in the Health Service still reflect the internal market and include the possibility that individual trusts will have surpluses or deficits that will balance out over several years. Thus, the existence of deficits is not, in itself, a critical difficulty. However, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has indicated that deficits have been increasing materially, which represents a growing problem for the Health Service. The Executive recognise the serious pressure facing the Health Service and the difficulty of finding adequate additional resources for services, mainly caused by the fact that we are not getting sufficient resources from the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula amounts that we receive, when additional funding is provided for the Health Service in England, do not meet our needs proportionately. We will need to take that issue further with the Treasury, as part of our work on the Barnett formula. The Committee for Finance and Personnel has recommended that approach, and the issue has been discussed extensively in this House in the context of next year’s Budget.

The Executive are also concerned to ensure that the management of resources provided by the Assembly for the Health Service is consistent with control requirements. That is important to the Assembly as a whole and to the Public Accounts Committee in particular. We must ensure that the problems that face the Health Service are dealt with following the procedures for financial management and control required by the Assembly. My Department, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will consider the issue of trust deficits in detail in the coming weeks, to ensure that we fully understand the complex financial arrangements and their implications, and to allow appropriate action to be taken.

Substantial resources are available to us, even after we have met a large proportion of the bids from Departments. It is necessary, of course, to consider what additional help we should provide to the Health Service this time. We must also consider the implications of the deficits for future patterns of activity in the Health Service. The Executive have therefore concluded that they are not yet ready to decide exactly how to handle the issue in the remainder of this financial year. Some further details are being investigated to ensure there is a clearer picture. When that has been completed, the Executive will set out its proposed approach to the Assembly.

This monitoring round has provided some significant adjustments to expenditure patterns in this financial year. However, I stress again that these are routine adjustments, mainly driven by revised estimates of requirements, both up and down, across a very wide range of services. This is to be expected at this stage of the year, and I do not want to give the impression that there were significant choices to be made in this monitoring round given the limited scope for change in any action at this late stage of the financial year.

I will be happy to discuss the issues arising further, especially with the Finance and Personnel Committee, so that the background is fully covered as necessary before the spring supplementary estimates are introduced next month. The Executive will also address further the question of health service trust deficits and bring its conclusions to the Assembly as soon as possible.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First, I thank the Minister for the statement, which at least shows the very healthy state of the Budget, if not of the Health Service. The £67 million recouped for reallocation is a substantial amount of money. It is very prudent of the Minister to be able to recoup that amount for reallocation.

The Minister mentions the issue of the rate rebate revisions in the statement. Can he explain further how that affects the amount of spending that is available for us in this particular end of year monitoring round? Will it leave us in a situation where he can actually reconsider next year’s 8% rise in the rates? There has been a substantial amount of underspending in the past year and that amount could be offset against the £12 million that the 8% rise will realise. That rise could then be brought into line with inflation. I know that the Minister will want to do that if possible.

Taking on board the Finance and Personnel Committee’s recommendations on the Barnett formula, it is important to know how the Minister proposes to tackle that issue. Maybe he will clarify that for us. We have not been getting a fair allocation under the Barnett formula for spending in the Health Service, in particular, compared with England. We need to achieve equality. Can the Minister clarify that?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before calling the Minister, I want to point out that this is not an opportunity to raise broad questions about the principles of finance in the Northern Ireland Budget. It is an opportunity to ask questions on the December monitoring proposals.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Chairperson for his remarks and questions.

First, we need to build a strong case concerning the Barnett formula and we need to make representation in time for the next spending review.

As the First Minister indicated in response to previous questions, this is a matter not just for myself, as the Minister of Finance and Personnel, but for the Executive as a whole. The representational role of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is going to be key in this particular exercise.

We are trying to build up the type of case that will need to be made. We also need to anticipate the argument that is likely to be made against our case. That is why there are a number of issues that we need to address.

The Chairperson also raised the question of the rate rebate treatment. We covered this in the Budget statement and in the Budget document. There are changes, as approved and agreed by the Treasury, in the treatment of rate rebates, which now come under the departmental expenditure limit (DEL). That has applied this year, and that is why we have additional money available. The rate rebate factor has already been factored into next year’s Budget. It would not be appropriate to carry money from this year’s rate rebate and set it against next year’s Budget. That is not the basis on which we can plan budgets.

Unfortunately, the rate increase that we have indicated looks like being the increase that we are going to have to adopt — subject to some final figures being available. It is simply to meet expenditure planned for next year and subsequent years. Notwithstanding the money that has become available in this monitoring round, nobody has yet said to me that there is money in our spending plans that is not required and could be used to allow a lower rate increase.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

It has been suggested that trusts have managed to spend more than their budgeted income by delaying the payment of bills to suppliers. If deficits have been financed by trade credit, the latest annual deficits must represent the total deficit. In view of the annual budgetary arrangements, is it sensible to accumulate the annual deficits over a number of years? What is the total overspend?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

First, trusts operate under financial arrangements that allow them to run deficits in given years. However, the trusts are required to balance their finances over a period of time, perhaps three to five years. There has been no breach of the financial controls. Obviously, the situation will be different when resource accounting is adopted; deficits will no longer be separate from departmental expenditure limits.

The Department of Finance and Personnel, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister need to identify any problems suggested by the pattern of the deficits. The Member suggested that some deficits were caused by delaying payment of suppliers’ bills. Such issues must be explored in a manner that is sensitive to the pressures that are contributing to the trusts’ problems. Financial management and control issues must also be examined.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Health trust deficits are a serious and complex matter. I appreciate, therefore, that the issue needs further examination before any conclusive statement can be made. However, the matter is urgent, and the Assembly needs to know that the matters will be addressed within a definite and tight timetable. On behalf of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, I register with the Minister our concerns and our desire to be fully informed on the background of the problems and on any planned remedial action.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I recognise the urgency of the situation, but we must face up to its complexity. The Executive were unable to take conclusive decisions at this stage, without gathering further information. Obviously, we must reach firm conclusions in time to allow us to make decisions about financial allocations in this financial year, if the Executive consider that that is the best way forward.

The current arrangements are complex, and we need a little time to reflect on the most appropriate way forward. I expect that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will ensure that the departmental Committee is kept fully informed about all developments.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Did the Minister take any cognisance of the plea made by traders and small businesses to the Assembly last week to reconsider the increase in the regional rate, which is to be almost three times the rate of inflation? When will the Minister and the parties in the Executive that support him take on board the fact that it is scandalous to raise the regional rate by 8%? It is especially scandalous in view of previous commitments made by members of the Minister’s own party when they sat on local councils. He can take it from me that householders, small traders and businesses will draw very little comfort from his statement today in relation to the issue of the regional rate.

The Minister mentioned an overall amount of £67·7 million being made available for reallocation. He said that £35 million came from revised estimates of requirements by Departments. Can he give us some more details on which Departments have given up what amounts of money, rather than just a global sum? He said that of that £35 million, £11 million is additional receipts. Can he confirm that some of those receipts come from the sale of Housing Executive homes? Will he take on board the point that has been made by many Members in the House about the need to address chronic housing need in Northern Ireland, especially in areas like north Belfast? Will he accept that to continue to draw money out of the Department for Social Development’s budget in this way, and not to return a proportionate amount, is unacceptable?

Finally, I welcome the Minister’s announcement today of £1 million extra funding for the regeneration of housing in north Belfast. I am pleased to have received a letter from the Minister for Social Development, indicating that thus far £4·5 million has been allocated. This extra £1 million will be of enormous assistance and benefit to our work in regenerating run-down areas in north Belfast.

I also welcome the £2 million towards alleviating the problem of fuel poverty. I ask the Minister to continue with the work that he is doing —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member has put quite a number of questions to the Minister.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his many questions.

First, on the question of rates, the Member knows that the December monitoring round has nothing to do with the budgeted rate increases for next year. This is an adjustment to this year’s allocations, and it does not relate to our revenue needs in terms of allocations for next year or future years. It has nothing to do with the rate increase at this point.

As I have already said, we will be finalising the determination in relation to the rates next year, subject to further figures being available. The Executive have heard, and are alert to, a lot of the concerns, frustrations and misgivings that have been expressed about rate increases. Nevertheless, we have made clear the basis on which the decisions have been taken.

The point has been made about those parties who sit on the Executive and agree with this. Again I say that whenever we were going through the papers on the Budget — and papers were fully circulated, including recommendations on options on rate increases — no Minister of any party specifically opposed the rate increases that were proposed. I want to make that clear again, because the point seems to have been lost.

Concerning where the money has come from, obviously there are some small adjustments. Of the significant amounts, there is some £7 million from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment; that basically is money that was being held there in support of possible bids in relation to Harland & Wolff. A further £3 million has come in from house sales. I have never made a secret of the fact that there are significant receipts coming in from house sales. Indeed, I referred to it in my statement. There is £2·5 million in Water Service receipts, £6 million from the old round of EU programmes and £1·4 million from LEDU.

The Member made a point about the Department for Social Development and housing receipts. The Department for Social Development’s bids in this monitoring round have been met. There seems to be a suggestion that we should be allocating more than has actually been bid for. As I have said before, we cannot adopt a position that says that receipts automatically lie where they fall, because not all Departments and programmes are in a position to generate receipts.

I am pleased that the Member welcomes the additional money for the north Belfast strategy.

That additional £1 million follows the additional £2 million that was allocated in the revised Budget in December.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Does the Minister agree that in situations such as this it would be advantageous and in the interest of the Assembly if the final figures were brought to the attention of the respective Statutory Committees before they are brought before the Executive? That would enable Members to have an input into the reallocation of those easements. Otherwise the Executive announce figures and almost create a "them and us" situation where they do their thing and the rest of us follow. That is not in the interests of democracy or the Assembly. Will the Minister comment on that?

Paragraph 16 of the Minister’s statement states that the allocations are from resources that were "no longer needed". The figures from the October monitoring round and the December monitoring round amount to £143 million — approximately 2% of the overall Budget. Does the Minister agree that that clearly demonstrates that there is an in-built fat content of £143 million in the budgeting mechanisms? In view of that, the £143 million could have been reallocated for future years — for example, 2001-02 — thus keeping the regional rate below inflation. That would assist Northern Ireland’s economy by protecting its backbone — the small traders.

It is not sufficient to say that we cannot look to the revenue for future years when we are dealing with reallocations. It is part and parcel of the budgeting exercise, and where there is fat, it is the Assembly’s responsibility to ensure that it does not exist in future years.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

When we say that money is not needed, we do not mean that it is not needed for public expenditure, rather that it is not needed against the budgeted item for this year. It may be because there has been a change in circumstances and the need is not the same, or it may be because there has been a slippage in spending, and the money cannot be spent on that issue in this financial year but can be spent on the same need in future years. Therefore we are not saying that the money is not needed.

