Northern Ireland Assembly, 5 March 2001

190 contributions from 47 members. The official report.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.

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

I am grateful for this opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly about the present foot-and-mouth disease situation.

Before doing so, I want to express my sympathy to the agriculture industry here, especially to farmers, for the fact that they are once again the victims of circumstances outside their control. Once more they face disruption, cost and uncertainty arising out of an animal disease that, although it originated elsewhere, impacts on their livelihoods. I want to reassure farmers that my staff and I are doing everything humanly possible to limit the problems that this latest disaster will cause for them.

I also express my regret to the Assembly for my absence last Tuesday, 27 February, when I was due to respond to a private notice question from Mr George Savage, Member for Upper Bann. I had to attend a meeting with the Prime Minister in Downing Street at very short notice on my way back from the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels. At that stage, foot- and-mouth disease had not been confirmed in Northern Ireland, and it was vital that I attend that meeting in the interests of pressing Northern Ireland’s case for regionalisation. Sadly, that case has been weakened and delayed due to the confirmation that foot-and-mouth disease is present in Northern Ireland.

I first became aware of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain on 20 February, when Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials advised that there was a suspected case of swine vesicular disease in a pig in an abattoir in Essex.

That disease is clinically very similar to foot-and- mouth disease and laboratory testing is required to distinguish between the two. By the following morning — Wednesday 21 February — the disease had been confirmed to be foot-and-mouth disease.

Since then, it has become clear that the disease originated in Tyne and Wear some weeks before coming to light in Essex and that it has spread considerably throughout Great Britain. Unfortunately, it is now clear that the irresponsible actions of a few individuals in the illegal trade of sheep from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have introduced the disease and placed the agriculture industry across the island of Ireland in serious jeopardy. Equally importantly, the lack of co-operation from those involved caused unnecessary delay in ensuring rapid and effective action against such a contagious disease as foot-and-mouth disease.

There has been some ill-informed and, I dare say, politically-motivated criticism of my Department’s response to this crisis. I resent the fact that some people choose to make mischief at a time when we should all devote our efforts to dealing with this most serious situation. However, I want to set the record absolutely straight about exactly what my Department and I have been doing.

On being advised by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Great Britain on 21 February that we were dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, I immediately banned the import from, or export to, Great Britain of live cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and other susceptible animals. I also banned the import of associated products from Great Britain. That was done by staff from my Department, in person, at the ports and airports. On that very night cargo which was already on the high seas was, turned back to Great Britain. Those measures attracted considerable criticism from Great Britain because of the trade implications, but I believed that they were the correct steps to take to protect our animal health position and to put Northern Ireland in the best possible position to make its case to be allowed to resume exports as soon as possible. Those decisions would not have been possible had we not had a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.

It is impossible to put arrangements of this complexity in place instantaneously, but my Department’s approach has been risk-based. We dealt first, with the greatest threat — live animal imports — and then moved to deal with the lesser, but important, risks, such as dealing with passengers returning on flights and ferries.

It has since emerged that those steps were too late, since infected sheep had already been brought into Northern Ireland and illegally traded on 19 February — before MAFF had discovered the Essex case.

We have since had one outbreak of the disease confirmed in County Armagh and several other reports are being investigated. However, at this time, none of these is a major cause for concern.

Three-kilometre and 10-kilometre zones have been established around the farm in south Armagh. In the three-kilometre zone there is a virtual standstill on the movement of animals, except for emergency slaughter. Every road into, or out of, that zone has been sealed off. In the 10-kilometre zone very tight controls are also in place. Animals may move under authorisation in, but not outside, the 10-kilometre zone.

There have been various reports about these controls being ignored by local farmers and members of the public. My staff are doing all they can in the circumstances as regards the closure of roads, the posting of notices, provision of disinfectant and giving of advice. I have appealed to the public to stay away from these areas and to act responsibly in helping us to eradicate this disease. In the final analysis, we have to rely on their doing so.

There have also been suggestions that there should be a heavier army and RUC involvement on the border to match the activity of the Irish army and gardaí and to prevent illegal movements. My Department is in daily contact with the RUC and the Army and will call on them further if necessary.

Returning to the outbreak itself, all of the animals on the affected farm, together with those on adjacent or in-contact farms, have been slaughtered as a precautionary measure. It may also be necessary to slaughter further animals connected with this outbreak.

Members will also be aware that various lines of investigation are being pursued in relation to the sheep believed to be at the centre of the outbreak in south Armagh, and that a man was arrested recently for questioning. Several other individuals are involved in this investigation, but I am not prepared to elaborate on that at this stage, as I wish to avoid prejudicing the outcome.

So far as the smuggled sheep are concerned, we know that the vast majority of the animals in the original consignment, which was illegally traded from Scotland, where it had been in contact with infected animals at a market in Carlisle, have gone to the Irish Republic and were slaughtered in County Roscommon inside six hours. We also know now that some of the remainder of the consignment was deposited on another holding in south Armagh before being taken to the Republic of Ireland. The authorities in the Republic of Ireland have been advised.

We are also investigating reports that other illegally-traded consignments of sheep from Scotland may have been dispersed in the south Derry area. Information is incomplete, but there is evidence that some sheep from these consignments may have been sold in Swatragh market on 10 February. Veterinary staff are following this up.

All the animals that were properly certified into Northern Ireland over the relevant period and which arrived at the destination indicated on the certificate, and where the co-operation of people was given, have been traced and are being checked daily for clinical signs of disease.

I want to make clear again to the Assembly my disgust at the irresponsible way in which a very small number of people have behaved. As a result of this behaviour, the farming industry in Northern Ireland, and indeed in Ireland as a whole, has now been imperilled.

There have been criticisms of the follow-up action that we have taken. Where people have co-operated with us and obeyed the rules, we have acted swiftly and decisively. It is more difficult, however, to take action where the presence of animals is not known or where misleading information has been given as to their whereabouts. In due course, those responsible will be subject to the full process of law.

In the meantime, we have a major job to do to stamp out this disease. I have taken several measures — apart from those referred to earlier — to help in that respect. The movement of all susceptible animals in Northern Ireland has been banned except for those going to direct slaughter; all livestock auctions and markets have been banned; and the movement of horses to, from, and within, Northern Ireland has been banned for at least three weeks. I have closed the Department’s colleges until further notice. All of the Department’s forest parks are also closed.

The presence on farms of Department of Agriculture staff has been reduced to the absolute minimum, and then only where absolutely essential. I have tightened the controls on the use of pigswill. I have advised the organisers of sporting events to consider whether these are really necessary, and I have also advised against gatherings of farmers or of people on farms. I am promoting the concept of fortress farms, and I have advised members of the public not to visit the countryside unnecessarily.

I have also taken steps to ensure that, in spite of livestock inspections having been postponed, farmers will still be able to receive their livestock subsidy payments. All public utilities and local authorities have been contacted, and advice has been given in relation to their work in the countryside.

I realise that many of these measures will cause great inconvenience to the farming community and to the general public. However, I know that the vast majority of people are anxious to help and will act responsibly.

I fully appreciate the impact that all of these measures will have on everyone in Northern Ireland — from the farmers, who, as I have already said, are now subject to yet another crisis not of their own making, to the shoppers, who may find that some of the product lines that they expect to find on supermarket shelves are no longer available. However, anyone who has watched the dreadful scenes on television of hundreds of animals being slaughtered and incinerated will appreciate how important it is for the disease to be quickly controlled in Northern Ireland. I was moved by a report in one of the Sunday papers describing the distress felt by one farmer who could not bear to look at his animals knowing that they were about to be slaughtered.

My priority is to ensure that all suspected cases of foot-and-mouth disease are identified and that the disease does not spread beyond the area where it has already been confirmed. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development staff are doing everything possible to achieve that. As soon as the Department is sure that foot-and-mouth disease is eradicated here, I shall make the case to the European Commission for Northern Ireland to be freed from the export controls to which it is currently subject. I shall begin to ease the controls that I have put in place as soon as it is safe to do so.

The disease situation in Great Britain is likely to impact on the supplies of certain food lines available in the shops for some time, irrespective of what happens here.

Again, I pay tribute to the Northern Ireland agricultural industry that has responded so positively to its latest challenge and to the public for their understanding and co-operation. I also appreciate the important role that the media played in helping deliver the messages of how to prevent the spread of the disease. It is hoped that together we will be able to ensure that the potentially disastrous impact which foot-and-mouth disease can have on one of our most important industries will be minimised.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The House will be aware that the maximum time allowed for questions to the Minister is one hour. A substantial number of Members wish to ask questions. I ask them to be as concise as possible so that as many as possible may be accommodated in the time available.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Northern Ireland is in the midst of a catastrophe and a crisis. Every effort must be made to bring about a return to the usual situation in the farming industry. However, I appreciate what the Minister said about those people who have resisted measures put in place to try and rectify what has happened.

I was disgusted by the criticisms from her friends in the South of Ireland and from the Government of the South of Ireland. They said that they were doing everything possible to prevent the spread of the disease and that the North was doing very little. The Minister should be robust in telling her friends in the South of Ireland what she has told the House today. It is wrong to say that nothing was done. There are those who criticise the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, not because they are trying to make a political point, but because there are matters that the Minister needs to explain to the House.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

May I ask the Chairperson to draw towards his question?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

At Friday’s Agriculture Committee meeting I asked the Minister to tell us the number of animals that come into this country each week to be slaughtered, but which are not. Many of those animals are still not slaughtered in Northern Ireland. I was surprised by the Minister’s reply, that due to European Union regulations, she was unable to stop those animals at the ports. They can be examined only at the place where they are to be slaughtered. If that is so, the European Union rules are responsible for those animals getting into the country. Surely she should take this matter up immediately. I have been in touch with the President of the European Commission, Mr Prodi, to understand the rule on this matter. If the Minister does not have the power to stop such animals coming into the country then everything else she may do is abortive.

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

With regard to the EU regulations, we are in a free trade area in Europe and that will continue. However, it is not the rules that are the problem; it is the flouting of the rules. Last year, due to the vigilance of my Department, we became aware that some certified animals coming in were not reaching the destination they were purported to reach. We began to investigate the matter and, by January 2001, we had succeeded in stopping the majority of that. If we had not done so, we would be in a much more serious situation today, as we would have had a much greater influx of animals being illegally traded. As it happens, only a very few people were responsible for the influx of illgally-traded animals.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I understand the Minister’s comments that farmers could not watch their animals being burned — animals that they had been breeding for a lifetime. When were cattle and sheep last imported into Northern Ireland? Where did the animals come from, and what is their destination? Have they all been inspected by officials?

Last Monday, the livestock marts were open. The situation is very different today. Have adequate steps been taken to compensate these people? I know that this is not a day for asking about compensation, but will these people be compensated or reimbursed, as this is a situation not of their making? Manual workers and office staff are involved in the livestock marts. People are coming to Parliament Buildings today to find out about the situation. I would like some guidance on that. We will do everything we possibly can to assist the Department. Everything that can be done will be done. We cannot allow the industry to disintegrate.

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

I thank Mr Savage for his remarks and support. I cannot now give him the numbers that he has asked for, however, if possible, I will provide them in writing. The last imports from Great Britain were on 20 February. We stopped all imports on 21 February 2001 and, as I have already stated, we turned them back at the port that evening.

With regard to reimbursement, the industry has already raised the question of redundancies in livestock marts and the matter will be pursued. On Saturday morning 3 March the issue was also raised at a meeting I held with officials across the Departments, and the Department responsible for that matter will look into it. A cross-departmental committee of officials was set up as a result of an emergency Executive meeting on Friday 2 March.

It is working, and there are areas which will be dealt with. I take this opportunity to thank my Colleagues in the Executive, as many of them have been taking action in relation to this in their own Departments. Consequential loss was referred to. The only compensation that is provided at the moment is 100% compensation market value for those animals that are slaughtered. However, I noted the Prime Minister’s remarks last week when he referred to consequential loss, and he said that any compensation in that area would be a matter to be looked at on a national level.

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

I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive statement this morning. I, of all people, understand the difficulties and pressures that she, her Department and her officials have had to face in the last week. I also know full well the terrible anxiety and worry across the entire agricultural community, particularly in places like south Armagh.

Will the Minister confirm that there has been a huge response from the people of that district and that there is a massive amount of co-operation and support for her efforts on the ground? Will she also confirm that there is great anger at the small number of individuals who tried to flout the rules in the early part of last week? Will she confirm that she will be resolute — as will all of us — to ensure that the interests of the wider community come first and that anybody who tries to breach the rules of this quarantine will be pursued and stopped?

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

I assure Mr Fee that I share his disgust at the small number of irresponsible people who have put the whole future of the industry in jeopardy by their actions. I agree that there has been co-operation right across the country, particularly in the south Armagh area, from the people on the ground, who are extremely anxious. I have already referred to one farmer who was almost reduced to tears at the idea that his cattle herd was to be slaughtered. I fully agree, and I am pleased to say that there is co-operation. I hope that due process will take care of those who have acted irresponsibly, that they will be made amenable to law and that prosecutions will follow. As the House will know, investigations are currently proceeding with the RUC in co-operation with the Garda Síochána and the police across the water.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement this morning. I welcome the strict measures outlined in it, and I assure her that the people of the area that I live in and represent also welcome them. She may have confused genuine and reasoned criticism of some elements of her Department’s response to the crisis with personal or political criticism of herself. I assure her that that is certainly not the case.

Will she ensure that maximum information is given out by her Department to the people on the ground? This is the single most vocal criticism I have heard of the Department. It is not the fault of departmental officials, as often they do not have the information about which animals are to be culled and how this process is to take place. Will she ensure that the animals culled are destroyed quickly? This does not seem to be the case at the moment. Can she confirm that no complaints have been received by her Department that any officials were obstructed, harassed or intimidated in any way during this operation in south Armagh? Will she repudiate attempts by her Colleague Mr Fee — I welcome his about-turn this morning — to introduce electoral politics into this issue? That affects all of us in this Chamber.

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

First, in relation to maximum information, that is precisely what we are doing, and my officials have leafleted the areas in question. Clearly there is difficulty, but I shall not ask my officials to go around every farm, as was suggested earlier, for that would obviously be in total contravention of what we ask people to do.

I hope that the public will not be confused by the suggestion that officials should visit every farmer to tell him what to do. We are trying to minimise access to farms by officials and other people. However, I take the point about information, and I accept that it is important. We are doing everything in our power — via the media or by leafleting — to ensure that farmers are fully informed.

The Member referred to the incineration of animals. The most important thing is to cull animals that are a threat. A dead animal is not a threat, because it is does not exude the virus. In some cases, in which small numbers of animals have been destroyed, there has been a slight delay in their incineration. There is not much point in incinerating six animals here and six animals there, so we try to have them incinerated together. The slight delay is probably a concern only because people do not understand that dead animals are no longer a threat. Incineration will take place as soon as possible; however, if there is any threat, my main concern is to make sure that the animals are dead.

I have been approached by several public representatives about intimidation and fears of intimidation in the area. I shall take intimidation seriously. I have asked my officials to investigate the situation to reassure me that that is not the case, but I have received complaints.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I too thank the Minister for making such a full statement to the House this morning. It is a pity that no other Minister was available during her justifiable absence last week to address the Chamber on the matter.

Will the Minister take back to her private office staff, to those who have manned the helplines and, especially, to Dr McCracken and his staff, our thanks for the hard work that they have done to prevent the spread of the disease?

Does she agree that some other public agencies did not move as quickly as they might have done? Is it not anomalous that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) closed its Belfast harbour nature reserve before the Department of Environment closed its countryside parks? There was also a problem in her own Department with the Forest Service, which took until Friday afternoon to get notices printed asking people to stay out of all its forests, and left it until Saturday morning before putting some of those notices up. Can the Minister assure us that everything possible is being done by all public authorities to avoid the further spread of foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Ireland?

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

I have explained to Mr Savage why I was not in the House last week. I felt that it was more important to go to the Prime Minister’s meeting to present Northern Ireland’s case for exemption, should we have remained free of the disease. No-one in Northern Ireland would disagree with what I did. I did not act out of a lack of respect for the House but to ensure that Northern Ireland could be exempt if appropriate.