The Member’s argument suggests that Northern Ireland can afford to have a lower level of public expenditure. With regard to the Barnett formula, most people argue that Northern Ireland needs more public expenditure. That is an argument that the Member and his party have made. However, there now appears to be a suggestion that Northern Ireland can afford less public expenditure.

Adjusting moneys in the monitoring rounds justifies the use of monitoring rounds. Nobody pretends that we get estimates right or that things always go according to plan. Therefore monitoring rounds are used to ensure that we get the best use out of moneys in-year.

This money is needed. Proof of that is in its allocation to pressing needs, needs that, it is hoped, Members will welcome. There are also outstanding needs in the Health Service. Therefore the money is required this year and, as I am sure all Members will agree, we will need more public expenditure next year and in the years beyond.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I agree with Seamus Close. It would be useful if Committees received advance note of the detail of the Minister’s statement. However, I welcome the statement. I am concerned about the trusts that are in deficit, and I add my concern to that of Rev Robert Coulter’s. Health bodies that are in deficit are: the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust; Altnagelvin Area Hospital; Sperrin Lakeland Trust; Ulster Community and Hospital Health and Social Services Trust; Armagh and Dungannon Health and Social Services Trust; Causeway Health and Social Services Trust; Homefirst Community Trust; United Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust; Greenpark Healthcare Trust; Belfast City Hospital; Craigavon Area Hospital; and the Royal Group of Hospitals.

What happens to those trusts with regard to penalties? Are there incentives for other trusts not named on the list?

12.00

Will the Minister also tell us where the finance will be found for the very expensive judicial reviews that are being taken by Departments against Departments? Will that finance now have to be found out of the £17·3 million that is not currently allocated?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Departments meet legal costs out of their budgets.

On the wider point about trust deficits, I recognise that many people will consider some trusts to be in significant deficit, while others have stayed within budget and reported surpluses. We need to look at all the issues involved. It is not a case of drawing up blacklists or penalty lists. We need to deal with this problem in all its aspects, which are manifold. We need to look at where pressures on trusts, particularly trusts providing acute services, are giving rise to this problem. We need to look at the wider issues of funding, and we also need to look at the management and control questions. The Executive, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are agreed that we need to approach this from the point of view of accountability for service, care, spending and control. This is not just an accountancy exercise; it is an exercise in accountability for services provided and expenditure managed. It would be premature for me to speculate on any particular issue to do with any particular trust.

Finally, I would like to respond to Mr Close’s point about Committees. The Department of Finance and Personnel receives bids from Departments in monitoring rounds. We explore the issues that are involved in those bids with the Departments. We also receive notification of easements of money from Departments that feel that they will not be able to spend what they have been allocated. We manage the process by making recommendations to the Executive, and the Executive make the decisions. It is up to other Departments and Ministers to decide the level of consultation or information exchange they have with their Committees.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We have a substantial number of Members who wish to ask questions. I encourage those who are called to be as concise as possible.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee has been concerned for some time about the visibility of NHS funds and the fact that there seems to be enormous difficulty in identifying where the funds go when they leave the boards. Why have the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety not been more curious before now as to why a detailed monitoring system has not been in place for identifying the destination of the £2·3 billion that leaves the former Department and goes to the latter? Where does it go, and what is it used for?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The budget for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is significant, as has been mentioned in the statement and in response to other questions. There are complex financial arrangements involved, and we now want to review those. The Minister has already said that some aspects of Health Service structures and systems will be looked at. The Department of Finance and Personnel and the economic policy unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister want to see more streamlined arrangements, so that it is much easier literally to follow the money. The move to resource accounting and budgeting is one change in the overall system that should contribute to that. That will have an impact on the Health Service as well as on all other aspects of the public sector. It should also make it easier to trace money, to detect problems as they emerge and to require people to alert us to problems as they emerge.

Regarding the particular pressing points on the current deficits, my officials only became aware of their acuteness in the context of this particular monitoring round. The Executive now recognise that this is an issue which, for a number of reasons, we need to address now. However, we need to address it in light of fuller information on all of the factors, rather than just making a reflex allocation now. There are wider issues, including some of the questions that the Member touched upon, that need to be examined.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasChann Comhairle. I welcome the statement, particularly the allocation of extra funding to health. The fact that the Minister gave seven paragraphs to health is also welcome. On the question of accountability, I refer to page 6 in relation to the Department for Regional Development:

"There would not be a need for these fine tuning changes if the asset disposals were managed as planned at the outset of the year."

Does this indicate a mismanagement ethos within the Department for Regional Development?

We all welcome monitoring of spends, and I notice £14 million being given to the Department for Regional Development and £14·5 to health. It seems from that that if you are outside the loop, you get much better treatment. In addition, what measures of accountability does the Minister have in place for those who are outside the loop, regarding where they spend their money, how they spend it, and what areas they spend it in?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I hope that in future these statements will not be judged on how many paragraphs people get — although it might be easier, particularly for me, to give people paragraphs rather than money. I will bear that in mind. There will be compensating paragraphs for those who are not quite so successful when it comes to bids.

As far as I am concerned, all Departments are in the loop in terms of public expenditure. That is also the position taken by the Department of Finance and Personnel and by the Executive. In agreeing these allocations, the Executive are discharging their responsibility. It is not just for Ministers to have regard for the needs of their own Departments, but also to have regard for the needs of the total public services, including public services administered by the Department for Regional Development and the Department for Social Development.

It is not a matter of people being advantaged by being either inside or outside the loop. That is a mistaken and superficial approach, not unlike the rather crass approach that Ian Paisley Jnr took earlier when trying to look at it in terms of Nationalist Ministers and Unionist Ministers. We have responded to need. Bids have been made by Departments and we, as an Executive, have responded to those bids as we have seen fit to do in the circumstances.

The point about the £5 million obviously relates to the Hi-Park Centre. It had been anticipated that the transport holding company would sell Hi-Park this year, raising about £5 million. That was the basis on which the Department for Regional Development budget was predicated. Obviously, that has not happened. We do not take that lightly. That £5 million has been made good now on the understanding that it will come back to us in a revision of the Department for Regional Development’s budget for asset sales next year. That is working out in those terms precisely because Departments need to uphold the terms and the premises on which their budget has been allocated.

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

On the subject of health trust deficits, I welcome the Minister’s indication of a possible role for the Public Accounts Committee. Will he support increased powers for the Comptroller and Auditor General so that health trusts can be brought before the Public Accounts Committee to explain their overspending, their consistent failure to meet targets and their plans to put things right?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As I have said, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. At this stage I think it would be wrong for me to focus on any one aspect of the issues that we need to pick up. The questions that have been raised in relation to audit and the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General are wider questions than pertain with this particular monitoring round.

The Member is aware that in the context, both of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill and of work on the pending audit reorganisation Bill, we are looking at ways of adding to the scope and access of the Comptroller and Auditor General on behalf of the Assembly. However, there is nothing in particular that I can add at this stage in the context of this monitoring round statement.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the additional £600,000 for historic buildings grants, as that will lever more money from the heritage lottery fund for Northern Ireland. How much money is being spent on planning compensation? How much money has been set aside for the Irish-medium education trust fund? Given the state of school buildings in the controlled sector, there is a lot of concern in my community that money is being awarded to the Minister’s pet projects while schools are falling down around children.

Did the Minister receive a request from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for £120,000 for victims? Would that money not have been better allocated than the £100,000 to the President’s last-minute trip over to the Province to try and get some concession for his foreign policy, which has failed everywhere else?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am glad that the Member welcomes the £600,000 for buildings and heritage. As for his specific question on planning compensation, it is £293,000. That is to meet legally binding settlements for planning compensation that could not be met within the existing budget.

Regarding the allocation in the Department of Education, in particular the question of the Irish-medium trust fund, £750,000 is being allocated there. Obviously that is in response to the needs of that particular sector, and those bids, like other bids, have been assessed by the relevant Department and by ourselves. The Executive have seen fit to meet those bids. Bids have also been received in the past, and met, in the context of budget and other monitoring rounds, in relation to other sectors in education and to the wider school estate.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

In response to Monica McWilliams’s question on trust deficits, the Minister said that it had to be dealt with within the context of financial control and management. I am a bit disappointed that the needs of the people did not come into play there. We need to ensure that the needs of the people come into play because there are different needs across different trusts.

On the issue of the additional money to Departments, the total amount, according to the statement, is £67·7 million, but in the allocation it is £39·7 million. That is a shortfall of £28 million. What will happen to the rest of that money? I am concerned that there is no additional money in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Will this money be used to prop up shipbuilding, as has been done in the past? In total, how much has been given to the regeneration of north Belfast lately?

Go raibh maith agat.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for her questions. I made it clear in my statement, and in my responses to questions, that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed regarding trusts. I have talked about being sensitive to the pressures that are facing trusts, particularly those providing acute services. I do not think it is fair for the Member to imply that any exercise that is now being carried out on behalf of the Executive will be blind to the needs that are there. We are taking this exercise forward in ways that will be sensitive, realistic, and responsive — where we can be — to needs, but we also have to regard our own financial control and management requirements. That is a responsibility I have to this Assembly.

I have said that we want to look at all of the issues involved, and that is why we are taking more time on this. I want to reassure the Member and the House generally on that point.

The allocation of £1 million to north Belfast is in addition to the £2 million allocated to the north Belfast regeneration effort in the revised budget that I announced in December. These two announcements mean a total contribution of £3 million to that strategy.

We have detailed the amount of money available as £67·7 million; we are allocating £40 million. We have said, on behalf of the Executive, that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are going to look into the issue of trust deficits, and we will make recommendations on allocations to the Assembly if that is what the Executive see fit to do. Obviously that is relevant to the money not allocated in today’s statement. So too are other possible uses for money allocated into Executive programme funds for future use.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the additional £5 million that has been allocated as a capital grant to railways. Will the Minister further outline exactly what that large amount of money will be spent on? Can he let the House know when each of the Roads Service divisions can expect to hear its additional allocation from the £4 million earmarked for road maintenance? Will the Minister highlight the allocations that have been made in health that reflect expenditure or deficits that have already occurred? Can he further advise what additional money has been targeted on bed blocking and the associated inefficiencies related to this? Will he ensure that a better balance of funding in the health sector will occur in the future?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The capital funding for the railways is essentially the money from the Hi-Park Centre. Members are well aware of the case that has been made regarding railway need, not least on the capital side, so this is part of a response to that. The £5 million that I mentioned in response to an earlier question is being allocated to that particular end.

The Department has allocated £4 million towards structural maintenance. Members are aware that there is a significant backlog in structural maintenance, so this is aimed at reducing this problem.