I have already stated that the most important thing was to stop the movement of live animals and the import of animals and their products from Great Britain into Northern Ireland; that is where the highest risk lay. I say again that the other Departments did take quick action in an emergency situation, in which it was difficult for people to know exactly what to do. Today, I shall have a meeting with an interdepartmental group of officials that was set up following the Executive meeting last week.

We hope to draw up a set of guidelines for Departments, all public agencies and people which will clearly indicate what is high risk, medium risk or low risk. When we have done that, everyone in Northern Ireland will understand what must be done and will be able to do it. The public agencies, insofar as they were able, did move in what was an extremely difficult emergency situation.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I should be grateful if the Minister will clear up a great deal of confusion among the public at large, and I look at this from both a consumer and a public health point of view. Can the Minster confirm that there is absolutely no risk to people from this disease? Secondly, what would happen to someone who ate a diseased animal? Can the Minister explain the reasons for wholesale slaughter if these animals are of no risk when they are dead? Can they be eaten? I ask these questions because people do not properly understand the implications of what is happening.

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

There is much concern out there. However, there is no threat to public health. It is rare for humans to contract the disease. There has been only one recorded case of foot-and-mouth disease in a human being in the UK in the last 35 years, and in that case the general effects of the disease were similar to influenza, with some blisters. It is a mild, short-lived and self-limiting disease. However, there is a human condition called hand, foot and mouth disease, which is unrelated and does not affect animals. Anyone who is concerned should contact their GP. The dead animals are of a low risk, because there is no danger of the disease being spread and, therefore, there is no risk whatsoever from eating the meat from these animals.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I too thank the Minister for her statement. In her statement, she says that a few individuals are responsible for these terrible actions. Will she take the opportunity to tell this House who those individuals are? Is she able to substantiate the claims made recently by her Colleague Mr Fee that Republicans were behind much of this smuggling trade? Can she go further and confirm the comments in a Sunday paper, which named one leading Republican in the south Armagh area as being the chief instigator of this terrible and dastardly smuggling activity? Furthermore, can she tell us what actions she will put in place to ensure that these rogues never get their hands near Northern Ireland’s agriculture industry again? Finally, will she confirm to the House the level of agrimonetary compensation? Will this be made available for the entire industry? If so, when will it kick in?

The industry requires compensation at this time if it is to get over the terrible problems that have been inflicted upon it by those ruthless and rogue individuals that she has mentioned. She must be aware of the comments made by Lord Dunleath, who wrote to her at the weekend saying that he is not satisfied by certain measures that have been put in place — particularly in respect of people flying into the Province. Can the Minister go some way to assuring us that the proposals that Lord Dunleath outlined in his letter will be put in place?

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

All the matters surrounding individuals who have acted irresponsibly are the subject of investigation. I hope that all will come out in due course; however it would be improper for me to begin naming names where investigations are proceeding. I do not want to do anything that may prejudice the outcome.

Secondly, I dealt with the question of monetary compensation in a previous reply. Full agrimoney compensation is being drawn down as a matter of urgency for the beef, sheep and dairy sectors. I understand that the Commission has been very sympathetic and has agreed to expedite that. Also, the Member will be aware that the pig industry restructuring scheme will be extended because of the present situation.

I can assure the Member that all the necessary measures are in place at ports and airports. I came through the airport last week; it was announced on the plane that anyone who had been in contact with animals or farms should go immediately on arrival to the agriculture unit in the airport, and that announcement was also made in the arrivals area. I made a point of visiting officials at the airport. They had prepared all the spraying equipment, and they assured me that quite a number of people had already been in and had taken the necessary precautions.

John Taylor (UUP, Strangford)

There is a serious threat to our agriculture industry and to the general economy of Northern Ireland. I appreciate the Minister’s decision to make her statement first thing this morning. We fully support the measures that she has taken to contain this terrible disease. The problem seems to have arisen because some people in south Armagh want to extend cross-border trade beyond that which is acceptable.

The public is still confused about what it is required to do; there are inconsistencies. For example, 40,000 people in Britain are allowed to see Arsenal playing football, but a few hundred cannot attend a football match in Belfast. Roman Catholics cannot go to Mass in south Armagh, but Protestants can go to their churches to pray for the farmers. We need greater clarity and guidance from the Minister. I ask her for clear guidance on the question of groups of 1,000 or more people — many of whom come from farming areas near to where the disease started — meeting in south Armagh every day. There is no control over thousands of pupils going to schools in Newry, Bessbrook and other areas of south Armagh, yet the Minister condemns city dwellers who go to ice hockey matches in Belfast.

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

I am not certain what the Member means when he talks of thousands of people meeting in south Armagh. However, I take the point that the public is confused. It is a confusing situation, which is precisely the reason the Executive met last Tuesday. We shall co-ordinate our efforts, and I advise the Member that, shortly after I leave the House, I shall chair a meeting of the interdepartmental group that has been set up. Our first task is to agree a set of guidelines, and the public will be made aware of those as soon as the Executive have agreed them at their meeting tomorrow morning.

It is impossible for the Department or for anyone to give guidance in relation to any particular event, but we can identify high-risk, medium-risk and low-risk areas. For instance, a soccer match in a city centre attended by city people will not represent a high risk. However, an inter-county GAA match taking place somewhere in Northern Ireland and attended by people from rural areas in different counties will represent a high risk. We will give guidelines, so that people can make up their own mind. However, there was a high risk associated with people coming from Wales to the Belfast Giants ice hockey match. Many of those people were from an area in which there have been many outbreaks of the disease. It was not wise, and my Department made that clear; we did not give that advice lightly.

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

Like every other responsible Member, I pay tribute to the Minister for her statement and her efforts to meet this latest challenge.

I also pay tribute to the Minister’s Newry-based staff, who have worked round the clock since the discovery of foot-and-mouth disease in imported animals. I call on farmers who have recently bought in stock and who are uncertain of its origin to contact the local veterinary office. That may also be helpful.

What arrangements are in place to resolve the conflict that could arise in quarantined herds if beef animals cross the 30-month age limitation during the closure period?

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

I thank the Member for his comments, especially those about the staff in the Newry office. I am aware that some of them have been working on a 24-hour basis. At least one of my vets has not even got home and has had to sleep in the office. The Newry office staff have been working round the clock because of the outbreak of the disease in that area, and I appreciate that.

In relation to quarantined herds, cattle that pass the 30-month age point while under restriction due to foot-and-mouth disease will be eligible for disposal in the over-30-month scheme. Any loss in value that results from that will be classed as consequential; in other words, the cattle will be eligible for cull only if they pass the 30-month stage. Under the present policy there will be no compensation for that loss, but I noted the Prime Minister’s remarks. If there is to be any compensation in that area, it will have to be on a national basis.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A Cheann Comhairle, will the Minister dissociate herself and her party from the sweeping remarks made by the DUP against Republicans in south Armagh? Does the Banbridge Loyalist arrested for smuggling have any connections with the DUP? I have not made remarks on a basis of point-scoring. I brought real concerns to your attention this morning.

We asked many questions at the Assembly Committee meeting on Friday 23 February. It was confirmed on 21 February that foot-and-mouth disease was present in England. On Friday we had only half an hour to ask questions. Given that situation, we must examine the measures taken by the Department to ensure that farmers have had the proper communication about what they should do next to ensure that their farms become fortresses and are protected. Given the gaps in that communication, had the disease taken hold in Armagh, it would have been right across the country by this stage. Not enough has been done in that regard. What measures have been taken and how many farmers have been contacted in relation to advice?

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

I am not going to make any comment on remarks about Republicans or anyone else. I will not get into political point-scoring on either side of the community.

I refer Mr McHugh to my statement, in which I outlined in detail all the measures taken by my Department and myself in the present situation. In particular, I refer him to the very first measure we took, which I think Mr McHugh has either deliberately misunderstood or misrepresented, or perhaps is confused about. I want to make clear that because we are in a devolved situation I was in a position to stop imports and that I did. I immediately stopped imports of both live animals and products when I knew that we were under threat from foot-and-mouth disease.

I have advised people through the public media, press notices and leaflets to the farms in question. Moreover, I have had the support of the unions, particularly the very strong support of the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), which has helped to get the message to its members and has offered non-members posters that they can put up on their farms. The UFU has continuously emphasised the concept of fortress farms. I cannot think of any other measure. If I should have taken other measures, perhaps Mr McHugh will let me know privately what they are. I outlined the list of measures very clearly in my statement.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I note that in their concern about this very serious matter, Members are letting procedure slip slightly. They should recall that when they say "you" they are taken as referring to the Chair. I am sure that it is not the Chair to whom they wish to refer.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

It is the wrong kind of chair.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I appreciate that I am the wrong kind of doctor, as the doctor says.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

First, I congratulate the Department on the measures it has put in place. However, I have been assured that, at least up until last night, cars were able to drive on to the ferry at Stranraer without drivers’ being asked any questions about where they had been. Disinfectant was not being used. Bearing in mind that foot-and-mouth disease has been detected in Scotland and appears to be spreading, will the Minister assure the Assembly that every effort will be made to prevent the disease from spreading further in Northern Ireland?

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

Was Mr Douglas referring to lorries coming from Stranraer?

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

I was referring to all vehicles not being checked.

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

I will have that investigated. I would be very surprised if that is the case as my officials are at the ports and are taking measures to ensure that vehicles go over the disinfected area and that there are no prohibited imports into Northern Ireland. If the Member can give me any details of a specific incident where he feels that we have been lax, I will be very keen to follow it up. To the best of my knowledge, my officials are at the ports and are ensuring that people are abiding by the ban.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Minister stated that the movement of all susceptible animals in Northern Ireland had been banned, except of those going directly to the slaughterhouse. Can she confirm that a slaughter of sheep took place yesterday? Just yesterday, sheep were being transported through the village of Augher in County Tyrone.

I would also like to know what the Minister has recommended to the RUC. Is she in favour of the security forces patrolling the Northern Ireland side of the border? There are quite clear distinctions between security measures on the two sides. People going across the border into the Republic of Ireland are having their cars searched quite rigorously — even bottles of milk are being taken from them. I would like to know what the Minister has recommended in relation to the people coming across the border into Northern Ireland.

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

I do not think that Members expect me to have knowledge of every movement of animals in Northern Ireland. Authorised movement of animals is allowed from farm to slaughterhouse, and that is taking place. That is essential to maintain the food supplies.

In relation to the RUC and patrolling, I assure the Member that my Department liaises daily with the RUC and the army so that they are aware of what is required. They are taking their own operational decisions, which clearly would not be a matter for me as Minister of Agriculture. We are also co-operating fully with the Department of Agriculture and Food in the South on a daily basis, and on Tuesday of last week the RUC intercepted two illegal movements of animals in the south Armagh area. Since then, another movement of animals has been intercepted by the RUC — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

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

This turned out to be a legal movement. I give this information to emphasise that it is not what you see that counts, but what is happening.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Minister, and I join her in paying tribute to her staff at the Newry office. Given the public statement by the Irish Republic’s Defence Minister, Mr Michael Smith, and the accurate and highly commendable public comments of Mr Fee, can the Minister explain why there is still no large-scale RUC presence in south Armagh to help prevent the illegal movement of livestock, either across the border or within the area? Can she assure us that she will actively pursue the provision of an aid package for all those affected by this crisis, including owners and employees of livestock marts?

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

I have already replied to the Member’s questions on RUC presence in the area and assistance to those affected by the crisis. I do not think it would be wise to repeat myself.

Obviously, I want to secure full compensation for everyone, but there are several obstacles, including restricted resources and EU rules. However, I noted the Prime Minister’s comments last week with regard to this matter.

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

I compliment the Minister and her officials on their very strong, effective and immediate action in all quarters. As the Minister has said, such activity is progressional, and cases must be prioritised according to how serious they are.

Further to her response to Mr Kennedy’s question, we are aware of the dramatic economic effect of BSE and other marketing problems on the farming industry. If compensation for those affected by this situation is not handled properly, it will almost be the nail in the coffin.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the statement last Friday by the Minister of Agriculture for France, Jean Glavany, that he was contributing £168 million over and above the compensation already being given to French farmers, albeit in respect of BSE. Interestingly, he indicated that the European Commission had given its approval for these plans for compensation in France and said that that this might herald a

"major shift in the common agricultural policy."

Under pressure from the French producers, M Glavany has made this additional allocation. In view of the economic problems that our farming community and its ancillary industries are going to experience, will the Minister take on board this new dimension and pursue the national Government at Westminster and the European Commission for substantial additional funding for all aspects of the farming industry?

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

I have not seen the report that Mr McGrady has referred to, but I am very anxious to know if M Glavany has EU approval for state aid in this situation. I would welcome any possibility of securing aid at national level for our hard-pressed farming community and the industry as a whole.

I sympathise with Mr McGrady’s views, and I am very aware of the short-term problems that the present situation creates for many people in the industry. I hope to have a meeting with the banks and the grain people, today or tomorrow, to discuss possible measures for easing the current situation for those with cash-flow problems.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

A Cheann Comhairle, I acknowledge the Minister’s statement and note that the she has received no complaints about intimidation from her officials.

The British supermarket-driven cheap food policy has made a cesspool of the agriculture industry in Britain, and the Minister has been pursuing a regional agricultural opt-out policy. In view of this, is she completely satisfied that all ports and points of entry are properly inspected and are enforcing a thorough disinfecting policy? Has the Minister banned all agricultural products from entry into the North? Will the Minister consider authorising information advertisements, similar to those produced in the South, in all papers and nightly television information programmes on this horrendous foot-and-mouth disease? Will the Minister concede that there are agricultural, economic and health imperatives for total North/South co-operation on agriculture?

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

We will look at issues such as the cheap food policy in the future. However, my whole focus at this point is, and will remain, on keeping foot-and-mouth disease out of Northern Ireland. I am not considering other issues.

The ban on agricultural products and live animals from Britain covers all cloven-hoofed animals which are susceptible to the disease. As for products, only those which have been heat-treated to a certain standard and certified by the relevant Departments both here and across the water can be brought in. All other products are banned.

Mr Doherty asked me to concede that North and South should work together on agriculture. He will be aware that I have had several North/South agricultural meetings with the Minister in the South, Joe Walsh. We have a process in place which is aimed at having joint strategies for animal disease in the North and South of the island. This is extremely important; we have already recognised that, and the process is well advanced. We are in constant liaison with the Department in the South; in fact we have been in contact on a half-hourly basis since the threat of disease came in. Clearly it is recognised on all sides of the House that there is no political implication in the co-operation which has taken place and which will continue. It is common sense because agriculture is a main industry in both North and South. We have many converging interests, and we will continue to work on that front in the confines of the North/South Ministerial Council.

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s apparently belated support for the RUC. It has been reported that many people are involved in this organised activity — not just a few individuals. Given that information, will she now call unequivocally on the constituents of south Armagh to co-operate fully with the RUC and supply the information necessary to bring to justice those guilty of illegal sheep trading?

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

I thank the Member for his question. Again, I regret the political point-scoring. My party’s position has always been absolutely clear. We have always supported the police service in the impartial carrying out of its duties, and we will continue to do so.

The Member asked about the illegal activities that led to the difficulties we now face. My Colleagues and I have made it very clear, and I presume that everyone in the House will concur, that co-operation with the police is essential to enable us to get to the bottom of this. We must thus ensure that those responsible are brought to justice and that this sort of activity is stamped out.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. However, I regret that she was not more explicit in her support for her Colleague Mr Fee, who seems to have done more than anybody else in Northern Ireland to clarify the true nature of the problem we have in isolating this disease.

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

Will the Minister’s Department take immediate steps to publicise widely the precise nature of the disinfecting procedures for vehicles and people, and particularly the type of disinfectant that is effective? Will she ensure that enough disinfectant is available in Northern Ireland? Will she also ensure that advice is given on the length of matting required to disinfect vehicles’ wheels? I was pleased to see that we have such matting at the Massey Avenue entrance to this Building this morning, but the wheels of a four-wheel-drive vehicle are probably wider than some of the matting. It is important that this be dealt with precisely and in detail.

As for compensation, it is critical at this stage that measures be taken to ensure that farmers and other people can purchase the necessary disinfectant and matting.

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

It is very difficult to convey information to every person in Northern Ireland. However, the information the Member refers to is available on the Department’s website (www.dardni.gov.uk). Not everyone has access to a computer, and I would appreciate the help of MLAs and others who have access to the website to convey the information contained there around their areas.

Last week I was made aware that disinfectant might run out, and I took the precaution of speaking to my Chief Veterinary Officer. He assures me that ample disinfectant will be available. The list of approved disinfectants will also be available on the website, and the Department will publicise it as far as possible. Specific issues, such as the matting at the entrance to this Building, will be examined.

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

I congratulate the Minister and her Department on the way in which they have handled the foot-and-mouth issue since the scare first arose in Northern Ireland.

May I ask the Minister if it is proposed to hold a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council to examine the issue in detail so that she and her counterpart in the South, Minister Joe Walsh, can co-ordinate effectively every aspect of animal protection on an all-Ireland basis?

Perhaps the Minister could give consideration to a public information video that could be broadcast on BBC and UTV, similar to the video that RTE is currently running nightly.

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

As far as I remember, the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council is scheduled for 21 March 2001. Given the current situation, I intend to try to bring that meeting forward because we could usefully discuss several matters, particularly in relation to animal health. There is constant contact between my Veterinary Sevice and the veterinary department in Dublin on all relevant issues.

The idea of a video is an excellent suggestion and something we can consider. Today I am chairing a cross-departmental meeting; an emergency Executive meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, and that is something we could consider when co-ordinating our efforts.

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

The belief is that the staff delayed preventing import of products from Great Britain at Northern Ireland ports and airports. How long did the Department wait after the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on the mainland? In the light of the current crisis, can the Minister inform the House if she or her Department has considered what steps can be taken to ensure that the standards of farm produce, whether beef, lamb or pork, are identical standards to those of our Northern Ireland produce? Will there be provision for a greater inspection of imports in the immediate future?

Moreover, can the Minister confirm if the permits needed to move livestock from the UK mainland to Northern Ireland can be made foolproof? If animals are cleared by inspection and deemed fit for transport to a Northern Ireland abattoir, will that be their destination? Can the Minister confirm that they will not end up as breeding stock on a farm here? The Minister mentioned the 100% compensation for animals that have been subject to compulsory slaughter. Can she provide a breakdown of the compensation figure involved per bovine animal, sheep or pig?

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

I have had some difficulty following the questions.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I think you have answered the majority of them already.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are quite right.

I reiterate that there was no delay in introducing a ban on products coming in from Great Britain. On that very evening animals that were on the high seas were turned back at the port, so there was no delay.

So far as I am aware, I have dealt with all of the Member’s questions. I am not sure that I quite understood one question, but the 100% compensation is for all animals slaughtered as a result of the crisis, whether sheep, goats, cattle or pigs.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I remind Members that we only have an hour for this debate and ask them please to keep their questions short.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her statement this morning and give credit to Ms Rodgers for leading the Department through very difficult times. I have two questions.

On the point raised by my Colleague, David Ford, does she accept that there was no criticism on our part over her absence from the Assembly last Monday and Tuesday? We accept that she was engaged in vital discussions elsewhere.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I have just asked Members not to repeat questions. We have already dealt with that; please get on.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

We remain concerned that in an era of joined-up government, which was not mentioned earlier, no other Minister was available to speak on her behalf.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Mr McCarthy, I am stopping you because that has been dealt with at least twice on other occasions. Please get on with your question. If you have got a question, ask it.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Minister tell us why there was no Minister in the Assembly last week to speak on her behalf? Will she tell the Assembly the total number of animals slaughtered so far in the Meigh area and throughout Northern Ireland?

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

On the Meigh farm that had a positive test, 21 animals were slaughtered. I do not have the exact figures in front of me for the adjoining herds, and if I did, I would have to tally them. However, I shall let the Member have the numbers as soon as possible. With regard to my unavailability to make a report to the House, I am not sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, what the procedure — [Interruption].

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

You do not need to answer that; you have already done so.

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

I am not sure what other procedure there could have been. All I can say is that I could not be here.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I also thank the Minister for the strong steps that have been taken to deal with the crisis. This matter should be above political points-scoring, so will the Minister confirm that the absence of any North/ South Ministerial Council meeting has not inhibited her, or her officials, from dealing with the crisis as effectively as possible? Moreover, while effective measures of the most stringent kind are necessary, does she agree that a balance has to be struck between those measures and what can only be described as ill-informed hysteria, which often undermines the attention people pay to really effective measures? Does she agree that suggestions that a ring of disinfectant be put around Belfast City Hall are examples of hysteria?

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

I thank the Member for his question.

In answer to the last part, I must say that I do not think that it is hysteria. Perhaps members of the public are a little over-anxious to make sure that they do everything possible. There is anxiety and recognition that this could be a very serious crisis for our agriculture industry. I do not complain if there has been over-reaction. It is understandable in the circumstances. As I have already said, we will be giving clearer guidelines so that people recognise the risks. Mr McCartney will recognise that even people from the country come into Belfast to shop, and they do go into the City Hall from time to time. There is no such thing as being absolutely certain.

On the issue of the North/South ministerial meeting, I make the point to Mr McCartney, who was not in the Chamber for my statement — I do not know how long he has been in the House —

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

What about the Minister’s claim that this debate was not about party point-scoring? Will she answer the question asked?

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

I asked Mr McCartney that because I am not sure whether he has heard these points already. The fact that we have a devolved Government has been crucial in the present situation because we have been able to take immediate action to protect Northern Ireland, which we would not have been able to do otherwise, and which we did, despite resistance from some quarters.

In relation to the North/South Ministerial Council, we have established links between the two Departments of Agriculture, which are dealing with animal health on the island as a whole, and this is very important for the long-term implications. On the issue of short-term implications, however, we have not had a meeting in the middle of this crisis for the simple reason that we have been focusing on what needs to be done immediately by both Departments in this emergency. It would have been daft for officials to have spent time dealing with the papers necessary for setting up a North/ South Ministerial Council meeting at this time. We have been dealing with the situation in practical ways, and that there is now such contact between the North and the South and between Ministers has been very helpful.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The last question is from Dr McCrea. Please be brief, as there is less than half a minute left.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister said that some of the remainder of the consignment of animals was deposited in the Republic of Ireland as well as the original ones. Can she tell us why it has been declared that we have foot-and-mouth disease here, while the same has not been declared of the Irish Republic? The Irish Republic slaughters its animals, yet no such declaration has been made. Does the Minister realise that when this crisis is over, there will be major implications if that situation is permitted to last?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Time is up.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given the seriousness of this matter, can the Chair not allow the exchange to be extended, by leave of the House, in the interests of the many Members who still have pertinent and serious questions to put?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I understand the problem, but the Standing Orders are quite clear. One hour is the length of time that was decided by the Standing Orders Committee. Any change would have to be made by that Committee.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can the House not give leave to suspend Standing Orders and allow more time?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I understand that if a motion were to be made to that effect it could be considered by the House.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the practice in Westminster — and surely ought to be the practice here — that if a Member is permitted to ask a question, it may be answered.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Those are interesting points, but I think that they would require a motion to be put down for debate, whatever happens in Westminster.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You said that if a motion were put down, and leave of the House were given to extend the debate, then the debate would be extended. May I verbally propose an extension of the debate for 30 minutes with leave of the House now, or must that be put down in writing in advance?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

It would have to be on the Order Paper as a proper motion. There would be no point in having Standing Orders that could be voided at any time.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can the Business Committee or the Procedures Committee consider that matter? The debate continued for an hour, there are still many questions to be put. How can this situation be dealt with?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I am certain that the Business Committee will look at this and make a recommendation. But the rule is the rule. We have heard, at some length and frequently, about the necessity of observing rules, not only with regard to foot-and-mouth disease, but also concerning the conduct of the Assembly.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You said that I was making an interesting point. I put it to you that, under Standing Orders, if the Chair has permitted a question, surely it should be answered by the Minister. If that is not permitted, or no answer will be given, why allow a question to be asked in the first place?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

If the Minister, in her wisdom, decided to reply, that would be permissible. Minister, can you recall the question?

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

No.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I drew the Minister’s attention to the part of her statement where she pointed out that animals in contact with infected animals were transported for slaughter in County Roscommon within six hours. She also said that the remainder of the consignment was deposited in another holding in south Armagh before being taken to the Republic of Ireland. Therefore there are animals there.

Why is it that we have declared an incident of foot-and-mouth disease for that consignment of animals, and the Irish Republic has not? The Irish Republic slaughters its animals, but made no declaration. We slaughter our animals and we make a declaration. Does the Minister not realise that there are serious implications for the future of our industry if that situation remains?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

This has gone on much too long. I am going to bring it to a halt. If you wish to have an answer from the Minister, perhaps she will give you a written answer.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

That is ridiculous. I have asked the question twice.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In Westminster, where they have Standing Orders such as we have —

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Mr McCartney, we are not in Westminster. We are at Stormont, in Northern Ireland.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

It is a serious matter for my constituents.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

We are dealing with our own Stormont Government at the moment. I am suggesting — indeed, I am requiring — that we move on to the next motion. I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment —

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Are you refusing to take a point of order?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I have already taken the point of order.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

You have not taken my point of order.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

You gave me your point of order.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

No. Are you taking the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, or not?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Give me your point of order again.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

My point of order is that it is established practice, and also the practice here, that where there is no clear convention or rule here, the Standing Orders of Westminster will be followed as a precedent.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I have referred, at least twice, to the fact that we have Standing Orders that I am observing. The Minister would be permitted, if she so chose, to answer the question despite that.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

She was stopped — you stopped her.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Now we have moved on. A quarter of an hour has been taken out of the next important debate, and I am going to call on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have tried several times to make this point of order, but your attention was directed elsewhere. What recourse do Members have when only some parts of a multiple question are answered?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Many people have not been called to speak. Today, some people who were lucky enough to be called used the opportunity to ask four, five or six questions. That is the problem. If people were to ask the question that is important to them we could get much more into these one-hour discussions.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I trust that you and your colleagues will direct the House so that Members understand the procedures when Standing Orders are not clear. The Speaker has told Members that when Standing Orders are not clear — Mr McCartney is absolutely right — we are governed by the procedure in Westminster. If that is not so, let us —[Interruption].

Members should not be shouting. The Speaker has ruled that this is the case. Are Members overruling the Speaker? The Speaker cannot be overruled. I want to know —[Interruption].

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

It is time to move on. Standing Orders are clear, and I insist that they will operate today. I call the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

We will have an opportunity to table a motion against that?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

There is no doubt that you will.

Energy

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I wish to make a statement on energy — a subject in which there is keen interest. That has been clearly demonstrated by the Assembly’s debate on electricity costs and by the volume of questions and correspondence on energy issues which crosses my desk. As I said in the debate in November, I am surprised at the proportion of my time that is taken up by energy matters, considering the market is privatised.

This statement is timely. Energy issues affect each of us, our constituents and our environment. We must address problems such as continuing high electricity prices. We all have a responsibility to practice energy-efficiency. That is all the more so in Northern Ireland given the relatively high electricity prices here. There are current developments in the energy field that merit serious debate across the economic and social spectrum.

Various consultation documents on energy issues have been published over the past two years and others will appear over the next few months. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee has begun an inquiry into energy, and my Department has set a Programme for Government target of producing an energy strategy by the end of the year. In achieving the target, I intend to take full account of the Committee’s inquiry report and will provide opportunities for wide participation in considering proposals that emerge to shape and finalise that strategy.

The past 10 years have seen very significant changes in the energy scene. In the early 1990s, the small Northern Ireland energy market was isolated from the main gas and electricity networks in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, and it served a population of 1·5 million. Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) was the only supplier and distributor of electricity.

Northern Ireland was almost totally dependent on imported oil and coal for its energy needs, and was fully dependent on both — but primarily on oil — for its electricity generation. There was a small liquid petroleum gas (LPG) market and environmental issues were beginning to emerge.

Unlike other parts of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland had no supply of natural gas, there was no nuclear source, and the supply of renewable sources was negligible. There were extensive lignite reserves estimated at 1000 million tonnes but those had not been developed. Those reserves constituted the only known indigenous energy resource, and hydrocarbon exploration had not identified any commercially exploitable quantities of oil or natural gas.

12.00

Electricity generation depended on imported fuels — 70% on oil and 30% on coal. Comparable statistics for the United Kingdom as a whole were 8% for oil, 70% for coal, 20% for nuclear power, and 2% for hydro-power. Most energy usage in Northern Ireland was in the domestic sector, and solid fuels — bituminous and smokeless in more or less equal measure — served 69% of that sector, compared with 11% in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Because Northern Ireland had an isolated, primarily oil-dependent, electricity system, its costs were high. Some things never change, I hear Members say. At that time, the average cost of electricity was about 15% higher than in Great Britain and 9% higher than in the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland paid more for certain categories of smokeless fuels than other regions in the United Kingdom. As a result, over 7% of average gross weekly household income in Northern Ireland was spent on energy, compared with less than 5% in the United Kingdom as a whole.

The publicly owned NIE was privatised, with the four power stations — two oil-fired, one coal-fired, and one dual coal-fired/oil-fired — being sold to three private companies in April 1992. The remaining transmission, distribution and supply responsibilities were transferred to a new company, NIE plc, which was floated on the Stock Exchange in June 1993. The largest power station, at Ballylumford, was sold to British Gas on condition that the station would be converted from oil- to gas-fired. This conversion was completed in 1996. The power stations were sold on the basis of long-term generation contracts with NIE. The contracts guaranteed the stations’ payments for being available to meet any demand as well as meeting the costs of generation. More about these contracts later. Regulation of the industry became the responsibility of the Office of Electricity Regulation (OFFER), subsequently renamed the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas (OFREG), a non- ministerial Government Department.

The pace and significance of recent changes in the energy sector have been considerable. Today’s market is very different from that of 10 years ago. Northern Ireland is no longer isolated. It is part and parcel of a much larger European market with a continuing agenda for a single, liberalised energy market in electricity, gas and renewables. I recently announced a joint study of the energy markets North and South with my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, Mrs Mary O’Rourke TD, and intend to use the findings of that study to ensure that we can deliver an all-island solution firmly within a European market.

We should consider what is now in place — industry restructuring and privatisation with independent regulation; gas interconnection between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom; the conversion of Ballylumford to gas firing, and — with construction of an even more efficient plant under way — the much-needed reduction of our dependence on oil-fired generation. We also have the establishment of a natural gas industry in the Greater Belfast area, with its beneficial impacts on the environment; the continuing important contributions of the coal and oil industries in providing consumers with the widest possible fuel choice; the implementation of the Electricity Liberalisation Directive by April 2001 — two years earlier than required by the European Commission — enabling our largest consumers to get the best price for their electricity; and increased North/South interconnection, which will not only stimulate that liberalised market but also assist the progressive development of an all-island trading system.

Further to this, preliminary studies have been undertaken into the possible extension of the gas market, both North/ South and to the north-west. There have been two Northern Ireland Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation, (NFFO) Orders, which have resulted in contracts for some 32 megawatts of renewables, and there has been sustained promotion of both combined heat and power (CHP) and energy efficiency. Moreover, the welcome arrival of natural gas — albeit so far only in the Greater Belfast area — has given industry a much greater opportunity than was previously possible to consider and introduce CHP. Collectively, these developments have brought substantial benefits to the consumer and to our environment.

All this has been achieved through close collaboration between the public and private sectors. I want to pay particular tribute to the degree in which the various private sector interests have co-operated together with OFREG and with the Department, in delivering a much more coherent energy framework upon which to build. The consumer has also been well represented through the General Consumer Council and the Northern Ireland Consumer Committee for Electricity.