There is also the point of oil-related pressures. Roads Service uses oil-related products, such as asphalt and bitumen, so that puts a particular burden on its budget. Again, this is extra funding to try to mitigate those extra pressures. The Member also touched upon the issue of bed blocking with regard to the health budget. The Minister announced last year, in the context of winter pressures, several significant reviews into the different causes and contributing factors to many of the pressures which manifest themselves, particularly in the winter, but which are not always easily described as merely winter pressures. Those include the issue of bed blocking. We have responded to a number of bids from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and we are giving consideration to the outstanding points in relation to deficits.

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

I welcome the £1 million allocation to the north Belfast housing strategy, which, combined with the £2 million from the last monitoring round, will contribute greatly to the most pressing housing need in all of Northern Ireland. Had it not been for the dilatory and inept manner in which the Minister for Social Development has dealt with this issue — or rather has not dealt with it — and his lack of diligence in highlighting this as an urgent housing need, these topping-up allocations would not be necessary. Does the Minister agree that it is the Minister for Social Development’s lack of commitment which has necessitated this matter’s being brought to the Assembly today?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his welcoming of the additional money, which means in total a further £3 million to the north Belfast housing strategy. That is not the only money going into the north Belfast regeneration scheme. Other money is going in from the Housing Executive and from the Department for Social Development budget. I hope that these top-ups are not regarded as second-rate money and that they will go as far and be spent as effectively as any other money. A bid has been received from the Department for Social Development, and we have been able to meet it in this context. It would be inappropriate for me to comment any further along the lines that the Member has requested. I find that all Ministers deal with me and my Department in a straightforward manner. I hope that my Department and I deal with them in a straightforward way in return. That applies in this Chamber and anywhere else.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Can the Minister confirm that he considers his Colleague’s remarks to be petty, party political rubbish? First of all, how can he attack a Minister who put in a bid for funding, considering it to be urgent, for not taking the matter seriously? Secondly, pursuant to the reply that he gave to Monica McWilliams with regard to the legal cases that Ministers are taking against each other, what is the size of this ministerial wrangling fund that he has? How much does he expect will be spent by Ministers taking each other to court so that we may assess what good could have been done for Northern Ireland if they had not decided to do so?

Can the Minister also indicate, in relation to the regional rate, what degree of fiscal flexibility he has? Is it possible for him to carry money forward from one financial year to the next, considering this is a relatively small amount of money in relation to his overall Budget? That is one possible way for the Minister to reduce the impact that businesses in Northern Ireland will have as a result of his significant hike in the rates.

As has been indicated, about £150 million is reallocated every year. Ten million pounds is all that is required to maintain the regional rate at the level of inflation. Surely the Minister recognises that during the course of the next financial year he will be making statements similar to today’s, and he could very easily have absorbed the regional rate increase by allowing that on this occasion.

Finally, in relation to the Department for Regional Development, he has indicated £5 million pounds for the sale of capital assets. Does he take into account that, for instance, if the Hi-Park Centre is sold, a revenue stream in the region of £800,000 will come from that, which he will additionally have to input in every subsequent year?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

There are several points. First, I decline the Member’s invitation to brand my party colleague’s contribution as petty or partisan. Mr Maginness was possibly making the point partly to counterbalance some remarks made in the Chamber by Nigel Dodds that there had previously been impassioned pleas about north Belfast that I had rejected. That was not exactly true, I hasten to add —

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I did not say that. I was thanking the Minister.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I was referring to a previous occasion in the Chamber when the point was made that there had been impassioned pleas.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It is a curious problem when we get confused between praise and blame, but perhaps the Minister will continue to respond to the substantial number of questions raised by Mr Robinson.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As regards the further points in relation to the regional rate, clearly we can carry money forward from one year to the next. We have already indicated that in relation to Executive Programme Funds and in relation to an amount for health service capital. It can be done.

However, it would not be appropriate for us to carry money forward from one year to the next simply to offset the rate increase. It would not be good budgeting practice to use budgeted money from one year to reduce revenue needs in another year. Had we tried to do that, many in the House would have raised their eyebrows and said that we were trying to duck hard decisions and were taking softer options. We recognise the serious concerns that are felt in relation to the rates in general, and that is why I will shortly be bringing forward details of the review of overall rating policy, which is provided for in the Programme for Government.

Concerning the Hi-Park Centre, again I would point out that what I have announced today is with the agreement of the Minister for Regional Development, so I hope that all the relevant points have been taken into consideration. It is obviously a matter for him to determine. I am not in a position to specify that the assets that might be sold next year by the Department for Regional Development to reflect that £5 million will necessarily be the Hi-Park Centre. The commitment to the sale of assets is there. However, it does not refer to a specific asset. It is a matter for the Minister for Regional Development, and it would be inappropriate for me to go into any more detail on that point.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I congratulate the Minister. The benefits of having a local hand and local accountability can be seen in the two monitoring rounds, and there have been some impressive results. We are talking about a very significant amount of money, and it is hard to find any grounds for criticism of the announced allocations.

This should not be taken as a sting in the tail. The Minister has demonstrated considerable interest in the subject, but I was disappointed that there was no reference to the gap funding proposal. It was a very welcome announcement by him on the last occasion.

Community and voluntary sector groups are facing a significant problem in the hiatus between the outgoing and incoming European programmes. That time frame may be more significant than was originally thought.

Does the Minister agree that there may be an opportunity to extend the scope, the budget and the time frame of that gap funding proposal so as to ensure that there is no significant loss of capacity, experience or jobs in the most vulnerable parts of our society? The Minister has recognised that problem in the past. There is money in reserve — he has not spent all his money — so there is the opportunity to do something about that.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

With reference to what is not in the statement in terms of gap funding, I recognise the concerns felt by many, not just in this House but across the community. We have met bids in previous monitoring rounds in relation to gap funding, particularly with reference to the peace programme. There was no specific bid for gap funding that was not met in this monitoring round. We cannot meet bids that are not presented.

We are trying to keep the wider issue under review on a number of levels. We have to deal with the fact that a considerable amount of money allocated under Peace I has yet to be spent or drawn down — something like 27% — and that has to be spent by 31 December 2001. We want to look at the problems in that hold-up and consider what can be done to ameliorate the situation. That could, in turn, ease many of the problems that are manifesting themselves as gap funding issues.

The Member touched upon not just the amounts of money but also the dates. Some groups are on different end dates for funding for different measures, which creates difficulties. We want to look at the total picture and will keep it under review. We will be as responsive and effective in the future as we have tried to be in the past.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I note that the Minister had £68 million available and he allocated £40 million. What is going to happen to the difference? Is he building up a war chest? What is that money for? Is it to bankroll financial mismanagement, possibly in the NHS trusts?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I have already said that there is £28 million that we are not allocating today. We need to look at the deficits issue. There are a number of matters there, not just relating to financial management, but also to service pressures and unmet need. We need to look at this matter in the round and take a balanced approach, with due regard both to financial management and accountability and to service accountability and meeting need. Those are legitimate concerns of the Assembly and the Executive.

I cannot anticipate what will be allocated to the trusts. The Executive will decide after the three Departments involved have looked at the issues and brought recommendations forward. Money can clearly be used in that area, and I have also said that money can be used and carried over in Executive programme funds. It is not a case of building up a war chest. All the moneys available are declared and open. There are no public moneys hidden, and people will see clearly that our system is geared to ensuring that public expenditure takes place rather than does not take place. We need to do more to ensure that public expenditure takes place according to the authority on which it was given.

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

Many citizens in Northern Ireland have concerns about performance-related pay and fat-cat bonuses, as identified in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which was published last year. Many people in the Health Service cannot avail of performance-related pay. Can the Minister confirm that work is taking place on these issues? Can he also confirm that those trusts identified this morning — those whose chief executives are getting performance-related pay while the trusts themselves have a deficit — and the whole management culture within them will be investigated?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I recognise, as do most people, the wide concern that the public and the House have about the whole issue of performance-related pay for Health Service managers. That issue has been addressed by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in communication with the trusts and in legislation.

We also need to be conscious that in this exercise we are trying to deal with service-related problems as well as with financial management. We want to get the total picture. I hope that the wider exercise that we are conducting will address all issues to do with performance-related pay that impact on trust performance and trust deficit. We are not trying to scapegoat anyone; nor will we come up with a short-term fix. We want to deal with the problem in ways that make sense and work for the Health Service as well as for our financial management processes.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

A lot has been said this morning about trusts’ deficits. The Minister has stated that he intends to address further the question of the Health Service trusts’ deficits and to bring his conclusions to the Assembly as soon as possible. I appreciate that this is a very complex issue, but I would like to know if the Minister is going to give us a timetable for dealing with it as soon as possible. Is it going to be a matter of weeks or months? When does he intend actually to do something about it?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I do not want to repeat the points I made earlier on the issue in general. On the question of timing, as I indicated in the statement, we clearly need to be able to bring indications forward in time for the spring Supplementary Estimates. We need to table those in mid- February, so it really is a matter of weeks.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I welcome this monitoring round and thank the Minister for it. A number of points have already been covered. I welcome the moneys for children’s issues and community care, et cetera. However, I am disappointed that no bid was made, nor moneys allocated, for the purchase of urgently needed library stocks. Can I have a breakdown, perhaps by way of a written reply, of the moneys allocated to the Department of Education for oil? In response to the Minister’s comment earlier about budgeting, is it really good budgeting practice to put people out of business with increases in rates?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for her broad welcome. The Department of Education has been allocated £1·8 million for fuel costs. I assume that the Member would like that figure to be broken down by board areas or by school sectors, and we will endeavour to do that. Members may recall from the previous monitoring round that some allocations were made to cover fuel costs, particularly for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. No such allocation was made for the Department of Education, so it has to absorb the cost pressures.

I have already indicated that in a few weeks’ time we will be making a final decision on the rates, based on available figures. If those figures allow us to reduce the rates increase in any way, the Executive will look positively at such an option. I am not confident that there will be significant room for manoeuvre in that regard, but I hope that when the figures become available, I will be consulting with the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

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

I also welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the reference to funding allocations for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I also welcome the view he expressed on poverty allocation — I am very glad to hear that.

The issue of Health Service trusts’ deficits has already been well probed. However, will the Minister ensure that those trusts that are not in deficit, those that have surplus funds or that break even, will not be punished for living within their means, regardless of what is seen to take place?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Officials will be examining the trusts’ figures in detail over the coming weeks. Current estimates suggest that just under half of the 19 trusts experienced a cumulative deficit, but it must be remembered that every trust, bar one, reported a deficit in 1999-2000. Obviously, we will be eager to ensure that any proposals drawn up will deal with the problem in an even-handed and equitable manner.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We have come to the end of the time. Other Members wished to ask questions. Unfortunately, we were not able to get to them.