Where do we go from here, and how do we build upon this framework? First, we should perhaps remind ourselves of the role of Government. My Department’s objective is to achieve a secure, diverse, competitive and efficient energy market. We are no longer the provider; our responsibility now is to set the strategic context and framework within which industry operates in a manner that ensures benefits for the consumer and the environment. In doing this, we work closely with the regulator. Part of this year’s agenda will be to look at the powers of the regulator and decide whether those are sufficient to ensure that we achieve our objective.

Secondly, the political climate has changed. Although we continue to work closely with our Westminster colleagues on the potential impact of new policies, such as those in the Utilities Act 2000 and others emerging in Brussels, there are now new drivers: this Assembly, the departmental Committees, the Executive’s Programme for Government, increasing North/South co-operation and a new emphasis on equality, social inclusion, and ensuring that the consumer is represented in the most effective way. All these must help us shape future energy strategy and there is a unique opportunity for participation and partnership to ensure that all elements of the emerging strategy are fully considered as this year progresses.

In breaking down our objective, we can take some comfort from the fact that our electricity supply is secure. We have had a recent reminder of the emergencies that can arise but, generally speaking, industry has not had to struggle with ongoing problems such as those in California. However, we are further strengthening security in the electricity market through the Moyle interconnector, which will be commissioned by the end of this year, and by reinforcing interconnection with the Republic of Ireland. Also during the course of this year, the capacity of the main Tandragee/ Louth interconnector will be doubled from 300 MW to 600 MW, and two standby links will be upgraded to full interconnector status. Further strengthening of links will assist the progressive development of an all-island, competitive electricity trading system, and the Executive have included a specific action in the Programme for Government to identify further interconnection projects.

A secure gas market can be achieved by a transmission link between Belfast and Dublin. The prospect of such a link has, at times, been frustratingly close. Whether it becomes a reality depends, first, on decisions by the Department of Public Enterprise in Dublin on the preferred infrastructure to meet gas demand in the Republic of Ireland and, secondly, on the economics of any proposed link. The former has now been clarified with the recent announcement approving a second Scotland-Dublin pipeline. With regard to the latter, I have received an initial submission for an interconnector linking the gas networks North and South. This submission also includes a project for a gas pipeline from Belfast to Londonderry. We are proceeding with a thorough appraisal of all these proposals.

The introduction of a natural gas supply and, subject to European Commission approval, the exemption proposed for gas from the climate change levy, have helped our diversity objective as well as bringing greater competition, consumer choice and environmental benefits. Those benefits will be extended if we are successful in bringing gas to the north-west and south-east, including towns along the route. However, to maintain diversity in generation, we will seek to ensure that our previous reliance on oil and coal is not replaced by an over-dependence on gas. There is a renewed interest in lignite as a generation fuel, although this has not yet reached the stage of firm proposals.

An important strand in ensuring diversity is the promotion and development of renewable energy sources. Up to now the Department has used its powers under the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 to place a Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) on Northern Ireland Electricity plc (NIE), requiring the company to contract for specified amounts of electricity from renewable or non-fossil sources. Developers awarded contracts under the NFFO Orders receive a premium price for their electricity, which is financed through the general electricity tariffs.

At the end of January 2001, 18 projects had been commissioned in Northern Ireland under these arrangements, comprising eight hydro-power schemes, eight wind schemes and two biomass schemes. In addition to its involvement in NFFO, NIE launched its Eco Energy — or "green tariff" — scheme in October 1998. An additional wind turbine at Lendrum’s Bridge wind farm in County Tyrone was commissioned in December 1999 solely for production for the scheme. To date, over 1,000 domestic and small business customers have joined the scheme, demonstrating a willingness on the part of consumers to pay a premium on top of our high electricity prices for the benefit of the environment. The eco-energy tariff is now being offered to large industrial customers, and NIE’s supply price control commits it to a tenfold increase in eco-tariff sales by 2005. With the proposed exemption for qualifying renewable-sourced electricity from the climate change levy, industrial consumers will have a much-reduced premium to pay to join the scheme.

The results of an updated assessment of Northern Ireland’s renewables potential were published in July 1999. They concluded that a contribution of 115 MW was possible by the year 2010, equivalent to 7·7% of the current electricity consumption. A separate study of the offshore wind potential around the island of Ireland was published in October 2000. The report concluded that, on the basis of certain assumptions, 7% of Northern Ireland’s predicted electricity consumption in 2005 could be met by offshore wind energy.

Overall, however, the emergence of renewable projects is patchy. I therefore propose to issue a consultation document shortly to seek views on the development of Northern Ireland’s renewable resources. Decisions on revised renewables targets, possible renewable technology priorities and the future support mechanisms to promote and develop renewable energy will be taken on the basis of the conclusions of the July 1999 report; developments in Great Britain following the introduction of a renewables obligation under the Utilities Act 2000; the recent consultation paper by the regulator; and the consultation exercise proposed by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I know from the November debate that several Members have a keen interest in renewables, and I encourage them to participate fully in the consultation process.

High electricity prices have been a persistent feature in Northern Ireland and a cause for continuing concern both to industry, because of their impact on competitiveness, and to domestic customers, particularly those on low incomes. Achieving significant price reductions is a vital outcome of our objective of an increasingly competitive energy market.

There are two main reasons for our higher prices. First, production and distribution are more expensive because local power stations are smaller, the level of required back-up spinning reserve is higher and customers in our largely rural community are more dispersed. Secondly, the combination of long-term contracts between NIE and the generators put in place at privatisation and the use of relatively inefficient plant have resulted in higher generation costs, which represent 80% of industrial bills and 60% of domestic bills.

Over the past four years or so, the regulator has sought to facilitate the restructuring of long-term generator contracts to secure price reductions. Efforts to date have been partially successful. For example, NIE and Premier Power recently agreed a revised contract for Ballylumford, including the construction of the first high-efficiency combined-cycle gas turbine in Northern Ireland with accompanying generation cost reductions and environmental benefits. To complement this and any future contract restructuring, the £40 million balance of the £60 million Government support fund is being used to buy down some of the existing availability payments on the Kilroot and Ballylumford contracts, which will lead to modest price reductions. The possibility of new, state-of-the-art generation capacity at Coolkeeragh is a further positive feature for the stimulation of competition.

After generation, transmission and distribution represent the largest single component in electricity costs, accounting for 35% of domestic bills and 15% of industrial bills. The regulator has embarked on a transmission and distribution price control review, which will include rigorous examination of a continuing and growing divergence in the levels of these costs between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The new price control is scheduled to come into operation in April 2002.

There are clear signals that the European Commission wishes to see the expedition of the timetable for the creation of fully open markets. This will require us to seek ways of buying out or renegotiating the existing generator contracts, and we have already started work on this process. Suggestions that this issue can be easily resolved by tearing up the contracts or going, cap in hand, to the Treasury are unrealistic. The process is complex, and it remains to be seen if an acceptable solution can be found. However, just as this Administration seeks to demonstrate to the whole community its ability to govern, it must also demonstrate that it is honourable in its dealings with those who have invested in Northern Ireland and its future.

The main thrust of policy aimed at reducing electricity prices will be the introduction of increased competition in generation and supply in an all-island and European context. My Department and the regulator have been examining further ways to address the structural problems of the industry, along with the related issues of market opening and encouraging further competition. I have asked the regulator to prepare and publish a consultation paper by the end of this month, containing proposals aimed at achieving these objectives.

Our energy policy has always given a central role to the demand side — reducing energy use through promoting best practice in energy efficiency and green technologies. This is vital to economic competitiveness, given our relatively high electricity prices. The climate change levy will apply some pressure on companies to become more energy efficient. The Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU) already provides an extensive package of measures to assist them, including free energy audits, the Northern Ireland Loan Action scheme and funding for the Energy Saving Trust and the Arena Network. It has also co-operated closely with the regulator in promoting the advantages of combined heat and power.

At the end of the day, energy can be saved only where, when and by whom it is used, so it is up to each and every industry in Northern Ireland to grip this issue. To further assist them to do so I am pleased to announce that IRTU will receive a further £0·9 million to fund the work of the Carbon Trust in Northern Ireland, which will carry out research and development into new energy efficiency technology in addition to promoting energy efficiency.

Effective consumer representation arrangements are a fundamental part of any emerging energy strategy. As I have mentioned, these arrangements currently reside in two bodies. As long ago as 1998, it was proposed that they should amalgamate under the General Consumer Council, and a decision on this matter is overdue. Before coming to a final decision I have recently asked the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, the Civic Forum and other key interests for their views.

Of much greater significance will be the role and remit of any body responsible for the new arrangements. It is my intention that there should be wide consultation during the process of drawing up legislative proposals to ensure that consumers are equally, fairly and fully represented.

I have set the goal of devising an energy strategy by the end of this year. That strategy needs to be on an all-island basis and firmly within the wider UK and European context. A joint study has already commenced, and advertisements have appeared inviting comments. I propose to hold a public seminar in early June to discuss the proposals emerging from this study.

The strategy must be capable of delivering the objective of a secure, diverse, competitive and efficient energy market. Therefore, I urge Members to participate in the consultation exercise that I have asked the regulator to undertake, so that effective competition can be stimulated in an open market. Similarly, I look forward to practical inputs to the debate on increasing renewables. The outcome, based on a fully participative process, will be a strategy capable of meeting our energy needs in a manner which produces lasting benefits for all consumers and the environment for this and future generations.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

We have one hour for the debate. Fifteen Members have asked to speak, so I ask them to be concise. I will stop the debate at 1.20 pm as there are three Bills to be dealt with.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I welcome this comprehensive statement from the Minister, and I thank him for recognising the Committee’s work in this area.

Given that the Coolkeeragh management and the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) are pursuing their planning application for the new power station, would the Minister comment on the guarantee of a gas pipeline from Belfast to Derry and on any further plans for wind energy projects in County Tyrone? Finally, would the Minister also comment in relation to Northern Ireland Electricity and its ongoing inability to deal with storms and adverse weather conditions?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

First, I have said on a number of occasions that we have a proposal on the table with respect to gas pipelines, both south-north and north-west. This is the first time that we have had a firm proposal in front of us and it is being evaluated.

Part of the problem has been the delay by the authorities in the Republic in reaching a decision on their longer-term strategy. Last week, they opted for the second interconnector from Scotland to Dublin. That was not our preferred option, as Members know. We would much prefer a straightforward North/South pipeline and one going to the north-west to the introduction of an additional pipeline from Scotland, because that could have knock-on effects when the Corrib field comes on-stream in the west of Ireland in 2003. However, the Republic has made its decision because of its perceived energy shortages in the winter of 2002.

I am optimistic that at least we now have on the table a firm proposal, which is being economically evaluated. Clearly, due to the time pressures, if the second pipeline is to be in place for the winter of 2002, we are anxious to respond positively. Coolkeeragh and ESBI are at an advanced stage of negotiation, and we would like to think that we will also have firm proposals there. As yet, we have not had an application for a power-generating consent by that particular company at the site, so we await that. Nevertheless, the position looks much brighter because we have never had a proposal before now.

I will have to come back to the Member with regard to the question of wind energy in County Tyrone. There is a degree of renewable activity in that area and there is certainly greater potential.

As regards the recent storms, Members are acutely aware of the difficulties. As we have seen, they were not confined to Northern Ireland. The folk in Scotland had quite a bit of time without electricity — indeed, some may still be without it. I said last week, and I repeat, that at one stage 100,000 customers were disconnected. Whatever way one looks at that, it is a serious development. In certain cases, it can threaten health and life.

For older people in isolated locations, people who depend on electrically-operated medical equipment and families with young children who are plunged into those conditions, this has a huge social and economic impact with a life-threatening element. I have spoken to senior executives of NIE, and they have said that they will co-operate fully with the regulator and myself in examining what happened. They will learn lessons from what happened and, most importantly, try to minimise the risk of the same things happening again.

Executives from NIE accept that a gap has developed between the perceptions of what is possible and the reality. Perhaps the new handling system that was put in place by NIE was oversold, for I have received feedback that customers were not getting the information that they sought. Faults arose with the system, and many of its operators could not get in to the centres to use it because of the weather conditions. There was an unfortunate series of events, and there will have to be a prolonged post-mortem to ensure that all possible lessons are learned.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his report. Could the decision taken by the Department of Public Enterprise (DPE) in the Republic of Ireland delay the provision of a natural gas pipeline to the north-west? Does the Minister accept that the timescale for the Coolkeeragh power station is limited? Will he also accept that the nub of the problem has been the decision to go ahead with the long-term contracts after privatisation? Will that be considered as part of the strategy? In the options that the Minister put forward this morning, no mention was made of the use of Orimulsion. Was that deliberate?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The decisions taken by the DPE will not adversely impact on a pipeline to Coolkeeragh. The proposal that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has received from Bord Gáis and the American company Questar covers a South/North element and a north-west element. The Electricity Supply Board International (ESBI), the operating arm of the Electricity Supply Board (ESB), has a strict timetable, and, as has been mentioned, it has put in a planning application for the power station. It has informed the potential builders of the gas pipeline of the timescale involved and when the gas will be required. The decision announced last week in Dublin will not affect that.

Mr Neeson is correct in saying that the long-term contracts are the nub of the problem. To cut to the chase, a bad deal was done in 1991-92. The problem is that the generating companies hold those lucrative contracts. They are being paid to be available whether they are used or not. When electricity is used, the generating companies charge the market price for it. That was the driving force behind the last major increase in fuel prices.

I have looked at that matter very closely over the past year. Unless the contracts are sorted out, no impact will be made on electricity prices. When one talks about buying out those contracts, it has to be established whether a utilities bond has to be issued to do so. Huge sums of money are involved, and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is looking at the issues surrounding that. It is a major piece of work. There is the question of our relationship with the Treasury. I am working very closely with the Minister of Finance and Personnel. I assure Mr Neeson that we are working very hard in the Department. The regulator is focused on it, and we are doing everything that we can to deal with this because it is the core of the problem.

There was no deliberate intention to omit Orimulsion. It is an issue. I have met the people from South America who market the product. If the company at Kilroot wishes to make an application we will have to consider it. There is nothing to be read into its omission from my statement.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I must remind Members that we have used quite a lot of time. Please be more concise. I ask the Minister to do the same. One way of achieving that is for each questioner to confine himself or herself to one question.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I had two questions but I will confine myself to one. With regard to offshore renewables, particularly wind generation, what steps will the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment take to encourage the heavy and marine engineering sectors to get into what will surely be an expanding market? Perhaps in the future Harland & Wolff will make more windmills than ships.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

At present, I would settle for Harland & Wolff making anything. However, the company and its owner, Mr Olsen, are very keen and have many ideas for entering into that area. They see it as a long-term growth sector, and they may well be right. As Members may know, Kirk McClure and Morton prepared a report for the Department last year on the potential of offshore generating capability. There is no doubt that there is potential for it. A pilot project is under way in the Republic, and it is possible that, by 2005, up to 7% of our electricity could be generated by renewables. In practice, that will require a significant increase in wind power, as it is one of the quickest to bring on-stream. I am entirely of the view that the Member is correct. There is potential for wind gereration and the heavy engineering sector could benefit from it. Fred. Olsen Energy ASA is very focused on it at present.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the fact that there will be a renewable energy policy by the end of this year. Having listened very carefully to the Minister’s responses, I feel that this is not only about economics but about equality; equality of opportunity to support inward investment, equality of opportunity for choice — that is gas versus electricity. If we do not get gas in the north-west we will be building disadvantage upon disadvantage. With that in mind, will the Minister assure me that the extension of a gas pipeline to the north-west is not dependent upon a South/North pipeline?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I said in my statement that equality is an issue. Consumer choice and access to a wide variety of alternatives is an equality issue. That said, we have to accept that not every town and hamlet will have a natural gas supply, irrespective of what happens in the north-west. There are economic practicalities that we cannot simply ignore. However, as a general rule, I agree entirely that choice is important.

With regard to Mrs Courtney’s second point, the application that I have received is a joint application covering both issues: South/North and north-west. It is being dealt with on that holistic basis.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Does the Minister accept that the announcement on the possibility of a pipeline to Londonderry is extremely welcome news, which everyone will applaud? Will he accept that his Department has a very difficult circle to square, in that they are faced with the need to cut energy costs while not adding to the increasing amount of carbon emissions?

Does the Minister also accept that price reduction should be aimed at the poorest households, with perhaps the first 4,000 units being charged at the lower rate to enable people to have a basic level of energy, which they can use? Charges could increase as energy consumption rises.

Does he accept that the climate change issue could be a major boost to the Northern Ireland economy? For instance, why can Harland & Wolff not continue to expand its production of wind turbines?

Will his Department encourage all other Northern Ireland Departments to give a major boost to renewables by asking them to go on to the renewable green tariff, which would provide the most enormous stimulus to the production of renewable energy in this Province?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

There is a certain contradiction, in that we have to make our electricity as competitive as possible to help our businesses be as competitive as possible while, at the same time, trying to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide. The cheapest way of producing energy is not always the most environmentally friendly. Consequently, renewables are a premium supply — in other words, people are being encouraged to provide renewable energy and will receive a premium for their product.

The Member mentioned the point about the Government applying to use the renewable tariff. I will bring that to the attention of my Colleague, the Minister of Finance and Personnel. It is an interesting suggestion. Clearly, there would be financial implications as the Member has already stated, and those will have an impact.

In recent months, we have tried to attack fuel poverty and more resources have been brought to bear. Mr Morrow is working to ensure that as many people as possible are able to benefit from that. I hope it will be possible to help even more people, because it does not say very much for society if people are afraid to turn on an electric fire during periods of cold weather such as we are having at the moment. Indeed, many people may die, or their deaths may be hastened as a result of being afraid to turn on a fire. That is something that this community as a whole has to look at.

We have brought resources to bear in the last few months, in some of the monitoring rounds, to increase the number of dwellings receiving attention. A major impact is already being made in this area.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I declare an interest in this area as I have a family member who is involved in the industry.

I want to look at the potential for renewable forms of energy. I am fascinated by what Dr Birnie and Mr Wells said about the potential for 7% of Northern Ireland’s predicted electricity consumption to be met by offshore wind energy in 2005. I know that the matter has been raised but I would like further details. What are we doing to ensure Northern Ireland will be able to produce offshore wind energy by 2005?

With regard to the potential for Harland & Wolff to create offshore wind energy turbines, would the Minister agree that while European regulations do not allow subsidies for shipbuilding, if Harland & Wolff were to diversify into marine renewable energy exploration surely Brussels could not disallow support for that industry? It would be of great benefit for Harland & Wolff and its long-term future, and for renewable energy in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister think about pursuing this matter with Brussels?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

With regard to the second point, the position is that Harland & Wolff receives an intervention aid grant. That is a unique grant that my Department offers. It is not the normal selective financial assistance that is available to other companies, which is a discretionary function of the Department. If Harland & Wolff is doing things other than shipbuilding, it is entitled to approach the Department on the same basis as any other company, and its case will be treated on its merits. It is because it is dealt with in a narrow, project-based grant regime for shipbuilding — which is specifically limited in its percentage — that its difficulties arise. If it comes up with an application which is for any product other than ships, then its case will be dealt with in exactly the same way as any other company’s application.

With regard to offshore wind energy, the Kirk, McClure & Morton study is all that we have. As Members appreciate, this is a privatised sector, and my Department’s role is to license. We can issue licences only if we get applications, and so far, we have had none. Therefore it is up to the private sector to come forward, and my Department will assess the applications on their merits.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I wish I could be more enthusiastic about the Minister’s statement. The central issue — and the Minister will agree — is that electricity and energy costs in Northern Ireland are totally unacceptable when compared with those on the mainland. When one reads the Minister’s statement, one does not get a great deal of comfort. Does the Minister agree that he is really saying that the electorate should reduce the amount of energy that it uses, that the present proposals offer only modest reductions and that there is no present or immediate prospect of competition to bring the price down?

The Minister suggests that it is unrealistic either to tear up contracts or go cap in hand to the Treasury. Was it not the Treasury and direct Government, however, that negotiated these lucrative contracts for the generators? Is there anything immoral or unfair in seeking to renegotiate those contracts — although the Minister says that we must demonstrate that we will be honourable in our dealings with those who have invested in Northern Ireland, even if they have invested in terms that are totally prohibitive as far as consumers are concerned?

Finally, if there is to be no variation of the generation contracts or no appeal to the Treasury to right the wrong that it did to the people of Northern Ireland in negotiating these ludicrous contracts, just what real hope does the Minister offer to those who are suffering from outrageous and inequitable energy charges?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member is, of course, correct that the central issue is high charges — there is no getting away from that. Since I first became involved in this issue, it has been obvious that the starting point was the contracts — which are something that I sincerely hope we would never have negotiated here. It is quite clear that as long as those contracts remain in place under current conditions, prices can only be tackled at the margins.

However, I make the point to the Member that one of the problems is the high energy costs of producing the electricity because of the inefficiency of the plant. Investing in an efficient plant will directly impact on the charges paid by customers, because there is a fuel premium charged in every bill. The decision to spend £200 million on a new combined cycle at Ballylumford will, therefore, have a direct impact on prices, because there will be a more efficient plant. It will be able to produce the same electricity for about 60% of the gas usage. It is now under construction, and it will probably be the end of next year before it is in operation. The same thing could apply if the Coolkeeragh scheme goes ahead; that will also be a new and more efficient system replacing an old inefficient one. The Treasury has been approached about the issue on several occasions over the years and, undoubtedly, further efforts will be made.

Brussels wants to open the market to full competition as soon as possible, and we are getting some help with that. The Moyle interconnector will be in operation by this December, bringing pool price electricity from Great Britain into Northern Ireland for the first time. Three quarters of that capacity will be on the open market, only one quarter will go to NIE. Approximately 35% of our market will be open to competition by next month. That means that the larger commercial companies will be able to buy that electricity. The only way to deal with so-called stranded costs — the burdens that are placed on the shrinking number of customers who are still within the remit of NIE — is to buy out the contracts. That can be done either with the help of the Treasury or by way of a bond.

The approach is multifaceted: better fuel efficiency; more competition in the market; re-examination of the contracts; and modernising the plant and the machinery. Most of the plant dates back to the 1960s and 1970s and is well past its sell-by date. Modernising the plant will have an impact on prices.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the announcement that there will be consultation on renewable resources. There is a growing realisation that the future for our energy needs lies in the use of renewable resources, and, as legislators, we should lead the way on that. Mr Neeson asked about the decision on the Dublin- Scotland pipeline; I was going to ask about it, too. I am pleased that it will not have a detrimental impact on the timescale.

Prices are higher in the North of Ireland, and there is a problem with fuel poverty among lower income households. What contact does the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment have with the Department for Social Development, with particular regard to the domestic energy efficiency scheme (DEES)?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

There will be a full consultation exercise. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee is carrying out a study into energy issues, which I welcome. We will consult all key interests. We also hope to resolve the question of the representation of consumers’ interests at some stage this year. All the matters require resolution within the year. The purpose of the statement was not to make any dramatic announcements today; it was to set an agenda for the resolution of outstanding energy issues for the rest of the year.

The decision to construct the second pipeline from Scotland has now been taken. That was not the decision that we would have preferred. There will not now be the competition on an all-island basis that there would have been, had the decision that we preferred been taken. It will take longer to integrate the systems fully with the second interconnector. Under our original proposal, we would have had a fully integrated system by 2003. If the current proposals are not amended, it will take considerably longer than that, indeed it could be 2013 before that will occur. Corrib comes on stream in the year following the introduction of the new interconnector. That means there will then be a huge oversupply in the market, which could affect the economics of the Corrib system. There are many problems which we cannot go into just now.

I am acutely aware of the fuel poverty issues. Our two Departments work closely together. The Department for Social Development has primary responsibility for running the fuel poverty system. However, we are clearly aware of it, we contribute, and we want people to take advantage on the industrial side. The climate change levy will impact on prices as well. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment offers a free energy audit to businesses if requested, and I am surprised that the take-up of that is not greater.

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

The Minister stated that we are wholly dependent on coal and oil imported from abroad. To make Northern Ireland more self-sufficient, can he assure us that he is committed to looking at all forms of renewable energy — for example, hydro-electricity and solar power? Some small schemes run on such things as biomass. Can the Minister further assure us that interconnection with the UK will not mean any nuclear tariff for Northern Ireland customers?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Moyle interconnector will be available in December 2001. Electricity can flow both ways — it can be exported and imported. A 500 MW capacity — slightly smaller than Ballylumford, but the equivalent of a significant power station — will come through that cable. That is pooled electricity. In other words, it is available for sale on the open market in Great Britain. We have no way of knowing where that electricity comes from. Therefore it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that some of it would not have been generated by nuclear power stations. Twenty per cent of electricity in Great Britain is generated by nuclear power. It all goes into a central pool and, just as there is no difference between orange electricity and green electricity, there is no difference between coal-fired and nuclear electricity. We have no way of knowing.

Regarding renewables, we are committed. We have targets. We have some hydro schemes, but I have to say that a fishing enthusiast will have problems with those, and I do get some complaints. There are one or two recent proposals concerning biomass so there is interest. I have already referred to wind energy. Solar energy in Northern Ireland is not exactly a big sell at the moment because of our climatic conditions. Perhaps it is sunnier in Bangor than in other parts of the world.

We have set ambitious targets, but are people prepared to pay the premium? Renewables become more economic only when they operate on sufficient scale. That is where the potential for wind farms can play a role.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the statement by the Minister that the regulator has embarked on a transmission and distribution price control review and that the Department is reviewing the regulator’s current powers. Will the Minister ensure that that review is completed before his price control review? It could have an effect on the outcome.

Secondly, in the context of the joint study of the energy markets in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland within the European market, is the Minister aware that the semi-state generators in the Republic of Ireland may not reflect actual capital or real costs in their unit electricity prices? Will the Minister ensure that there will be fair competition so that local generating jobs are not lost to unfair competition?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

There is a transmission and distribution review under way. It is due to be operable by April 2002. It is not clear that it is going to be possible to have the regulator’s powers dealt with by that stage, because the transmission and distribution price control review is already under way.

I said some time ago that I was considering introducing a Utilities Act. It may have to come in two parts. One of the issues that we will look at, without any commitment at this stage, is the power of the regulator. Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) knows that the regulator may end up with greater powers than he has at present, and that knowledge might encourage NIE as we move through this process.

After fuel, transmission and distribution are the most significant elements that contribute to the prices that people pay. These charges are 35% for households and 15% for industry and they are higher here than elsewhere. That is a problem.

We have announced a joint study with the Republic. I am aware that our industry is privatised while theirs is state or semi-state, and I have no doubt that ultimately the Republic will have to go down the same route as ourselves. That will be demanded by the European Union. In any event, it is long past the point where people recognise that private companies are better at performing certain tasks. It has not escaped my attention that the study will look at all the potential issues and, in any case, there will be widespread consultation before any decisions are taken.

Wilson Clyde (DUP, South Antrim)

Willow biomass has already been mentioned. Electricity is being produced from biomass at Enniskillen Agricultural College and at a grain farm in the north- west of the Province. If this proves viable, will the Minister consider grant-aiding farmers to set aside land for the growing of willows and poplars for the production of electricity?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I know that experimental work has been carried out and that the climatic conditions in Fermanagh have proved to be the best for the production of willow biomass. The encouragement and principal incentive for people to come forward with applications is the premium offered for the unit cost of electricity generated by renewable energy sources. If the Member is suggesting taking certain lands out of current agricultural use and putting them to another use, with a double premium involved, I will have to take advice from my Colleague in the Department of Agriculture.

The principal incentive is that a premium will be paid for electricity generated by the biomass method. That is why there is a premium: to encourage people to produce electricity by non-fossil fuel means. I can assure the Member that if we are to achieve our targets, such premiums will continue to be necessary.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement in view of the complexity of the issues relating to both domestic and industrial consumers in Northern Ireland.

Are we so tied with generator contracts that we have no influence on them? It seems important that the regulator be given some real teeth so that he can tackle the pricing to the consumer in relation to transmission and distribution.

Lastly, is the Minister telling us that the only future for us with regard to lower electricity prices is to import electricity from the Republic or Scotland? Given that the Republic is at the limit of its capacity, there is a major problem.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

With regard to the latter matter, I am not saying that at all. Imported electricity merely allows trading to take place. If the means to import is there, the mechanism to export is there. If current proposals are carried forward, we will have a surplus of electricity generation in Northern Ireland. Currently the interconnector is primarily used to export electricity to the Republic. It can, of course, be used to cover for emergencies, and if we have a demand spike, then we can import. However, we are exporting most of the time because the shortage is on the other side. Part of the problem is that the distribution mechanism in the Republic is not able to take large amounts for a long period of time, but that is being looked at.

I do not see our being dependent on imported electricity, because we are trying to make generation here as efficient as possible. New plants like Ballylumford and, I hope, Coolkeeragh, and the new Moyle interconnector all bring new sources at a lower price into the equation. Sooner or later that is bound to bear down on prices, particularly as we have opened up the commercial market to the extent currently required by the European Union. However, I believe that the European Union will go for greater market opening, and we are certainly prepared for that.

The contracts are there. They are legally binding contracts in black and white, and we cannot pretend that they are not there. The regulator is working as hard as he can to try and renegotiate, but you have to ask why somebody who has a lucrative contract would simply cast it aside. I am quite sure that if the hon Member held one or two of these contracts, we would all be in difficulties. That is the situation that we have. We are trying to deal with it as best we can, but it is not going to come easy and it is not going to come cheap.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

Prices here are 15% higher than in the rest of the UK and 9% higher than in the Republic of Ireland. The best prediction that you can give us is that we will get 7·7% of our electricity from renewables. We have the prospect of a climate change levy. Despite the best efforts that you can make, are we not faced, because of the original agreements and contracts that were signed, with very high energy costs that are going to be added to by the climate change levy?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

There is a certain element of truth there. If we sit and do nothing, that is exactly what will happen. It depends at what point you measure, but our prices are anywhere up to 25% higher. It depends what you are measuring against and what you are comparing. However, if we simply add the climate change levy and the increased fuel prices and do not take any action, then that is precisely the result that will flow from that. It is precisely that outcome that I am determined to avoid. That is why it is essential to try to set down a few targets for ourselves and why I wanted to do so at an early stage in the year.

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

The Minister referred to the potential of offshore wind generation. That would impact very positively on sustainable development in both environmental and economic terms. Since Mr Esmond Birnie anticipated my main question, and I suspect that the Minister’s response to Ms Jane Morrice dealt substantially with my other question, I will simply ask the Minister to explain the assumptions that helped form the report’s conclusions about wind energy.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I congratulate you on the brevity of your question.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The first thing that the Member has to understand is that no assumption is firm. They have made very interesting maps of the wind patterns and flows throughout the island. They then have to take into account the depths involved, et cetera, so it is a very intricate measurement to calculate. If Members get an opportunity to look at the report, they will find it interesting.

They make assumptions about the best physical location, consistent with wind direction, the amount of time during the year that that wind is blowing and the seabed conditions in the area. It is on the basis of these factors that they are recommending that it is physically and logistically possible to generate a given amount of electricity and that it is economically possible to do so within the suggested timescale. Theoretically, one could build wind farms ad infinitum until all our electricity was generated in this way, but if calm weather conditions were to prevail, we would be back to using batteries.

You can only go so far with each energy option if you want to have a diversified system. No firm assumption can be made about anything, but experts have looked closely at the weather patterns, the seabed situation and the economics involved, and they have made recommendations to both the Republic and ourselves. At present we are running with those, and we hope that there will be further significant development. To cover 7·7% of generation using renewable resources would mark a dramatic increase on anything that we have here at present. Given that we do not have any significant hydro schemes, there must be a significant commitment to other renewable resources.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

In the light of the increase in electricity charges from 1 April 2001, will the Minister explain the role of the regulator in controlling NIE prices? How can he ensure that dividends for shareholders do not take precedence over charges to NIE customers? What grants and incentives are available to increase the use and provision of alternative types of energy, for example, hydro, wind, biomass and solar power?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

If NIE wishes to increase its charges, it is obliged to notify the regulator. In this instance, NIE argued that, on the basis of the increase in the amount of raw materials needed to generate power, the generators were increasing the cost to the customers. They are entitled to do this because fuel costs are a part of the electricity premium that the customers pay. The regulator looked at NIE’s arithmetic and concluded that the charges reflected accurately the costs that were being incurred by the generators. These costs were not being incurred by NIE because of its operations, but on the basis of the bill charged by the generators for producing the electricity. He concluded that that was accurate enough in this case.