In that regard, almost all of the Ministers, including Mr Durkan, when asked the same question more than once, are courteous enough to repeat their replies. However, this is not always the best use of time. I will not object if a Minister, when asked a question on the same issue more than once, refers a Member to a reply that he gave earlier. It is another matter if a Member is creative enough to base his question on something closely related, but who frames it in a slightly different way, so that an additional response can be given. I am not suggesting this to enable Ministers to avoid the responsibility to be accountable; rather, I want to ensure that time is properly used.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to rule, now or later in the day, on comments made earlier by Mr Paisley Jnr during the discussion on the statements by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. As I understood it, Mr Paisley Jnr referred to the attendance or non-attendance of Ministers at meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council, in accordance with their party manifestos. Clearly, Ministers attend those institutions by virtue of the Pledge of Office, which legally binds all Ministers. This admission by the DUP that one of its Ministers is in breach of his Pledge of Office, in accordance with the party manifesto, is an important one.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It would be difficult to speak with authority on the specific matter to which you refer. In general, you refer, on the one hand, to Members’ responsibilities in respect of their manifesto commitments and, on the other hand, to the responsibilities that they may have by virtue of Standing Orders in which the Pledge of Office is mentioned. Obviously, anyone elected to the Assembly has a responsibility to his electorate to uphold his manifesto commitments. However, there are responsibilities in respect of the Assembly that outweigh that. My own position, for example, is a clear case in point. Regardless of any political commitment I may have made to pursue certain matters, it is no longer open to me to follow through these pledges. I have had to forego my involvement in party politics, and it is unlikely that I will be able to return to them in this jurisdiction.

So it is quite clear that certain commitments made when taking office do obviate and overtake manifesto commitments that may have been made.

Without thorough thought, I could not comment on how far that applies to the matter that the Member raises. However, in principle, the pledges one gives to the House when taking office have a particularly special place. They also have particular substance and are therefore taken account of in Standing Orders.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Member believes that another Member, a Minister or whatever, is in breach of any pledge of office or any other obligation owed to the Assembly, is it not open to him, or to any Member, or to any party, to propose that that matter be dealt with in the Assembly? Seeking direction from the Speaker is not the only method.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It seems appropriate to me that Members seek rulings and guidance from the Speaker inside and outside the Chamber. The Member is entirely right about Members being able to move motions or take other action. However, it is always preferable, before an action of that kind is taken, for a matter to be raised by way of — I was going to say a warning shot across the bows, but perhaps not — seeking advice. Sometimes I have to do that with Members to indicate that certain consequences are attached to certain conduct. Of course, whether or not matters are dealt with in that way is not a matter for me.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This issue of presence at North/South or, indeed, British-Irish Council meetings is not as straightforward as some seem to believe. In fact, the legislation quite clearly provides for circumstances in which it is possible for a Minister to refrain from attending without breaching his pledge.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I think that the Member is simply pointing out the advisedness of my own stance, which is to take advice and study a matter before giving a ruling in the Chamber. I will endeavour to do this in response to the point of order raised by Mr Maskey.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Member now wants to put down a motion to exclude the DUP from government, as he clearly will, can you advise him when to submit his motion and how to go about that?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I think the Member is well aware of the procedure. He will also know that unless he has sufficient support, motions for exclusion may not even be debated. The Member who asked the question knows that well, but I think we can accept with some confidence that Mr Maskey is familiar with these procedures also. As the Whip of his party, he has had to address them on a number of occasions.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

We look forward to that debate.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members are becoming a little naughty, and I should not like to facilitate their avoiding their responsibility to consider the legislation about to come before us.

Fisheries (Amendment) Bill: Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Some Members may not be familiar with our procedures. Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order of consideration, and a grouping list of amendments. Members will see from the grouping list that amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be considered together, followed by amendment 5 and then amendment 6. When I call a Member to move the lead amendment in a group — in this case, amendment 1 out of the group 1 to 4 — he or she, and any subsequent Members, may address that amendment and any other amendments in the group. I hope that Members will take the opportunity to do that, since it is best for us to have a coherent debate. I advise Members that they may return to various questions in a way that is not possible with other motions.

Clause 1 (Regulation of sea-fisheries in or on the foreshore)

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

I beg to move amendment 1: In clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out

"or on the foreshore"

and insert

"Northern Ireland inshore waters".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2 (clause 1): In page 2, line 2, after "offence." add

"(5) For the purposes of this section —

(a) ‘Northern Ireland inshore waters’ means the area adjacent to the coast of Northern Ireland and to the landward of a limit of 6 miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, up to the mean high- water mark of ordinary spring tides; and

(b) ‘sea-fisheries’ includes any fishery within that area." — [Ms Rodgers]

No 3 (clause 2): In page 2, line 13, after "on" insert "or using". — [Ms Rodgers]

No 4 (clause 2): In page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (5). — [Ms Rodgers]

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

It may be helpful for Members if I recap briefly on the purpose of the Bill. The Bill proposes to amend the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Both Departments have powers under the Act, given the post-devolution split in fisheries functions. Broadly speaking, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has retained responsibility for sea fisheries and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is now responsible for inland fisheries. As the proposed amendments to the Bill were proposed before devolution, it has been agreed that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will take the lead in bringing one Bill to the Assembly on behalf of the two Departments instead of each Department bringing separate Bills.

Clause 1 proposes to provide the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development with the power to regulate the collection of wild shellfish, which are a natural resource, from the intertidal area and to use fisheries’ regulatory powers to conserve and enhance the environment.

Clause 2 proposes to make it an offence to contravene regulations made under these powers and provides authorised officers with the necessary enforcement powers to enable the Department to enforce such regulations.

Clauses 3 to 7 are the responsibility of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Clause 3 proposes to lift the restrictions that prohibit trade in salmon roe taken from fish farms and to allow trade in spawn produced at a fish farm for salmon production for human consumption or for stock enhancement. It also gives powers to the Fisheries Conservancy Board (FCB) to control the removal of materials such as gravel from river beds.

Clause 4 proposes to streamline the administrative process through dispensing with the requirement for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to obtain agreement from the Department of Finance and Personnel each time it varies the amount it charges for fishing permits for fishing in the public angling estate.

Clause 5 proposes to provide the FCB with powers to issue angling licences at reduced rates to certain classes of person.

Clause 6 proposes to amend the Act to enable the FCB to make by-laws relating to the management and protection of fisheries and to regulate salmon fishing for environmental purposes.

Clause 7 proposes to strengthen the powers of the FCB to reinstate polluted waters and to recover the full costs from the polluter. Reinstatement will include restocking, restoration and enhancement of the fish habitat to its pre-pollution level.

In my comments on amendment 1, I will also be referring to amendments 2, 3 and 4. As originally drafted, the Bill provides the Department with the power to regulate fishing by means of vehicles and equipment in the area between the sea and high water mean median tide.

The use of the term "foreshore" in the Bill will extend the Department’s power only to that area between high water mean median tide and low water mean median tide, because the commonly accepted definition of the foreshore refers only to that area. This leaves a potential loophole in that the commonly accepted definition of the term "foreshore" does not cover that part of the intertidal area between low water mean median tide and low astronomical tide. This area is less often, but still regularly, left uncovered by the movement of tides, and the Department wants to ensure that any regulations made will apply to this area as well as to the foreshore because this area is fertile in wild shellfish.

The purpose of amendments 1 and 2 is to replace the term "foreshore" when used in the Bill with the term "Northern Ireland inshore waters" and to define the term "Northern Ireland inshore waters" as all waters up to high water mean median tide.

Moreover, as a consequence of using the term "Northern Ireland inshore waters" in the Bill, the term "sea-fisheries" is being amended to include any fishery within Northern Ireland inshore waters. This will ensure that any fisheries within Northern Ireland inshore waters are covered by references to sea-fisheries in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966.

Clause 2 of the Bill, as originally drafted, provides authorised officers with the power to require the attendance of persons in charge of, and any other persons in or on, any vehicle or equipment that is or has been involved in fishing for the purposes of enforcing regulations. However, a person may use a vehicle or equipment that is or has been involved in fishing, but who is not in charge of the vehicle or equipment and who is not in or on the vehicle or equipment. As the Bill stands, an authorised person would have no power to require the attendance of such a person to assist the officer in the performance of his duties, so amendment 3 proposes to extend the enforcement powers of authorised officers in the Bill to provide them with the power to require the attendance of any person using a vehicle or equipment to assist the officer in the performance of his duties.

As a consequence of the removal of the term "foreshore" from the Bill, the redefining of the terms "sea-fish" and "sea-fisheries" to include fish and fisheries in or on the foreshore in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 is no longer necessary. The Department therefore no longer wishes to redefine the term "sea-fish" and "sea-fishery" to refer to the term ‘foreshore’ in the Fisheries Act 1966.

A redefinition of the term "sea-fisheries" to take account of the use of the term "Northern Ireland inshore waters" in the Bill is provided for by virtue of amendment 2 on the Marshalled List. Amendment 4 ensures that these terms are not redefined.

These amendments are necessary to enable the Department to regulate the collection of wild shellfish in the entire intertidal area up to high water mean median tide and to ensure that authorised officers have the appropriate powers to enforce any such regulations. I ask the Assembly to approve these amendments to the Bill.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Before addressing the amendments proposed by the Minister, I would like to convey my appreciation to my Committee colleagues for completing the Committee Stage of the Bill.

The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee dealt with clauses 1, 2 and 9. Clauses 1 and 2 relate to the need to implement measures to protect the foreshore around Northern Ireland from methods of fishing likely to damage the fisheries and the local environment.

The Committee was required to meet on six occasions to complete its work. During its consideration, the Committee received written submissions from six organisations. Subsequently, it took evidence from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust and the Strangford Lough Management Committee. I would like to thank all the organisations that assisted the Committee for their commitment to this work.

Finally, the Committee had three very helpful meetings with the Department’s officials. I am pleased to report that they took on board all of the Committee’s concerns and fully explained the technicalities of the Bill. The Department also drafted the amendments agreed with the Committee. I would like to express the Committee’s appreciation for the officials’ help.

The various amendments tabled by the Minister are largely technical in nature and are necessary to tighten up the Department’s original wording. In considering them, my Committee was seeking to ensure that the Bill was competent and would have the effect intended by the Minister. I am pleased to say that the Department accepted points made by the Committee, which are now being implemented.

My Committee agreed that these changes are needed, and I commend them to the Assembly.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I would like to ask the Minister a question about amendment 2, which deals with Northern Ireland’s inshore waters. Some of the fisheries organisations have told me that they are not happy with the idea of inshore waters being extended six miles from the baseline.