I accept the Member’s point about the dividends for the shareholders, but that is not, in itself, a matter for the regulator. However, I am reviewing the extent of the regulator’s power, and I want to hear the opinions of Members and the Committee. We are looking closely at this matter to ensure that the regulator has at his disposal the necessary tools to do his job. He is currently involved in a major review of the transmission and distribution element — a huge issue — and, if he concludes that a certain change in the pricing structure is required, this will be introduced by April 2002.

On the question of the use of renewable resources, I indicated that the incentive for the provision of renewables is the premium that is paid for electricity generated in that way. Whether or not people actually use renewable energy is down to personal choice, because the renewable premium, the eco-premium or green tariff requires a higher payment. Therefore as far as I am aware, there is no cross subsidy in the system at present, and, indeed, as people are paying a premium for it, it would not make much sense suddenly to start subsidising it because that would in many ways defeat the objective.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Can OFREG take into account the fact that oil prices have now fallen since NIE made the initial announcement of a 9% price rise? Given that the price of oil is not what it was when the initial announcement was made, can that not now be revised downwards?

When will the Minister be in a position to decide whether or not to give the go-ahead for Orimulsion for Kilroot?

Will the North/South interconnector involve the building of a power station in the south-east of the Province? I assume that that pipeline is running through the south- east of the Province. If it does not involve the building of a power station, is that scheme still viable?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Oil prices have fallen since the announcement was made; it is relevant for the regulator to take these matters into account. Of course, it will be pointed out to us that the oil prices rose well before the actual increase was applied for, and we will probably be told, "Well we had to take time to react to a price rise so it is only right that we take time to react to a price fall". But the answer to the Member’s question is that the current market price of the raw materials for electricity generation is a legitimate area for the regulator to review. I have no doubt that he will do so.

With regard to the Orimulsion issue, there is no application before the Department at the moment to produce electricity based on Orimulsion. All that has happened is that the suppliers of the fuel have been in Northern Ireland. I have met them. They have indicated that they want to see Kilroot use this fuel. I have asked them some questions on the environmental issues which may arise. I have sought experience from other European countries but currently there is nothing on our table from any company which wants to convert and generate. As soon as I get an application, I will look at it. I am interested in what Members think of Orimulsion as a fuel, because I would wish to take into account their views before reaching a decision. So far no application has been made.

A power station in the south-east of Northern Ireland on the route of the interconnector would be ideally located at present. For example, a power station in the greater Tandragee area would be in a perfect position. Again, that is a matter for the private sector.

With a power station the economics would be infinitely superior. The study I am having undertaken on the application is giving an early indication that without it there may still be positive possibilities, albeit more difficult ones than if we had a power station there. It is still my intention to go for the comprehensive north- west and south-east solution. That is still our objective. That application is currently on our table; it is being economically and logistically reviewed at present.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I know that the Minister is aware of the very long campaign fought for natural gas in the north and north-west of the Province, by the local authorities there. The Minister and his Department have worked extremely hard to make this a reality. However, can the Minister indicate to the House the timescale he envisages as necessary for natural gas actually to get there?

Can he give the House a realistic timescale on natural gas coming to the north and north-west of the Province?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

If we are spared to see this interconnector and the north-west pipeline installed, I will be the first in Londonderry to check the Member’s house to see that he has a gas cooker.

We are looking at a timescale of three years. For a power station to be operational by 2004, the go-ahead for construction will have to be given this year.

I was not joking when I said I would be up in Londonderry.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

For your tea?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I had better draw these offers to a close. The time for questions to the Minister is up.

Budget Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware, as will other Members, that I tabled 12 amendments for consideration at this stage of the Bill. In our view, the purpose of those amendments was to remove wasteful expenditure on the all-Ireland dimension of the agreement and retain that expenditure within the Northern Ireland Departments. For the benefit of Members, Mr Speaker, I should be grateful if you would say why those amendments have not been accepted.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member will be aware that it is not modern practice for Speakers to give reasons for the selection or non-selection of amendments. From time to time, however, it is appropriate for a Speaker to identify the principles upon which selection is made.

In this case the process under which the 12 amendments submitted were not selected identifies an important principle. I cannot draw to mind any circumstance in which it would be appropriate for me or any successor as Speaker to select amendments which, if made, would render a Bill ultra vires. Such a Bill would not proceed to Royal Assent, since the Secretary of State would not grant permission for that. For the propriety of the Assembly and its proper business, it seems inappropriate for amendments to be selected which, if made, would make the Bill ultra vires.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I do not wish to challenge your ruling, but for the purposes of clarification it appears that your ruling confirms what many of us suspect when we look at the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The North/South implementation bodies and the North/South Ministerial Council are given a special and privileged position within the legislation. While it may be possible to amend allocations and appropriations in respect of other items of expenditure, these items are specially protected. That is a lesson that will not be lost on the wider Unionist community.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Assembly is a devolved body and is therefore subject to the legislation under which it and the other institutions consequent upon the Belfast Agreement were established. The Assembly is also subject to other pieces of legislation such as the Human Rights Act and so forth. The Member is correct in saying that the institutions set up under the Belfast Agreement are not subject to the procedures of the Assembly. They are not devolved matters which we can address.

As no amendments have been selected, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the clauses and then the schedules.

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

Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Budget Bill, which now stands referred to the Speaker.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill: Final Stage

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

That the Government Resources and Accounts Bill [NIA 6/00] do now pass.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the various Committees that were involved in the scrutiny of the Bill. The Finance and Personnel Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee played a significant role in dealing with some very complex issues and in shaping the Bill’s final form.

I am particularly grateful for their support in ensuring that the Bill can be passed in the current financial year. The primary purpose of the Bill is to enable departmental estimates and accounts to be prepared on a resource rather than a cash basis. It marks a major milestone on the way to full implementation of resource accounting and budgeting in Northern Ireland Departments and demonstrates a commitment to introducing best practice accounting methods to the public sector.

Those changes will improve the way in which the Assembly votes and scrutinises public spending with proper management of the full costs of Government activities, better treatment of capital spending and systematic reporting of allocations of resources to objectives.

The Bill also makes a number of important improvements to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers to scrutinise public spending. As I have indicated, I am committed to securing appropriate forms of audit and accountability for Northern Ireland, and this Bill is a first in that process. Following the necessary wide-ranging consultation I intend to introduce further legislation that will deal more specifically with local audit and accountability arrangements. I therefore commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Government Resources and Accounts Bill [NIA 6/00] do now pass.

Street Trading Bill: Final Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

At Further Consideration Stage of the Bill, an amendment was made to clause 17, which deals with a penalty. As that is a reserved matter under paragraph 9(b) of schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I was required to refer the matter to the Secretary of State before the Bill could proceed to Final Stage.

The Secretary of State has given his consent, and the Bill can therefore properly have its Final Stage.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That the Street Trading Bill [NIA 2/00] do now pass.

The Street Trading Bill replaces the provisions of the Street Trading (Regulation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1929, which relates to the licensing of street trading. The Bill seeks to enable district councils to control and regulate street trading and their districts in such a way as to prevent undue nuisance, interference and inconvenience to persons and vehicles.

The 1929 Act has become outdated, which is hardly surprising since today’s street traders operate in ways that were unheard of 70 years ago. The Bill introduces more effective measures for dealing with unlicensed trading and those who trade contrary to the terms of their licence. However, it also seeks to provide a more transparent system in which the rights and responsibilities of councils and traders are properly addressed.

District councils have indicated that they will need time to set up new administrative arrangements. Existing and prospective traders will also require time to familiarise themselves with the new legislation, and to that end the Bill contains a clause stating that the new provisions will come into operation on a date appointed by the Department. It is planned to make the Bill operational four months after Royal Assent.

Finally, I would like to thank Members for their interest in and contributions at the various stages of the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the Chairperson and members of the Social Development Committee for their diligence in the scrutiny of the Bill.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I congratulate the Minister and the Department for seeing the Bill through to the Final Stage. I also congratulate the Committee for its work. I had the privilege, as the then Minister, of introducing this piece of legislation to the Committee, and I am glad to see it reaching the Final Stage today. I also take the opportunity, on behalf of Members who are not present, to say a word of thanks to the Minister for taking on board the representations made to him, and the arguments put to him, on a number of amendments. These amendments, in the view of many of us, will strengthen the legislation considerably, and they will give local councils the powers that they need to deal with the problem of illegal street trading and, at the same time, provide proper regulation.

The Minister and the Department have shown a great deal of flexibility and a willingness to listen to points that have been made. As a councillor on Belfast City Council, I know that officials in the health and environmental services department are looking forward to being able to tackle the problem of illegal street trading in the centre of Belfast with the new powers that have been given to them under this Bill. I want to put those comments on record — not only on my behalf, but on behalf of other Members, some of whom are not present.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Does the Minister wish to reply?

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have said all that I want to say.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Street Trading Bill [NIA 2/00] do now pass.

The sitting was suspended at 1.26 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair)—

Programme for Government

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We now come to the motion on the Programme for Government. As Members will know from the Order Paper, this debate will start today and continue tomorrow.

No time limit has been set at this point for the debate, nor for contributions that Members will make. However, in view of what I have already said as regards questions and responses, perhaps some element of self-control will be of value, since this is a wide-ranging debate — and I suspect that many Members will wish to participate and to contribute. We shall debate until 6.00pm today and then adjourn. The debate will be resumed and completed tomorrow.

Motion made:

That this Assembly endorses the Programme for Government agreed by the Executive. [The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister]

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

On 24 October 2000 the Deputy First Minister and I presented the Programme for Government in draft form to the Assembly and invited the Assembly’s views. We stressed the fact that the draft Programme for Government marked an important milestone in the development of our institutions and of a devolved, locally accountable Government here.

It represents our commitment as an Executive to effective and accountable Government that makes a real and positive difference to the lives of people here. The draft Programme for Government has been debated by the Assembly and scrutinised by its Committees, and we are grateful for the positive and constructive feedback.

We believe that this process has signalled a maturing of the new politics that the agreement has achieved for Northern Ireland. The Programme for Government demonstrates that the four different parties that make up the Executive can reach agreement on priorities for Government and work constructively for the benefit of Northern Ireland.

Let there be no doubt about it: this programme is the work of all four parties in the Administration. The DUP may have the wrong particular way of communicating with the rest of the Admnistration, but they do participate, and their contribution is contained in this collective programme.

That process has shown that the Assembly and the Executive can work together effectively in a corporate manner to serve the people who elected us. The programme in draft form has been considered by the Civic Forum and by a wide range of organisations across the public, private, voluntary and community sectors. More than 150 bodies and individuals responded with detailed comments and suggestions.

This process has made it clear to us that there is strong endorsement, within the Assembly and without, of the priorities that we have identified for Government and of the actions that we plan to take. We, along with our Executive colleagues, greatly welcome this endorsement. However, the process also made it clear that there are many things that we could do to improve the content and presentation of the programme. We have listened to suggestions and have reflected many of them in the version of the programme that is being debated today. We shall consider many others as we refine the process of developing, consulting on and agreeing the Programme for Government in future years.

Our objective is to deliver a new beginning for Government in Northern Ireland in which the Government are responsive to the people that they serve. After so many years of direct rule and of decisions being taken by Ministers who had one eye on distant constituencies and the other on Westminster, we may be forgiven for noting that the observation that every country has the Government that it deserves is not always correct. However, it is clear, after 28 years of direct rule, that the people of Northern Ireland certainly deserve good Government by those whom they elect themselves.

More than that, they deserve a modern, open, efficient and locally accountable Government that meet their need. That is what the Programme for Government delivers. It is comprehensive and precise. It makes the detail of government more accessible to the public than ever before and goes further in this respect than similar documents in Scotland and Wales.

It clearly states what we want to achieve and the steps that we shall take. It is in effect the Executive’s manifesto — a set of pledges and commitments that underlines our desire to make a difference for the good of all. The largest addition to the document since the draft was presented to the Assembly in October reflects the inclusion of public service agreements — setting out the commitments made by each Department. Again, that is done in unprecedented detail.

The public service agreements represent a most important step in meeting our aim of bringing open and accountable government to the people of Northern Ireland. For the first time, Departments have been challenged to set out what will be achieved with the resources voted to them by the Assembly. It is vital for the Assembly and the public to have an opportunity to see exactly what the Executive Committee plans to provide across its spending programme in support of the overall Programme for Government.

The public service agreements are designed to do precisely this — to identify what Departments aim to achieve over the life of the Programme for Government. They do that by listing their detailed aims and the targets that they intend to achieve. They are designed to ensure a proper focus on outputs and outcomes. For too long, the focus in Departments, the media and among the public has been on inputs and resources — on how much we spend or how much it costs.

We want to change that focus and put the spotlight on outputs — on the results and on precisely what has been achieved. It is not only a question of how much it costs, but of what we get for our money, when it will be delivered and how good it is.

That is why we have set our plans out in some detail. By way of example, I shall highlight the public service agreement for the Department of Education to indicate what it includes. There are targets for increasing the percentage of children at age 11 who reach or exceed expected standards of literacy and numeracy for their age. The current targets, set out on page 103, are that 77% of pupils should achieve at least level 4 in Key Stage 2 in English, and 80% should achieve that level in maths by 2004. Those targets represent a 12% improvement in English since 1999 and an 8% improvement in maths.

Those are precise targets and commitments, and the Assembly and the public will be able to assess precisely what degree of success there is in achieving them. If they are achieved — fine. If there are difficulties in achieving them, we can focus on the question of what the problems are. That process, replicated throughout the Administration, should drive standards up and deliver more to the entire community.

The public service agreements also set out the steps that will be taken to ensure that targets will be achieved in the case of education. Those steps include the universal provision of pre-school education, support for underachieving schools and the provision of properly maintained classrooms with modern technology. Pledging to improve the education of our children is much more meaningful than simply promising to spend more money on education.

We could take the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment as another example. Its public service agreement contains targets to achieve increases in export sales growth and net employment among our larger companies. It sets out the actions that the Department will take to achieve those targets — actions that include promoting Northern Ireland as an inward investment location.

Where once our focus might have been on the numbers of companies setting up here and the costs of supporting them, it is now being switched to ensuring that those companies that are located in Northern Ireland contribute to the creation of wealth and jobs and to the strengthening of our economy.

Although there is much to do in the economy, there is also much that we can be proud of. Since 1995, we have created more than 60,000 additional jobs. That is a growth rate of 11%, which is faster than that in Great Britain. Our manufacturing output continues to forge ahead of the rate of increase in the rest of the United Kingdom. Manufacturing output here has increased by 31% since 1995. That is the case despite the high level of the pound and other difficulties. By comparison, in the rest of the United Kingdom the increase over the same period was 4% — a fraction of that we had achieved.

Of course, there remain many challenges — some are old, and some are new. We need to overcome them if we are to secure a competitive economy. We need to continue to work to reposition our economic base, and that means moving away from an over-dependence on the public sector and on slow growing or, indeed, declining, areas. In fact we need to switch from public to private and from low added value to higher added value areas.

That does not mean that we shrug off our important industrial heritage. Rather, it means making the most of opportunities that we are well placed to exploit. The real promise for the future comes in the newer sectors — whether making goods or producing services — and for businesses that can successfully supply those new sectors.

We need also to promote enterprise, innovation and creativity, as we strive to achieve a knowledge-based economy. That is why the programme commits us to promoting Northern Ireland as a world-class centre for e-commerce.