For that reason, perhaps the Minister could indicate to the fishing organisations and myself that any suggested environmental measures will not be detrimental to the fishing organisations operating in that six-mile area. The organisations have said to me that this matter seems to involve more than the foreshore — it is going further out to sea. For some local fishermen, especially those around the edge of the Ards Peninsula in my constituency of Strangford, it could be disadvantageous. I need an assurance from the Minister that the six-mile radius will not disadvantage local fishermen, and that environmentalists will not be able to impose any measures that will adversely affect the work of the fishermen.

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

I thought that I would only be answering questions at the end.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

This is the end. I have no other requests from Members to speak.

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

That is the good news.

I thank the Member for his question. The definition of Northern Ireland inshore waters closely follows the definition used in Great Britain legislation to provide for similar regulation. It is based on the commonly accepted definition of inshore waters throughout the UK. They are deemed to extend from six miles out from the coast inwards towards the land, up to the mean high-water mark of ordinary spring tides. This very broad area ensures that all parts of the coast that may be exposed by the movement of tides will be subject to regulation. There will be no detrimental effect on those fishing out at sea. The Department already has adequate powers out at sea.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Amendment 1 — moved or not moved?

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

Moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (No 2) made:

In page 2, line 2, after "offence." insert

"(5) For the purposes of this section –

(a) ‘Northern Ireland inshore waters’ means the area adjacent to the coast of Northern Ireland and to the landward of a limit of 6 miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, up to the mean high-water mark of ordinary spring tides; and

(b) ‘sea-fisheries’ includes any fishery within that area." — [Ms Rodgers]

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

Clause 2 (Enforcement of regulatory powers in relation to sea-fisheries in or on the foreshore)

Amendment (No 3) made:

In page 2, line 13, after "on" insert "or using". — [Ms Rodgers]

Amendment (No 4) made:

In page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (5). — [Ms Rodgers]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We now come to amendment 5, standing in the name of the Chairperson of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee.

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

I beg to move amendment 5: In page 3, after line 36 add

"(2) For section 208 of the principal Act (saving for right of owner to take materials from streams) substitute —

‘208. Nothing in this Act other than section 48 shall prejudice the right of any owner to take materials from any stream.’."

The Bill was referred to the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee for consideration on 22 September 2000. We considered clauses 3 to 8, and the Agriculture Committee considered clauses 1, 2 and 9.

Clause 3 will amend section 48 of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. The major rationale for the existence of section 48 is to protect young and breeding fish. That is why rights of owners are restricted and a number of defences have been added to the section 48 offence. The new subsection, through the words on the marshalled list, will provide another defence for the owner of the stream, allowing a person to take materials from the bed of any river with the consent of the FCB.

If consent has been given, no offence is committed.

In collecting evidence, we spoke to the Ulster Angling Federation (UAF), who, in their written submission to us, raised concerns about section 208 of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, which states

"Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the right of any owner to take materials from any stream."

The UAF suggested its removal from the Act, on the basis that it weakened the effect of clause 3(5) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill.

Section 208 overrules section 48 and protects the right of the owner of a stream to remove materials. We sought legal advice on the matter and had correspondence with the Department’s legal section. The advice was that section 208 is a general saving provision in the 1966 Act. It protects the right of any owner to take materials from a stream and states that nothing in the Act shall prejudice that general right. Legal advice was that we should not remove or repeal section 208, as that section affected every other provision in the Act. We were advised to consider amending section 208 to read as follows:

"Nothing in this Act, other than section 48, shall prejudice the right of any owner to take materials from any stream."

I refer Members to page 159 of the minutes of evidence from Monday 4 December 2000.

The Committee is therefore satisfied that the proposed amendment — adding the words "other than section 48" to section 208 — will ensure that that section 208 does not dilute or negate the effect of clause 3(5) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill. I hope that Members will understand our position.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank Mr ONeill and the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee for their hard work during the Committee stage of such a complex and technical Bill. I welcome the amendment that has been put forward by the Committee; it deals with an outstanding problem that otherwise would have to be dealt with by a longer route.

The Committee is acting in line with advice contained in correspondence between my officials and their legal advisers, which was forwarded to it to enable it to arrive at a conclusion on the question of section 208. The Committee has arrived at a sound appreciation of the situation and has acted accordingly.

Section 208 needs to be amended to ensure that clause 3, which, inter alia, will require anyone who wishes to extract materials from a river bed to seek the permission of the FCB first, will be more effective. Section 208 is a saving provision that may or may not have some merit in relation to other parts of the 1966 Act; it has no merit in relation to clause 3 and should therefore cease to apply. That will be the effect of the proposed amendment, which has my full support.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Amendment 5—moved or not moved?

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

Moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 (Short title and commencement)

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

I beg to move amendment 6: In page 4, line 31, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

Clause 9 as originally drafted provides for the Act to come into operation on such day as the Department may appoint by Order. However, the Department now wishes the Act to come into operation as soon as it is made, rather than by appointed day Order, as the latter procedure may delay the coming into operation of the Act. Amendment 6 removes the requirement for an appointed day Order and, by remaining silent on the mechanism for coming into operation, will result in the Act coming into operation as soon as it is made. I therefore ask the Assembly to approve this amendment to the Bill.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Amendment 6—moved or not moved?

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

Moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

The sitting was suspended 1.10 pm.

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

Health and Personal Social Services Bill: Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I trust that Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments. I draw Members’ attention to the corrigendum — a correction to the wording of amendment 6. I will remind Members of this when we come to it.

We also have a grouping of amendments. I ask Members to refer to that grouping in the debate. Knowing that not all Members have fully participated on a regular basis in Consideration Stages, I simply point out that we take the amendments in turn.

There are four groups. We will debate the amendments referred to in each group. The first debate will be on amendments 1 and 2, the second on amendments 3 and 6, the third on amendment 4, and the fourth on amendment 5.

However, the voting on the amendments will come in the order in which they appear. We will vote on each clause on its own, in the context where there is no amendment, or subsequent to the amendment being voted upon.

No amendments having been tabled to clauses 1 to 20, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group them for the purposes of voting.

Clauses 1 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 (Interpretation of this Part — "residential care home" and "nursing home")

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

I beg to move amendment 1: In page 11, after line 2, leave out subsection (3).

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2 (clause 22): In page 11, line 15, leave out "18" and insert "17". — [Dr Hendron]

The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee considered the Bill, which covers 19 different issues, over a period of six weeks last November and December. As Members will have read in the Committee’s report, many important issues were raised during the deliberations. The Committee was satisfied that these issues had been carefully considered by the Department before the Bill was drafted, with wide consultation having taken place on some and on-going discussions on the detail of others. I am assured that the Committee will be consulted further before these are finalised.

Although they were not part of the Bill, two important issues were raised during deliberations, which are important enough to bring to the attention of the House and to which my amendments relate.

The first covers the ambiguity in the use of the term "residential care". Whilst appreciating that planning applications are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, the Committee wishes to highlight that the term appears to have a different legal meaning in planning legislation to that used by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the Registered Homes (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.

On behalf of the Committee, I have written to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister asking for the matter to be discussed by the Executive. If the matter is not resolved, it will have serious implications for those wishing to appeal against planning applications. This morning, I received a reply from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and I will be bringing this up with the Committee on Wednesday.

A prime example is the establishment of Brindley House, a private children’s home in county Fermanagh, which obtained planning permission for a residential care home under the Department of Environment’s planning regulations. Local residents understood that it was to be a home for the elderly and they were concerned when it turned out to be a children’s home. However, it was too late to raise objections.

There is a great need for many more children’s homes, as my Committee indicated in our recent report on residential and secure accommodation and local communities must be prepared to accept more children’s homes if children in care are to remain in their own areas. However, it is most important that planning applications are clear and do not lead to misunderstandings.

Amendment number 2 refers to the discrepancy in the upper age limit between the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 — which defines a child as a person under the age of 18 years — and the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 — which defines an adult as a person who has attained the age of 17.

The Committee is aware that criminal justice is a reserved matter, but feels very strongly that young people in Northern Ireland, especially those in care, should not be required to attend adult court sessions or be held in adult jails at the age of 17.

I have written to the Secretary of State in my capacity as Committee Chairperson, strongly recommending that he revisits this matter during the ongoing criminal justice review. I seek the support of Assembly Members and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to raise this important issue with the appropriate authorities.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I support the amendments. As the Chairperson said in relation to amendment 2, the discrepancy is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office. The other ambiguity he referred to concerns two Departments — the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Environment — which have devolved responsibilities and which are adopting different approaches leading to ambiguity about the terms used to describe children’s residential homes.

This issue came to light in my own constituency with the case of Brindley House. The planning application for that development came before the local council in the normal way, and it was described as a "residential home". Planning was subsequently approved. Thereafter, it became clear that the development was for a children’s residential home, and there was considerable controversy and protest involving residents in the vicinity. Locally elected representatives were called to account and asked why approval had been given without any questions being asked. Most of my colleagues on Fermanagh District Council had assumed that it was residential accommodation for the elderly.

There is an ambiguity, and local people affected see it as a shortcoming in the planning process and as something that requires particular attention. Such applications, when they are submitted, should specifically state the purpose of the development. Everyone understands that there is a need for residential accommodation for children in care, and that it must be provided for somewhere in the local community. However, the co-operation of local people is important, and that is more likely to be forthcoming where there is clarity surrounding the application. Therefore, this amendment is necessary if we are to avoid a repetition of the experience in Fermanagh where local people were, and remain, dissatisfied about the development. The Executive should tidy up this issue because it is a devolved matter for the Administration and the two Departments that I identified.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. I want to briefly clear up a wee issue which the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety mentioned.

In case there is any confusion, I want to put on record that the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee is not against the need for residential homes. From the outset, there is a need for consultation with all interested parties. Brindley House has been mentioned. However, I do not think that the issue is about whether that was an elderly people’s home or a children’s home. The issue is about planning applications and the need to reword them so that residents and elected representatives can be involved from the start in order to avoid confusion.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Chathaoirleach agus le baill an Choiste as a mbreithniú cúramach ar an Bhille. Ó thaobh leasú uimhir a haon de, caithfidh an Bille reatha agus an reachtaíocht seirbhísí sóisialta i gcoitinne grúpaí éagsúla cliant a aithint sa téarmaíocht a úsáidtear. Tá seo riachtanach le cinntiú go bhfuil ár gcreatlach rialacháin fóirsteanach do réimse leathan riachtanas éagsúil. Ní thig liom labhairt ar son na Roinne Comhshaoil, ach samhlaítear domh go bhféadfadh deacrachtaí a bheith ann dá mbeadh an téarmaíocht chéanna in úsáid go forleathan. Tá mé ag dréim le toradh an chomhfhreagrais idir an Cathaoirleach agus an Chéad-Aire agus an LeasChéad-Aire ar an ábhar a fheiceáil.

Ó thaobh leasú uimhir a dó de, is feasach domh gur scríobh an Cathaoirleach chuig an Stát-Rúnaí maidir le sainmhíniú "páiste" i reachtaíocht an dlí choiriúil agus maidir le páistí a choinneáil i bpríosúin aosacha. Aithním na hábhair chúraim a thóg an Coiste agus beidh suim agam cinnte i bhfeagra an Stát-Rúnaí.

I thank the Chairperson and members of the Committee for their careful consideration of the Bill. With regard to amendment No 1, the present Bill and social services legislation generally must recognise different client groups in the terminology used. That is necessary to ensure that our regulatory framework is appropriate to widely differing needs. I cannot speak for the Department of the Environment, but I suspect that there may be difficulties in using the same terminology across the board. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the correspondence between the Speaker and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the issue.

With regard to amendment No. 2, I am aware that the Chairperson has written to the Secretary of State regarding the definition of "child" in criminal justice legislation and about the holding of children in adult prisons. I recognise the concerns that have been raised by the Committee, and I will be interested to see the response from the Secretary of State.

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

I thank Mr Tommy Gallagher, Ms Sue Ramsey and the Minister for their helpful comments. I put down the amendments on behalf of the Committee in order to highlight the two matters. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw amendment 1.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members who have not so far involved themselves in much consideration of legislation may not be aware of the different reasons for putting down amendments. Members will, of course, put down amendments with the intention of pressing them to agreement or to a Division, to ensure that they are incorporated in the Bill. However, Members may also table probing amendments. That is the case with the current amendment, as has been indicated by the Member’s request for leave to withdraw. If a matter cannot be discussed or debated unless there is an amendment to speak to, an amendment will be tabled. A probing discussion will take place, at the end of which the Member begs leave to withdraw. It is, of course, the case that the Member must have leave to withdraw.

There are two amendments in this group. One has been moved by the Member, who has now begged leave to withdraw it; the second has not yet been moved. When we come to the second amendment, Dr Hendron will simply say "Not moved" — I assume that on the basis of what he has just said. Many Members are familiar with legislation, but not everyone is, and we are trying to move forward together.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 (Interpretation of this Part – general)

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Is amendment 2 moved?

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

Not moved.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No amendments to clauses 23 to 38 have been tabled. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group those clauses.

Clauses 23 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No amendments to clauses 39 to 43 have been tabled. By leave of the Assembly, I will group those clauses.

Clauses 39 to 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 (Exercise of powers)

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Molaim leasuithe uimhir a trí agus a sé.

Ó thaobh leasú uimhir a trí de, ciallaíonn an leasú seo ar alt 44, chomh maith le haisghairm mhír 16(d) Sceideal 3 den Ordú 1991, nárbh fhéidir dúshlán na Roinne a thabhairt ar a cumhachtaí iontaobhais SSS a dhíriú maidir le téarmaí agus coinníollacha dá bhfoireann.

I beg to move amendment 3: In page 30, after line 21, insert

"(3) Paragraph 16 of that Schedule (general powers of HSS trusts) shall be renumbered as sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph, and

(a) (in that sub-paragraph head (d) (general power to employ staff) shall cease to have effect; and

(b) (after that sub-paragraph there shall be added —

‘(2) An HSS trust may employ such staff as it thinks fit.

(3) Subject to any directions given by the Department under paragraph 6, an HSS trust may —

(a) (pay its staff such remuneration and allowances; and

(b) (employ them on such other terms and conditions, as it thinks fit.’."

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 6 (schedule 5): In page 59, after line 34, column 2, insert

"In Schedule 3, paragraph 16(d)." — [Ms de Brún]

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Amendment 3 to clause 44 and the associated repeal of paragraph 16(d) of schedule 3 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 remove any possibility of challenge to the Department’s powers to direct health and social services trusts on terms and conditions of service for their staff.

It has been recognised for some time that the general powers of direction contained in paragraph 6 of schedule 3 were considerably less robust than had been envisaged. That was because the Department could only direct trusts in matters in which it had already directed boards and agencies. Accordingly, the original formulation of the Bill contained provisions designed to strengthen the departmental power of direction by requiring trusts to comply with any directions given by the Department on the exercise of its functions. That provision, which is significantly more robust than the original, will be retained in the Bill and will enable the Department to direct trusts on such matters as the delivery of ministerial priorities in relation to service provision.

However, doubts persisted that that general power of direction may be susceptible to legal challenge so long as there was an expressed freedom contained in paragraph 16(d) of schedule 3. That enabled trusts to determine their own terms and conditions of service without any further qualification. Accordingly, the amendment now proposed retains the freedom of trusts to employ such staff as they see fit. That will cover areas such as numbers and grades of staff. It also retains the freedom of trusts to develop individual pay schemes or to vary the terms and conditions of service of their staff. However, it makes it clear that in such matters the Department’s powers of direction under paragraph 6 take precedence.

It is likely that the new power of direction in relation to terms and conditions of service will be applied in the first instance to the introduction of the new pay and grading system for senior executives, which is currently being developed in conjunction with the NHS confederation.

Ó thaobh leasú uimhir a sé de, tá aisghairm fomhír (d) de mhír 16 Sceideal 3 den Ordú 1991de bharr an leasaithe ar alt 44(2), an chumhacht le hiontaobhais a dhíriú maidir le híocaíocht. Tá sé de nádúr teicniúil agus ní bhaineann sé le cuspóirí pholasaí an Bhille.

The repeal of sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 16 of schedule 3 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 is consequential on the amendment to clause 44(2) — the power to direct trusts as to remuneration. Amendment No 6 is technical in nature and does not affect the policy aims of the Bill. Molaim leasuithe uimhir a trí agus a sé.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Amendment 3 — moved or not moved?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 45 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 (Disclosure of information by the Commissioner for Complaints)

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move amendment 4: In page 35, leave out lines 19 to 31 and insert

" ‘1B) Where information is to the effect that any person ("the subject") is likely to constitute a threat to the health or safety of any other person ("the person at risk"), the Commissioner may disclose that information to any person to whom the Commissioner thinks it should be disclosed in the interests of the health or safety of the person at risk.

(1C) If the Commissioner discloses information as permitted by paragraph (1B) he shall —

(a) where he knows the identity of the subject, inform the subject —

(i) that he has disclosed the information; and

(ii) of the identity of any person to whom he has disclosed it; and

(b) inform the person from whom the information was obtained that he has disclosed it.’."

Molaim leasú uimhir a ceathair. Aithníodh an gá leis an leasú seo nuair a bhí an Bille faoi bhreithniú ag an Choiste. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Chathaoirleach agus le baill an Choiste arís as a mbreithniú cúramach ar an Bhille. Ceapadh an leasú seo leis na tosca a shoiléiriú ina bhféadfaidh an Coimisinéir um Ghearáin faisnéis a nochtadh a fuair sé le linn imscrúdú. Ní bhaineann sé le cuspóirí pholasaí an Bhille.

The need for this amendment was identified during the Committee Stage of the Bill, and once again I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairperson and the members of the Committee for their careful consideration of the Bill. The amendment is designed to clarify the circumstances in which the Commissioner for Complaints may disclose information obtained by him in the course of an investigation. The information is to the effect that a person is likely to constitute a threat to the health or safety of service users, and the proposed amendment would clarify to whom the information may be disclosed. Provision is also made that if the identity of the person who may represent a danger to health is known, he or she must be told that the information has been disclosed and to whom it has been disclosed. Any subsequent action would be for an employer through normal disciplinary procedures or any person with whom the person is in contract. The amendment does not reflect any change in the policy aims of the Bill. Molaim leasú uimhir a ceathair.

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

I support the amendment to clause 50. While considering the Bill during the Committee Stage members of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee discussed this clause with officials from the Department. Committee members agreed that the words used in the clause were difficult to understand and proposed that they be amended to clarify the meaning behind the clause. The Committee is pleased that the Minister has seen fit to put down the amendment, which we support.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Does the Minister wish to respond?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I will merely acknowledge that this should make matters considerably clearer. I am glad to hear from the Chairperson, Dr Hendron, that it appears to have clarified matters for him.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Amendment 4 — moved or not moved?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 51 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 (Public access to meetings of certain bodies)

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move amendment 5: In page 36, line 37 after "trust;" insert

"( ) a Health and Social Services Council;".

Molaim leasú uimhir a cúig. Aithníodh an gá leis an leasú seo fosta nuair a bhí an Bille faoi bhreithniú ag an Choiste. Chuirfeadh an leasú comhairlí sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta ar liosta na bhforas SSSP a chaithfidh cruinnithe oscailte a thionól. Cuireadh comhairlí ar bun faoin Health and Personal Social Services Order 1991 le leasanna an phobail ina gceantair a ionadú. Is é cleachtas reatha gach comhairle, agus í ag comhlíonadh an tsainchúraim seo, an pobal a ligean isteach chuig a cruinnithe uilig. Chinnteodh an leasú go mbeadh teacht isteach ag an phobal chuig cruinnithe comhairle ar an bhonn reachtúil céanna leis na forais eile. Ní bhaineann sé le cuspóirí pholasaí an Bhille.

The need for this amendment was also identified during the Committee’s Consideration Stage of the Bill. The amendment would add health and social services councils to the list of health and personal social services bodies who must hold open meetings. Councils were set up under the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 to represent the interests of the public in their area. In keeping with this remit it is the current practice of each council to allow public access to all its meetings.

The amendment would ensure that public access to council meetings is on a similar statutory basis to the other bodies. The amendment does not reflect any change in the policy aims of the Bill. Molaim leasú uimhir a cúig.

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

I support the amendment to clause 54. While considering the Bill during the Committee Stage, members of our Committee wondered why the health and social services councils were not included in the list of health and social service bodies covered by the Bill. Members agreed that an amendment to the clause was necessary to rectify the matter. The Committee is pleased that the Minister felt able to put down the amendment, and I thank her for it.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I will try to be as brief as possible, perhaps even more brief than the Chairperson of the Health Committee. As the Chairperson said, this was one of the matters that I raised in the Committee, and I am glad that this amendment has been put forward. I trust that Members will support it. It is important that health councils are included. At a time when we hear greater calls for accountability in the health service, it is most important that the councils are brought on board. If, as they say, they represent the public’s views when decisions are being made about our services, it is most important that each and every one of our Members backs this amendment.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I feel that it is important to address the points raised by Committee members, and to ensure that even though health and social service councils do allow public access to all of their meetings at present, such access will now be on the same or similar statutory basis to other bodies.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 55 to 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5 (Repeals)

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

An amendment to schedule 5 — number 6 — has already been debated.