The programme also sets out specific actions in areas of support of our priority of — as the heading is — "Securing a Competitive Economy". Those actions include: promoting research and development in local companies; providing the facilities to sustain high technology and high value-added new start-up companies; and ensuring co-ordination and effectiveness of local enterprise support. It recognises the importance of instilling business awareness into our young people and commits us to developing an action plan to promote greater integration of enterprise into the curriculum in schools and colleges.

We still need to maintain a focus on unemployment. Unemployment here has fallen by half since its peak in 1993. It currently stands below 6% and is lower now than at any time since the 1970s. Over the same period, earnings increased by 17·6% in real terms, although, unfortunately, they remain below the UK average in private industry. Our unemployment rate is also still higher than the UK average, and we continue to face the problem of long-term unemployment.

Securing a competitive economy is one way to help ensure that unemployment continues on a downward path, but such progress is reliant on progress in other areas. Our actions to strengthen our economy and to create wealth and jobs cannot be divorced from other priorities. They are linked to our commitments under the heading of "Growing as a Community" to tackle poverty and social exclusion. They are also linked under the heading of "Investing in Education and Skills" to our plans to improve our education standards and skill levels, and to help the unemployed find work.

Providing jobs is the surest way to create a more inclusive and equal society. Providing high quality skilled jobs is even better. To achieve this, we must ensure that the skills and qualifications of our people continue to rise towards a level that matches the best in the world.

Already we have seen that companies will move here to tap available skills. Shortages of key skills in rapidly expanding sectors are the most important factor in holding back growth.

For those reasons, economic development, skills training and education must go hand in hand. That is one example, albeit an important one, where cross-cutting themes and joined-up government are essential. That is why those themes are heavily emphasised in the Programme for Government.

I am disappointed by the Alliance Party’s amendment, which gives that party’s reasons for rejecting the Programme for Government. Alliance has had more than five months to consider the Programme for Government, and I am surprised that it has arrived at that conclusion. In October, the Alliance Party put forward its proposals for the Programme for Government, but in many areas its ideas were close to those of the parties that were involved in the drafting.

We have also heard from other Members, particularly through the Committees, and the overwhelming consensus was that the Programme for Government provides an excellent basis for the work of the Government and for the long and difficult process of developing good government for Northern Ireland. Of course, there were ideas for changes, differences of opinion regarding priorities, and instances where Members would like to see more being done. However, those who were consulted in the Assembly recognised that the Programme for Government was a realistic, organised and costed programme based on the reality that budgets are finite.

People can say that more could be done, but there are no simple, facile answers. In the Programme for Government, the Executive have mapped out a wide-ranging approach and demonstrated the linkages between programmes and policies by setting out their details, actions and timetables. Detailed equality schemes and new TSN action plans have also been set out.

Why has there been silence from the Alliance Party? It has not given costed proposals. Where are its solutions? It is easy to criticise, but now is the time for a debate and for working together.

The Programme for Government represents the Executive’s prospectus for a new Northern Ireland — a region that is moving towards a new and inclusive stability where all can realise their full potential. It also represents our determination to deliver that in an open and accountable way. The Programme for Government and the public service agreements set out in detail what the Executive will do, at what cost and by when. They represent our commitment to open and accountable government, to addressing the challenges that Northern Ireland faces and to moving forward for the good of the whole community.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "Assembly" and add

"declines to approve the Northern Ireland Executive Programme for Government because it does not properly address the deep divisions and inequalities in this society and therefore does not deliver the new beginning envisioned by the Good Friday Agreement."

I am surprised that the First Minister is surprised that the Alliance Party has tabled an amendment. The First Minister knows that the Alliance Party has raised many issues of inclusion in the House over the months, and it is my intention to raise those issues today.

There has never been a greater need for reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Sectarianism has never been more openly rampant than it is now, and the need to deal with those problems has never been greater. Although there are those who try to put forward the idea of Northern Ireland being two communities and who try to perpetuate the idea of the two communities, we have to recognise that Northern Ireland has moved forward from that. It is now a much more complex matter, and it is not just a question of Catholics and Protestants or Unionists and Nationalists. There are those who believe and those who do not believe. There is a growing increase in ethnic minority communities in Northern Ireland. All those issues have to be taken on board.

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

Never has such a great hurt been felt by many sections of the community than at present. The feeling exists that some are more equal than others. I refer to the Programme for Government. On page 14 it states:

"It will take generations for much of the pain and hurt of our history to be handled. However that should not lessen our commitment to work together to find reconciliation."

On page 26 it says

"We will place renewed emphasis on the need for all our people to work together. We will examine the impact of existing patterns of housing and services such as education and seek to respond positively where people wish to live and learn closer together. We are also aware that prejudice is not confined to religious sectarianism and that ethnic and other minority groups are often the victims of intolerance. We will work to reduce all forms of prejudice."

Those are fine words indeed, but words are one thing and commitment is another. The reality is that the Programme for Government has only seven measures to deal with the division in our community and four of those deal with language rights. However, what is of greater importance, human rights or language rights? I pose that question to the Executive today.

The First Minister knows well that over the past year the Alliance Party has been working on the major problem of hate crimes in Northern Ireland — he has answered questions in the House on the matter. What will the First Minister and the Executive do about the extension of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to Northern Ireland, which will deal specifically with racially motivated crimes?

The extension of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 specifically prohibits sectarian chanting. Last Wednesday there were disgraceful scenes at Windsor Park when Neil Lennon was picked on because of the football club for which he plays. That cannot be tolerated in a decent society. What are the Executive going to do about that? The problem of sectarianism in sport is not mentioned anywhere in the Programme for Government.

Many Members are committed to the principle of integrated education. The First Minister quite rightly spoke about the targets for education and the provision of facilities and resources. However, targets for creating integrated education, whether through the building of new schools or through developing integrated schools through transformation, are absent in the Programme for Government.

There is nothing significant in the Programme for Government on the need for cross-departmental action to deal with paramilitary flags and graffiti. A private Member’s motion is currently before the Business Committee on that matter, yet the First Minister should know that one Department is passing the problem to another. They are simply passing the buck, yet, year after year communities, cities and towns are blighted by the erection of paramilitary flags and by intimidation. That, in turn, creates a hostile environment for many people who are being intimidated by Republican or Loyalist graffiti. The Assembly should be dealing with those issues.

The Alliance Party also supports demands from the Mixed Marriage Association to try and develop more programmes for integrated housing. I take on board the First Minister’s earlier remarks. It is not a question of waving a magic wand.

I realise that there are problems, but I ask the Committee of the Centre to investigate the barriers faced by people in mixed marriages in Northern Ireland and to consider how we might bring about greater housing integration in Northern Ireland. Not only do we have working-class ghettos, we have middle-class ghettos; we even have upper-class ghettos. The Assembly should address such a serious issue.

The core of our argument is that all Executive policies should be proofed on the extent to which they promote sharing rather than separation. That should be at the heart of what the Assembly does. We need neutral symbols — as an Assembly, we successfully developed the flax flower as our symbol. We must get away from the sectarian slogans that have created so much division in our society. I have spoken about the problem of sectarianism in sport; we can bring about change. Although I disagreed with the decision of the Belfast Giants to go ahead with their matches last Friday and Saturday night, ice hockey is an example of how the communities in Northern Ireland can be brought together to celebrate and cheer on one sporting event.

People in Northern Ireland have been accused of being inward-looking, but the development of the Assembly has created new opportunities. I welcome the establishment of the Northern Ireland Office in Brussels, but we need to establish not only bilateral, but multilateral relationships with other parts of the European Union. On the whole, the Programme for Government looks at east-west and North/South issues, but there are opportunities to look beyond Northern Ireland. I also hope that our relationship with the United States can be further developed. It might be just an oversight, but some of the North/South projects that appeared in the original document, such as lecturer exchanges and research collaboration for business, are no longer there. Ministers should let us know whether there have been changes.

I shall not be totally negative; there are many good things in the Programme for Government. I have already mentioned the establishment of the office in Brussels. I welcome the Executive’s strong commitment to e-government, which is now the subject of a major Bill. I also welcome many of the economic policies. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee hopes to publish a response to ‘Strategy 2010’, and there is much in that to be welcomed. The increase in job opportunities is also to be welcomed.

Much more attention and resources should be devoted to improving community relations in Northern Ireland. The Programme for Government states that the Executive are committed to improving community relations, but there are few actual policy proposals. Northern Ireland is a divided society. It is, therefore, vital that the Assembly take the lead in trying to end those divisions: that outlook should be at the core of all Government policies. That is a challenge that we all must face up to.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Programme for Government is a much-needed document for the public service. It sets out the key issues that we must address so as to improve life for all people in Northern Ireland. I fully endorse it.

I shall focus on the significance that is being placed on environmental issues. When the Assembly previously debated the draft document, I emphasised the crucial importance of the environment, especially for a healthy community and for a competitive economy. That aspect was, and still is, reflected. If we are all to take ownership of the Programme for Government, it must reflect the views of elected representatives and the wider community. Therefore, I have carefully considered the responses given by consultees.

I have also had constructive contact with the Environment Committee. I thank its members for the helpful way in which that business was conducted. When I began to look at the comments from the Environment Committee and the wider public, it was interesting that there was a significant degree of similarity in the issues that were raised. That reflects the concerns that people have about environmental issues.

The need for sustainability to be a key cross-cutting theme in the Programme for Government was a major concern to both the Committee and to the wider public. Many felt that that important issue needed to run through all the documents, thus integrating social, economic and environmental objectives so as to maximise gains in both the quality of life and in its well-being. Furthermore, references to sustainability in the final version of the Programme for Government have been revised to reflect its importance as a major cross-cutting theme. The funding increase for environmental services in the Budget is testimony to the priority that the Executive have given to that area.

Concerns were also raised about the need to protect the built heritage. That is of vital importance. During this year I have been able to secure additional funding towards the payment of historic building grants.

The need to examine the planning process was also an issue. Northern Ireland needs an effective Planning Service, and for that reason the Programme for Government clearly says that my Department will carry out a review of the systems for operational planning policy, development planning and development control by the end of December 2001. It is also our aim to eliminate the backlog of planning applications by December 2002.

Those are some of the targets included in my Department’s public service agreement. Those agreements are a new feature of the Programme for Government. They will enable a more open approach to departmental business and enable both Members of this Assembly and the general public to see the specific actions that are proposed.

The Department of the Environment’s public service agreement includes other actions and targets. I cannot mention all of them, but I shall refer to a few. I intend to proceed with steps to eliminate the backlog in the transposition of EU environmental Directives. That is necessary not only to meet European standards and requirements, but, more importantly, to protect the environment. There is also much work to be done in assisting district councils and implementing their plans for waste management.

Another area in which I take a close interest is road safety. The continuing high level of deaths and injuries on the roads is of great concern. I shall launch a new road safety strategy shortly, but road safety is not just a matter for my Department. I look forward to receiving assistance from Roads Service, the RUC and the Department for Regional Development. We all have a responsibility to reduce the number of accidents on the road.

The Programme for Government gives us the best opportunity that we have had for many years to introduce policies and take actions that accurately reflect the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. I assure Members that my Department will play an active part in that process and that I shall work closely with all other relevant Departments to drive forward the key cross-cutting aims identified in the document.

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

I speak on behalf of my party and myself.

In introducing the debate, the First Minister spoke of a new beginning. He also said that there was much to do to improve the programme. I hope that the great detail in the document will be followed very closely in respect of its intended delivery. However, I would also like to think that, in view of experiences gained, new emergencies and new matters arising, it would be flexible enough to take on board such new dimensions as may crop up in future.

Although the document is a vade mecum of politics in Northern Ireland, I would like to think that it will be subject to proper adjustment as experience is gained, and as new problems and new issues come to our notice. It is very much an excellent basis from which a new process is emerging.

It covers all possible aspects of life in Northern Ireland — economic, social and environmental — with the exception of the question of the security situation. Our communities suffer as a result of paramilitary activities, drug rings and other protection rackets. That is why I am slightly surprised by the amendment tabled by the Alliance Party, and all its references to deep divisions and inequalities. Many of the remedies suggested as being required to address those issues are security-orientated, and security matters are neither in the Assembly’s remit nor in this form of devolution. However, it is to be hoped that, matters improving, they will be in future.

In response to many of the comments made by the leader of the Alliance Party, those deep divisions and inequalities in our society are best addressed by the example that we in this House, as representatives across the total spectrum of political life, give society? Our example would be the best guarantee and the best security that the divisions are healed sooner rather than later, and that the inequalities are addressed.

This society’s inequalities concerning social class, gender and disabilities, among others, are very much addressed in the Programme for Government. New issues have been brought to light, examined and programmed for. I am, therefore, a wee bit surprised. One could be forgiven for thinking that there was an element of opportunism in the tabling of such an amendment. It is a direct negative, in that it calls for the Assembly to decline the document. Perhaps its main purpose was that members of that party would have the opportunity to get in early to make speeches on the matter.

Leaving that aside for the moment, it would be very tempting to take on, as it were, all 10 Departments. However, that would be ludicrous and detrimental to other Members who wish to speak.

I would, however, like to address an issue that is mainly the concern of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I do not wish to talk about it in detail, but I do wish to talk about the theme that should come through. We have had, quite correctly, debate after debate on the whole problem of sustaining the farmer in the rural community. I have said time and time again in the House that that applies to the whole of Northern Ireland, outside one or two major conurbations. We are a rural community with a basis in the rural society. Farmers do not just produce an income. They also sustain that environment for all of us now and for posterity. We must adopt an entirely new approach to that. Although the Department in question — with all the pride we derive in that respect — is headed "Agriculture and Rural Development", its emphasis has always been mainly on agriculture, and "Rural Development" was added on later.

I would like to think that the Department is sustaining the entire rural community. There needs to be a cross-departmental commitment, to driving forward a new concept of rural sustainabilty as part of our overall handling of the rural community. That would contribute to sustainable improvements in economic, environmental and social conditions, while creating new ways in which to address the shortfall in farming activity and profitability. Over the past number of years, that shortfall has been dramatic and has reduced farming activity and profitability to 75% of what it was. That profit will be further reduced as a result of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.

Local regeneration programmes are good and valid, and they have accomplished a great deal. It is important that the funding that was distributed last January be sustained until the delivery of the new tranche of funding if local regeneration, and the creation of jobs, is to continue. There needs to be a better concept of how to package a complete cross-departmental deal to renew and revitalise the rural communities. Rural people are less inclined to be skilled, and re-employed, than anyone else. Rural women, in particular, are less likely to find employment outside their farming communities. We have to address that problem.

New businesses are often set up, but there is a narrow-mindedness about their potential. They are directed towards local niche markets or, at best, something with a general Northern Irish identity. Not enough is given to encourage new rural industries and innovations to look outwards to international markets, to get access to existing distribution channels and to create new ones.

On the question of sustaining the income of farmers, in particular small farmers, I have long advocated that dependence on profitability based on the food-price structure is neither the right approach nor the only one. We must embrace the concept of creating a separate income to supplement the profit gained from farming, if it is inadequate, so that the farming community can be sustained. If that is regarded as a social benefit, then so be it, but the cash provided to those people should be seen as a special form of social commitment.

The Minister dealt with the matter of rural transport in the many questions that he received and in his address on the issue. Let it suffice to say that a very limited number of areas in Northern Ireland have access to railways and very few areas have access to dual carriageways. In my constituency, there is not one single foot of dual carriageway. We need to make a major input into infrastructural improvements in the entire south-east of Ulster, west of the Bann and other areas.

It is important that the impact of the shortfall in departmental assessments over the past 30 years be studied in depth, not only in the context of the environmental and regional development issues of transport and railways, which are very obvious, but in the context of health, education and other areas.

We have an enormous deficit to make up, and we cannot afford to make up such a deficit in the near future. It will not be made up unless something dramatic is done now. It is therefore incumbent upon the Executive to pressurise the central funding authorities, which have so much largesse it is flowing over. They have so many billions in surplus that they will not be able to give it all away. They cannot give it away in this week’s Budget because there is so much of it.