Amendment made:

In page 59, after line 34, column 2, insert

"In Schedule 3, paragraph 16(d)." — [Ms de Brún]

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Long title agreed.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill, which now stands referred to the Speaker.

New Valuation List Order 2000

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

That this Assembly approves the New Valuation List Order (Northern Ireland) 2000.

This is a very straightforward Order, containing just one substantive article. Article 2 specifies the financial year ending on 31 March 2003 as the year in which a new valuation list will be issued for rating purposes. The new list will contain updated rateable values applicable to commercial properties throughout Northern Ireland. A few brief remarks about revaluation may provide Members with some background and help to place the Order in its proper context.

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

The basis on which commercial properties are valued in Northern Ireland, for rating purposes, is the same as that used in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland — the estimated rental value of the property at a fixed point in time. The last revaluation in Northern Ireland was carried out in the mid-1990s, and the new valuation list came into force on 1 April 1997 based on rental values as they existed on 1 April 1995.

Since this list came into effect the level and pattern of those 1995 values has been maintained. This means that an altered property, or a new property coming onto the list for the first time, is assessed on the basis of the value it would have had almost six years ago, reflecting the physical state and economic circumstances of the locality at that time.

However, as we all know, property values have changed over the past six years, and as a result, the valuation list is becoming progressively out of date. Value changes are not confined merely to the effects of inflation over this period but, more importantly, are also caused by social, environmental and economic factors. These have created shifts in the relative values of property today, compared with the pattern of assessments in the current list. These shifts are widespread and exist within and between different classes of property and between one location and another.

The continuing use of rateable values, based on outdated rental values, acts to distort the fair distribution of the rate burden between individual ratepayers — for example, businesses in areas which have experienced relative economic decline since the last revaluation will now be paying too much in rates whereas businesses which have benefited from improved economic conditions in the intervening years will now be paying too little. The decrease in credibility of the list cannot be corrected without a revaluation.

A five-yearly cycle of revaluations has been established in Great Britain in recent years. The currency of the Northern Ireland list will fall further behind those in Great Britain if a local revaluation is not carried out now. After many years the South is also moving towards regular revaluations, which have been accepted as a normal and routine part of any fair and equitable rating system.

A revaluation now in Northern Ireland will deliver greater equity and fairness. It will also greatly reduce instances of the dramatic rate swings which, as Members recall, were an unfortunate feature of the last revaluation, and which resulted in some individuals facing very large rate increases.

I intend that the new valuation list should be issued not later than 31 December next year and come into force on 1 April 2003. The Order we are considering today will enable that to happen, and I commend it to the Assembly.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Many business people throughout Northern Ireland will welcome the notice of motion about the New Valuation List Order. About three years ago there was a review of the rating valuations for business premises across Northern Ireland. This review was conducted after a 21-year gap. The result for many retail businesses, particularly in district and regional towns, has been, in many cases, catastrophic.

Some people experienced a doubling of their rates bill — some high street retailers experienced a trebling of their rates bill. Many of them have gone out of business. Many high street businesses, particularly the small independent retailers, felt that the last revaluation worked to their detriment. I agree with the Minister that it was imbalanced. Some retailers benefited, but others, particularly those in the high-street-independent-retailer category, suffered. I welcome the statement, and I urge the Minister and his officials to expedite this matter. It is just a pity that we have to wait until 2003.

I welcome the fact that there will be a five-year revaluation cycle in Northern Ireland similar to that in Great Britain. Many retailers will look forward to that, particularly those in smaller towns.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

This is a golden opportunity to look at the revaluation of non-domestic properties especially in light of the white paper — the Government’s notification document — circulating around the councils. While, ostensibly the paper is only for notification purposes, it is timely in that it focuses attention on the need to reconsider valuations in rural communities throughout the Province. Would the Minister shed some light on that?

I want to highlight the plight and the importance of rural post offices and village shops. The white paper indicates that across the water a 50% reduction in rates is being considered because of the community aspect of some businesses. We should look very seriously at the needs of post offices and small shops, and the community roles they play in villages in Northern Ireland.

The proposed 8% regional increase has many of those in small shops and post offices carefully considering their futures. For many of them, the increase will be too much to bear and some will probably go to the wall. That will have a direct impact on our rural communities, especially villages that have the post office or the small shop at their centres. They provide a great service to the local community and while they do not make a lot of money — they never will because they do not have sufficient numbers of people — they do provide something that is valuable. We must also look at the fierce competition from the large superstores. Not everyone can travel, and for some people the post office and small shop are an integral part of their lives. The Assembly took a unanimous decision to support rural post offices because Members also believe that there is a tangible benefit for the whole community

Across the water, people are looking at a 50% rate reduction. I ask the Minister to look seriously at that as an option for post offices and shops thereby breathing life back into villages where problems of increasing overheads press on them. Many look upon the spectre of a regional rate increase as the final nail in the coffin.

As elected representatives — especially those of us who represent country areas such as the Ards Peninsula, where post offices and small shop are an integral part of the community — we need to help our constituents. This is the opportunity to do that, and I ask the Minister to consider a 50% reduction — the same as that proposed across the water. That would represent a shot in the arm and breathe life back into the villages we represent.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

If we are going to continue with a rating system then, on principle, revaluation should be as often as humanly practical so as to avoid the type of distortions that resulted from the 21-year gap prior to the last one. If we are going to continue with the rating system — and I understand from the Minister’s comments that the whole system would, and should, be subject to an early review — I would question the timing of this revaluation.

If we are to embark on a review of the overall rating system, could those resources be used to restructure the system to provide something more effective? I accept that the purpose of revaluation is to remove distortions and give better equity between properties. Domestic properties were ignored in the last revaluation. Is there not an opportunity here? If we are to continue with rating, why were domestic properties excluded again? The level of distortion will be aggravated because of the 30-year gap since revaluation was last carried out on domestic properties.

I sympathise with Mr Shannon’s comments about how we protect the lifeblood of the smaller shopkeeper, rural post offices and so forth throughout Northern Ireland. I would extend this to our towns and cities. High street retail was one of the sectors that suffered most dramatically from the last revaluation. As has been mentioned, the result was that many premises were vacated. We do not want our towns to turn into ghost towns or huge office blocks. We must do our utmost to encourage people to have a proper retail mix in our towns and city centres; otherwise we may destroy the entire fabric of society in Northern Ireland.

Unfortunately, over a number of years we have been slipping towards that. Drive through any of our main provincial towns, say Lisburn, which is the jewel in the crown of Northern Ireland’s shopping centres, and what you see are numerous "for let" and "for sale" signs. This is solely due to excessive rents and excessive rates. The offshoot of this is that a proper retail mix is gradually being eroded from our towns and cities.

Over the past five years food stores have suffered the greatest change in their history. We now have the Sainsburys and the Tescos in Northern Ireland. Presumably, they escaped the last dramatic shift. There was no real basis to hang their rentals on, so this time there will be a considerable battle with the large superstores. The impact that this will have on shopping is something that must be seriously considered.

We must try to expedite the rates evaluation. Is it the best way to attract income? We need to eliminate the current distortions, and I question whether rates are the best way to do this.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Mr Close referred to Lisburn as the premier shopping town, but surely Lurgan and Portadown are in the same category.

Many shops in our towns are lying empty, and empty shops are of no use to towns or to ratepayers. We must try to encourage our shopkeepers. If we burden them with high rates, it becomes impossible for them to exist.

I represent a rural area, and this has highlighted for me the fact that people in those areas must travel to towns to get what they need. For example, our small post office has closed — it is very difficult for small branches to compete with the bigger post offices in the town that have so many services to offer their customers.

I welcome the statement that there will be a review every five years. That is long overdue.

It worries me that people in rural areas are being deprived of many of the services that are available in towns. I hope that the various authorities will take this point on board.

There are many derelict shops and houses across the country, and this is of grave concern. This is a sore point and a big drawback to any society. I hope that in the coming months and years a rebate will be introduced to encourage people to renovate derelict properties so that they are fit to be lived in again. Peace has taken its grip on our community, but these areas have endured a good deal of torment and turmoil over the last 10 or 15 years, and due consideration must be given to the houses there.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Any subject matter brought to the House by the Minister of Finance that touches on the issue of rates will get the attention not only of Assembly Members but, more importantly, of a very large section of our community. Few people are not impacted in one way or another by the level of their rates bills. Over recent days the intention to have a substantial increase in the regional rate has brought stories to many of us, particularly from shopkeepers and small businesses. They face very real hardship as a result of what will be small changes to the Northern Ireland Budget overall but which will mark very large changes to their normal business cash flow.

When we talk about reviewing the valuation list, we talk about the potential to put people out of work. I am not sure how the Minister’s Colleague managed to summon the view that there is a good-news story here. In reality, as a result of this valuation list review, every one of us will have constituents coming to tell us that their rates have been hiked up very considerably. Of one thing we can be certain — those who benefit as a result of the review will not be coming to tell us about it. We will hear the sad stories in this case, and there are bound to be many.

I want to make a particular case — and not for jewels in the crown. Those who come to the Assembly and tell us how swimmingly things are going in Lisburn, Portadown and Lurgan obviously require less sympathy from the Minister than those of us who talk about substantial difficulties in our constituencies. Therefore the Minister needs to pay some attention to the areas where there is no glitter and very few jewels.

I draw the Minister’s attention, in particular, to the difficult task faced by shopkeepers in the periphery of Belfast. They are competing against large stores and businesses in Belfast city centre. Traditional shopping patterns are changing — people are going more often to out-of-town stores to pick up the week’s groceries. The corner shop is under great pressure, yet it is a vital part of the vibrancy and integrity of the local community. The Minister should give some guidance to those who will determine the valuation and say that there must be some allowance for those who are trying to keep that part of the retail community alive in these difficult circumstances. If smaller stores are treated in the same way as Marks & Spencer, Sainsburys, Tesco, or Safeway, they will not get a fair deal. The whole community will have cause for regret if small corner stores go out of business, causing that part of the life of our community to die off.

I agree with the Minister that there should be regular reviews. There is case for regular review since this does not, in itself, set the amount that people will pay for rates — it decides the formula which will determine the apportionment of the overall rates burden that each will eventually pay. However, I agree with Colleagues that there is a good reason for holding a review of the domestic sector.

There have been some occasions when constituents have voiced to me their objections to their rates bill because of a change that has taken place in their area. The valuer, sent out to visit the property, has sometimes concluded that, because of a garage, extension or improvement that was not included on the original valuation, the occupant should be paying a higher rates bill. If this small number of cases is indicative of the situation in the community as a whole, significant changes are required. The rating of domestic properties would be an enormous job to undertake. Businessmen, in particular, will say that they want to have the same degree of scrutiny on all properties on the valuation list, rather than just on the non- domestic properties.

I trust that the Minister will look at all of these points and recognise that there is a case for small businesses, particularly shopkeepers, who have a difficult job to make ends meet in present circumstances.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. The motion relates to a short statutory rule, but the subject of rates and revaluation always generates great interest among Members, who are constantly alert to the interests of their constituents. I have listened with interest to the points made. They were informative and challenging, and I will try to respond to as many of them as I can.

Mr Byrne said that the need for timely revaluations to avoid the significant gaps and excessive changes that we have seen in the past is a key reason for supporting a revaluation now. It will mean that we will have had a revaluation after six years, rather than five. I believe that we should be moving to regular revaluation on a five-year basis. The Order does not of itself put us onto a five-year revaluation cycle; it is simply about the next revaluation. People might have had wider questions about us pre-empting the rating policy review if we had been committing ourselves fully and deliberately to a five-year cycle now. That is an issue that will obviously come up as part of the wider rating policy review, but I note the thoughts that Members have already expressed in that regard.

Joe Byrne is also correct in saying that the revaluation rates are based on rental values. That is something that people have views on. Many people seem to be questioning the accuracy and adequacy of the last revaluation. Independent appeals mechanisms are available. There is a common recognition that many of the valuations arising from the last revaluation have been overtaken. There have been changes in the retail geography of many towns; there are new players; and the market has changed. As a result, trading practices and customer preferences have also changed. We recognise that. Again, that is an argument for revaluation rather than against it.

The last time around, transitional arrangements were made when variations emerged on revaluation, and those arrangements reflected the very significant changes that some ratepayers faced. We really do not know the scale of the variations that we are going to face this time. It would be premature to say that there will be a transitional relief scheme. That is something that will need to be reviewed in light of what the revaluation yields.

Jim Shannon raised points that touched, in particular, on businesses in rural areas — especially post offices. He also highlighted the point that provision is being made in Great Britain for 50% rate relief for certain properties and businesses falling into a particular category. This is another area that we want to consider realistically. Legislation was passed before devolution that would provide for such a scheme here. As I indicated in a previous written answer to Sean Neeson — and I referred to it in an answer to Joan Carson as well — work has been done in relation to that legislation. There are issues in relation to defining the relevant areas and the businesses that would qualify. There are still a number of outstanding points, in relation to implementing the legislation, which I want to consider.

Members are aware that I have announced — it is in the Programme for Government — that there will be a wider rating policy review, the details of which I will be bringing forward soon. I am not convinced that it would be fair to simply leave the question of making targeted relief available until the rating policy review, because the rating policy review will itself take some time to bring forward results. I will be considering the matter further to see what we can do in relation to the existing legislative provisions.

Seamus Close raised a number of points. He stressed his belief that if we are going to have rates, and therefore revaluations, those revaluations should be as regular as is practicable. He also raised the point that a general rating review would perhaps be preferable to the revaluation. We are having a wider review of rating policy, but, because it might take a number of years for results and decisions to come through from that review, it would be advisable to proceed with non-domestic revaluation now.

If people recognise timely revaluation as important, we should not delay it simply because we are having the wider review. It makes sense to proceed with the revaluation and the wider review. The wider review may confirm that we will still have non-domestic rates — just as there was when changes were made to the rates systems elsewhere. For instance, when domestic rates where abolished in the South, non-domestic rates were retained. Equally, across the water, when rates gave way to the poll tax — quickly followed by the council tax — non- domestic rates were retained.

It would not be appropriate to suspend any move on revaluation until we had the wider review, not least because many Members are saying that current revaluations are out of sync with current rental values and real market factors. If that adjustment is needed, and revaluation needs to take place, then we should not be making excuses to avoid it. If I were delaying revaluation pending the review, more questions would have been raised about that approach than the one we are currently adopting.

Mr Close referred to the impact on the retail sector, particularly by the big multiples that have come here. There has been a significant change in retail geography since the last revaluation, which, again, underpins the case for such a revaluation — a point further reinforced by Mr Peter Robinson.

While not taking issue with those who emphasised the needs of people in small towns and rural areas, this also served to highlight some of what are regarded as urban discrepancies in relation to current valuation patterns. Many small shops and businesses in urban areas, particularly those in the penumbra of the bigger cities, face particular difficulties and challenges. That is why revaluation should be seen as a positive exercise. If people feel that they are suffering under excessive valuations at present, then they should welcome a revaluation.

Mr Robinson said that the point of a revaluation is not to set about increasing the overall yield from rates — that yield is determined by our spending needs. It redistributes the overall rates burden in line with current property values. In that way it is actually a re-balancing exercise. Revaluation should address the imbalances that people tell me are already building up as a result of differential levels of rental growth, and, it is to be hoped, prevent other imbalances arising. The revaluation will come into force on 1 April 2003, and the new rateable values will be based on rental values as at 1 April 2001.

I should point out that in the last revaluation, the overall increase in total value was 630%, with a corresponding reduction in average rate poundage from £2·50 to £0·40. Other things being equal, an average increase in total value of 25% should see average rate poundages falling back to around the £0·40 mark again. I hope that that clarifies for Members that this exercise is not about trying to increase the rate burden overall on small businesses, or anyone else, it is about trying to achieve a more equitable distribution of that rate burden.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly approves the New Valuation List Order (Northern Ireland) 2000.

Assembly: Ad Hoc Committee on Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

The motion is about the appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider a draft Life Sentence Order. The point I simply want to make — perhaps not quite as briefly as the proposer of the motion — is that for someone within the DUP to not merely propose such an Ad Hoc Committee but that such a Committee should include members of Sinn Féin is entirely incongruous. The proposal effectively legitimises the role of a political party inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation in the consideration of a matter of a delicate legality. In the process of doing that, it entirely legitimises the functions of that party within the Assembly by another party. [Interruption]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, the Member is not speaking to the motion. Secondly, it is worth noting that it was the Business Committee that decided who should propose this motion. The Member is out of order. If his party had a representative on the Business Committee, he would know that.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

I reject the allegation. We are here to discuss whether or not we should have such a Committee. I am making an argument against it. Even if the Business Committee decided who was going to put forward the motion, we are all free agents in the Assembly. We can say "I am not prepared to put forward that sort of a motion. It is entirely incompatible with the position I have put to my electorate. I am actually opposed to, prepared to face down, and give no legitimacy to, a political organisation fronting a terrorist organisation responsible for high levels of criminality for 30 years." [Interruption]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

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

Is it an order for a Member to persistently attack the proposer of the motion, when he has already been told he is out of order?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Member has not been told he is out of order. He is not out of order in his referring to the motion.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not wish to continue the debate. I have made my point. I am quite sure that the deputy leader of that party will no doubt be indulging in a bit of fancy political footwork, in that platform piece in the ‘News Letter’, to try to persuade his electorate, that this is what he was actually voted to do.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. It is not in order to refer to newspaper articles and the proposer of the motion in this light.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I do not know whether to laugh at what has just preceded or cry at the tragedy that someone — for whom I have a lot of respect, and we agree on many things — puts such efforts into what is really an issue of such triviality. It really beggars belief. When we usually agree on so much, to find him using this tactic really strikes at the lowest level. I urge the Member and his colleagues — whoever or whatever is putting them up to this — to resist and join with us in our efforts to try to speak on behalf of those in the majority of the Unionist community — [Interruption]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I did not interrupt the previous Member, and I hope that I will be given the same courtesy. We presently have the support of, I think, the majority of the Unionist community by reflecting disillusionment in the way in which the Belfast Agreement has been implemented and opposing the agreement itself. I hope that the Members will join with us if what they say is their main objective is, indeed, their main objective. Some of the things that they say and do run counter to that.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Someone drew your attention to the fact that Mr Roche departed from the issue, and you ruled that that was incorrect. Mr Dodds is well off the mark now. He should remember that he does have a pledge with the electorate — the united Unionist pledge to oppose the Belfast Agreement.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. I will pay close attention to Members’ remarks.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Once again, Cedric has got it wrong. Membership of the House’s statutory Committees is also decided on a proportional basis and includes Sinn Féin. Members of Mr Wilson’s party sat on that Committee, agreed with that and proposed that. They are being hypocritical by alleging that we agreed something different.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. The Member will address his remarks through the Speaker.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to do that.

As has been mentioned, this is a technical motion, which has been agreed by the Business Committee. When we come to examine the issue, we will debate it properly in the House and give our views. Instead of occasionally coming to the House to rail against things, it would be far better if the Member and his party helped the rest of us so that we can actually promote the Unionist cause. [Interruption] Because he has been hit hard, the Member continues to interrupt.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

It would be very helpful if members of the Northern Ireland Unionist Party — [Interruption]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. I will have order in the House. The Member will bring his remarks to a close.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Clearly, when points that hit home are made, some Members do not like it and cannot take it. The reality is that the Members concerned come into this Assembly. Their remarks about sitting in Committee apply equally to sitting in the Assembly, because members of Sinn Féin / IRA sit in the Chamber. They sit happily here, but for some reason they cannot sit on a Committee. They will explain their own reasons.

However, if they did sit on Committees, including this Committee — [Interruption]. I wish the Member would calm down. It is obviously hitting home. If they did that they would help the Unionist cause. He could ensure that there was a strong Unionist majority on those Committees, but his current activities ensure that places on those Committees go by default to Sinn Féin / IRA. He is assisting Sinn Féin / IRA by not taking a seat on the scrutiny Committees. The reality —

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the same nonsense that the DUP put forward when it took its ministerial positions. It said that if that if it did not take its ministerial positions they would go to Sinn Féin and the SDLP. The same bunkum —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. Which Standing Order is the Member referring to?

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Mr Dodds knows well the point that I am making with regard to not working the Belfast Agreement.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. Mr Dodds, bring your remarks to a close.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am surprised that Mr Wilson could not refer to the relevant Standing Order. He and his party helped to write the Standing Orders on the Committee with Sinn Féin, and they actually proposed that Sinn Féin should be on the statutory Committees. It is a bit strange that he does not know the number. May I — [Interruption]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I will have order in the House. Order.

I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I will certainly do that. As I have said, this is a technical motion. We look forward to every Unionist pulling his weight in the Committee and doing the job that he was elected to do, as we have done in our party, and as we have carried out our manifesto commitments.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 laid by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 85(4)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and to submit a report to the Assembly by 12 March 2001.

Composition: UUP 2 SDLP 2 DUP 2 SF 2 Other Parties 3

Quorum: The quorum shall be five.

Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Perhaps you could instruct the House on a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If Members are vociferous about an issue, is it not usual to give expression to that opposition when the Question is put by having a Division? Or are Members just play-acting and whimpering pseudo- opposition?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Members know very well what the procedure is.

Adjourned at 5.01 pm.