However, part of the reasons for that surplus is our deficit. A tremendous effort should now be made — I am sure that it is already being made. We should all support our getting a special modernisation fund that will enable roads, water, sewerage, education, health and all other services to be updated in an effort to reduce that deficit. If that does not happen, we shall be looking at Programmes for Government yearly and seeing the same shortfalls that we are starting off with today. Unless we address that huge deficit, we shall make life very difficult for ourselves.

In his introduction, the First Minister gave substantive and encouraging statistics on a range of matters, such as the fall in unemployment to almost record levels, the 31% increase in productivity and the overall economic uplift. That is all well and good, but in order to sustain it in the new competitive world we must be at the forefront of modernisation. Unless we have additional funding, we shall not be able to do that.

I jump tracks, Mr Deputy Speaker, to touch on the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I used to criticise severely the peripatetic Education Ministers on one of my hobby horses — museums and regional strategy. Some people think that museums do not reflect our culture. Museums are the protectors of our culture, its expression and display. I hope that the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure will soon give us a policy that will have some funding. So far as I can see, there is not one mention of the word "museum" in the booklet. Nevertheless, museums are a fundamental cultural facility. It is not an issue that excites people and causes high blood pressure in debate, but there is a fundamental requirement for display. I have seen how exhibits, set side by side with historical facts, can overcome and explain some of the divisions referred to in the amendment. A new interpretation can heal and help divisions to diminish, if not disappear.

On education, I was disappointed that the Programme for Government uses the words "to sustain current levels". That should not be our objective. Our objective should be to improve current levels because we keep criticising them. We may not always be able to achieve our goal, but at least let us target those levels and try to improve them. One commitment is to reduce the number of temporary classrooms in post-primary schools. However, the programme that was announced last Thursday did not materially reduce the number of temporary classrooms in post-primary schools — in fact, it hardly touched on them. In my constituency established schools are being starved of funds. However, that is a subject for detailed debate and should not be addressed today.

Where the Department of the Environment is concerned, I wish to address the issue of school buses. Surely to God, it should be Government policy that every child who pays for his or her transport can have a seat; otherwise there will be a tragic accident from which we shall have to try to learn some lessons. If we have such a tragedy, we know what the lessons will be. I ask the Minister to consider that as a matter of urgency.

Right across Northern Ireland there are gross inconsistencies in planning decisions and, indeed, within divisions of Planning Service. If the Minister is in any doubt about that — and I am sure that he is not — I could take him around any given area and show him gross inconsistencies that are not evident to the public.

For the promotion of tourism, I would like to think that at last there will be joined-up government among the rural development programme, Planning Service and the Tourist Board.

At the moment, they are frustrating one another and, therefore, obstructing those who are trying to provide, albeit in a small way, the infrastructure of guest houses and other facilities. We are trying to revitalise the rural community through alternative outlets, and one of the best ways to do that is through sustainable, new, tourist-orientated developments, which can also be enjoyed by local people.

On the subject of health, many questions are hanging and many hopes are placed on the Hayes review. Everything is predicated upon Dr Maurice Hayes’s report on acute services, so it is almost a barrier to receiving information. I hope that, in creating the Programme for Government, someone has considered the possible outcomes of the Hayes review, the review of ambulance services and — and this is away behind — the review of maternity services. We need to see how much those changes are going to cost; I do not think that the costs are taken into account in the Programme for Government. If the costs are not included, the developments will not happen, and if those do not happen, there is no point in having a review in the first place. I hope that the Department of Health will take that on board as a weighty issue.

Another area of health that gravely concerns me that has been getting more difficult over the years is the care of the elderly. Regardless of statistics from trusts and boards, the facts speak for themselves. The amount of care we provide for the elderly is grossly inadequate. We should be ashamed of ourselves, as a society, that we cannot return some measure of care. It is not very much to ask for help for perhaps an extra hour a day with lighting a fire, washing the dishes or making a bed. Given all the affluence that is coming upon us, can this society not do more to give those people more peace and stability in their declining years?

On the issue of regional development, I have already mentioned that we must calculate our infrastructure funding properly. We do not have enough money to do that. We should not pretend to ourselves that we have enough money — we do not, so we need to get it from some other source. Usually we look to Europe, but I think that that is a "well-milked cow", if Members will forgive the expression. The obvious source of the money, which we paid for and were denied over the years, is the Treasury in London. That should be our primary target.

I am aware that I have taken more time than I should have done to address the issue, but with such a broad canvas to fill, matters must be skipped through. We have a new beginning here, as the First Minister said in his introduction. It is exciting to have this vade mecum of politics, which we can finger through to see where we are at any given time, in any given year. I hope that it is not only reactive to our current problems, but that it will be proactive in anticipating problems, and will be amenable and changeable enough to take on board any issues that circumstances may throw up — not least in the farming and rural communities. I support the Programme for Government, and I reject the unwarranted criticism in the amendment.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I shall make a few remarks, first as Chairperson of the Committee and then as leader of my party. The main point in this draft Programme for Government which concerned my Committee, when it was committed to us for our approval, was the commitment to rural proofing all Government policy.

The Committee welcomed the principle of rural proofing, but questioned how that could work in practice. At many Committee meetings, we pressed the departmental officials to define rural proofing and to define how Departments, other than the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, would be able to conform to rural proofing.

At a meeting last Friday, officials offered us what they called a working definition of rural proofing. It contained very little indeed — it was a two-page presentation. We were as far forward, after reading the two pages, as we had ever been. At this stage, less than four weeks before the proposed start date for rural proofing, the Department of Agriculture has no real blueprint for it. That is what we have concluded. There was general information, but it did not discuss how the job was to be done.

The main proposal that the Committee saw in that piece of paper was that Departments were to be self- regulatory. There was to be no person or Committee to regulate them. I say to members of other Committees that the Agriculture Committee can only deal with matters relevant to the Department of Agriculture. We shall certainly scrutinise — as we have done heretofore — the actions of the Department of Agriculture. Other departmental Committees may not be committed to rural proofing, but if they are, they will have to play a unique role in ensuring that their respective Departments conform to rural proofing requirements.

There is little change from the draft as it first appeared. However, there were two new actions mentioned to the Committee. Members saw that the draft programme contained no action points aimed at addressing farm structure or size. Members specifically asked for a scheme to encourage our young people onto the farms. Although additional action — provided by looking into the future, and at the Department’s expectations — falls well short of what the farming community needs, we at least have a sort of nod in the right direction that there may be a pension or retirement scheme.

I urge upon the Minister, and the vision group that she has set up, the need to keep young people on the farms. To do that, those who have given their lives to farming should be adequately provided for in relation to the rainy and stormy day that has indeed come to them.

The second addition is the commitment to introduce — and I know that this lies near to the heart of Mr McGrady, who spoke immediately before me — the decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels.

There is a serious crisis in agriculture, and we pray God that it will not continue and spread as it has done in the rest of the United Kingdom, but we should also recognise the serious plight of our fishing fleet. It is as near to catastrophe as it can be. It is in grave danger of being wrecked on the rocks for ever. That is not my language; it is the language across the board of all who know anything about the fishing industry.

We entered the Common Market, as it was then called, with the highest strength that any Government or nation ever entered the Common Market. We controlled 75% of all the fishing waters around Europe. We do not control any of them today. We do not even have part of a dam that we can sail across and say belongs to us.

Our fishermen have been shut out of fishing waters and have therefore had to change their employment. They now fish for prawns instead of white fish. We are told that that will save the industry, but when our fishermen fish for prawns they scoop up the juvenile white fish, which are thrown back into the waters, dead. The very programme that was supposed to save fishing is destroying it. We have a plight and I do not see any attempt to remedy it. The fishing community is in a very sad state today.

We need to make it known that, under the decommissioning scheme, a person who has kept his boat up to standard and received grants for doing so will have to pay back every grant that he has ever received. When he pays that back, he will have nothing. Therefore, we should not say that there should be a decommissioning scheme. Those are not my words; they are the words spoken by two organisations that represent the whole fishing industry when they addressed the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on Friday.

I note that Mr McGrady is nodding his head in agreement. He knows this story better than anyone else in this House. We are in a very serious position and we need to face up to it. There is no use telling people that we have sympathy for them — we have to be practical. There is a simple remedy that could start now. That remedy is a tie-up scheme whereby boats that cannot fish now are tied up for a season and the fishermen are paid full wages so that they can keep their trained sailors or fishermen and start again when the season changes.

That seems to be the right thing to do. The European Union has a scheme — all the work is done — so why do we not have that scheme? The Scots have greater clout with the UK Government in political matters than we have, and they are now calling for the same scheme. Our only hope is that we can get in on that scheme on their skirts. If we do not, it will be curtains for the fishing community.

There is nothing else that those men can do. They cannot quit and get a job where they are. All that they will be offered in Kilkeel is breaking stones. Many of them are now doing that. They are convicts in the sad arena of their unemployment through no fault of their own. Those are matters to which we need to attend.

I want to take off my hat as Chairperson of the Committee and make some other comments. No country can achieve reasonable stability until its people trust that stability can be achieved.

I am not like the leader of the Alliance Party — I have a mandate from the people. I have submitted myself repeatedly to the electorate. The House must recognise, whether it likes it or not, that the majority of the Unionist population are very unhappy — and that is a very mild term — about what is happening in our country. They do not have faith in what is going on.

There was an argument here today between Mr McCartney and Mr Mallon about what they had said. I keep abreast of what people say — any politician who does not have a good filing cabinet of what his opponents say is not fit to be a politician. The Deputy First Minister is recorded in ‘The Irish Times’ of 16 November 1998 as having said that

"If, by the agreed deadline of April 2000, Sinn Féin’s allies in the IRA have not completed the decommissioning of their arsenals, the SDLP will remove from office those who would have so blatantly dishonoured their obligations."

I find that strange, having heard today’s exchange. Unionists in Northern Ireland are not fools. They have been described as bigots and worse, but the majority of Unionists understand what is happening in this country. The First Minister made a very pleasing statement today —[Interruption]

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the Programme for Government. The Member is discussing matters far removed from that. Should he not be brought to order and told to discuss the Programme for Government?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I am sure that Dr Paisley will come to the main burden of his speech immediately.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

It is strange that the learned Gentleman should take me to task for what I am saying, when I am commenting on a speech that was made by the First Minister. He must not have heard the First Minister’s speech, and there are many —[Interruption]

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

I raise again my point of order.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Dr Paisley should move to the Programme for Government.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am talking about the Programme for Government. I am doing so in a way that it goes to the quick of the questioner. He is sore about it. I can assure him that he will be sorer before I finish. I am sticking to the point — I am sticking to it so well that it is sticking in the Member’s gullet. That is his trouble.

The Programme for Government should establish the basis for good government. The First Minister made a long speech today that had nothing to do with the programme for future Government, but he praised what he said he had already done. Mr Maginness did not get up off his backside to call the First Minister to order then, because it was well pleasing to him to hear such things.

I shall deal with the Programme for Government. The programme must rest on certain bases. First, it must rest on a basis of stability. Of course, the hon Gentleman believes that his allies in IRA/Sinn Féin can hold on to their weaponry and that we shall still have a good basis for stability. He believes that the RUC needs to be denuded and destroyed, and that then we shall have a good basis for stability. He believes many other things that I, and the people who sent me here, do not believe. He can make his own speech and defend what he believes.

Unless we have stability we cannot have a prosperous country in which our people can earn their livelihood, take their children to school, and live and grow up in a place where there is real peace. Northern Ireland is labelled peaceful, but is in fact in internecine war. The events of the past days surely send out a warning to what we may have in the future. We are now on the tomorrow of a bombing in London. Before the end of the week there may be many more acts of atrocity, and every one of them will lead to instability in the Province.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I have been giving you quite a lot of rope. You must realise that we are debating the Programme for Government. Please address that now.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am setting the scene for what should be available if we are to have any government at all. If one does not have the right basis, one cannot move forward. Some people do not want to talk about those matters because they are unpleasant to them, but we had better face them. The man in the street knows that.

I shall give the House an illustration. The First Minister told us about all those things, but he missed out education completely. I wonder why. If we are going to have proper government in this country, and a role for government, we must have proper education for our children. [Interruption]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Integrated education.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Integrated education or whatever education you like — that is not my issue today.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Dr Paisley, please address your remarks through the Chair.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish you would direct Members not to talk from a sedentary position. They should address their comments through the Chair after rising to speak in the proper way.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I fully agree with what the Member says, and I ask Members to adhere to that.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Surely we should all agree that every section of the community should have the benefits of education, and that education should be fairly administered. It is not so in the Province. There are independent Christian schools, to which the Department of Education refuses to give one penny piece. That is a fact — and I happen to know the facts.

The Sinn Féin/IRA Minister recently announced how he was going to package the money for the good government that we are told we have. Every day I come to the House I pass Strandtown Primary School. I know that school well — three of my children and my good wife received their primary education there. The Minister speaks of good education and a role for the Government, but let us hear what Dr Desmond Hamilton, the principal of that school, had to say when he saw the money that is to be handed out to other schools but not to the state schools:

"We are the closest primary school to Stormont but out of our eight mobile classrooms, five are not fit for rearing chickens. They are in a deplorable condition and in urgent need of replacement."

The state sector of education is no longer a Protestant sector. There is as much integration in state schools as there is in the so-called integrated schools.

The Minister is going to hand out £25·5 million to the Roman Catholic schools and £14·3 million to the integrated schools. The hon Lady has been crying here about integrated education. It represents only 4% of the children, yet it is going to get £14·3 million.

The state schools, which have mobile classrooms not fit for chickens, are going to get the miserable sum of £12·7 million, although they have 45% of the entire school population. Then we are told that this Government is a good Government. We are told that this is the Government that we should sponsor and help.

However, when we look at the figures, we also discover that the Member who has some connections in his previous offices with the city of Londonderry hands the vast amount of money to Roman Catholic schools in that city. Those are the facts. Even some of the Official Unionists were worried about those facts; even they got disturbed. Surely those are matters that have to do with government and with the good government of this country.

Where are the people who are all for fair play to others? I have not heard a squeak from the SDLP or the Women’s Coalition about that. I have not heard a squeak from anybody but those on the Unionist side of the House about this. Why? Because an attempt is being made to paint a picture that is not one of reality.

I trust that if we get good government it will be fair government that will give to each section of the community what it deserves and is entitled to have. If things had gone the other way and a Minister had got up and given that large percentage to state education and not given as much to integrated education which got more than its fair share, there would have been an uproar in the House. However, that it is not so today. The First Minister wanted to sweep that matter under the carpet so that it might all be forgotten.

No, things are not happy in this Province. The ordinary Unionist voter understands that, and I am thankful that some day at the polls — whether in April or May or after the marching season matters not — a stop will be put to surrender concessions. The Ulster people are not going to change. They have made up their minds that the time has come for those who say they should be in Government to carry responsibility. They are not fit to be in Government if they do not.

We are reaping the sad sowing of what people hailed in this House as liberation day — a day of jubilee — but this has been a day of the forging of chains, of the breaking of oaths and of dishonesty. There has already been a sad reaping, and there will be an even sadder reaping.

I wish to discuss hospitals for a moment. All Members should take a day off and visit some hospitals. If they did, they would see what the doctors, nurses, patients and the general public must cope with. They would see what distracted families must endure when they take their sick relatives to hospital for admission. They are sent away, because operations cannot be done. Some people have been sent away three times. How do they feel? Some have gone through the motions of preparing for an operation three times. On each occasion a doctor suddenly appeared and told them that the operation could not be done and that they would be called again. That has been repeated again and again.

Members should sit in waiting rooms and listen to the general public’s complaints. We should listen to what the doctors say. We should speak to those hard worked nurses and attendants. Then we would realise that all is not well in the hospital system and Health Service. When doctors and specialists tell us that they leave Northern Ireland, it is time for us to abandon the programme that we think is going to save our Health Service and adopt one that really can.

We live in days in which we have large problems. Those problems will not go away unless there is dedication, hard work and a plan that at least has some hope of success. To keep pursuing a plan that has not produced the goods is folly. At the very least we must have a plan that gives us some hope at the end of a hard, rocky and mountainous road.

The First Minister was very hard on my son today when he asked questions. I have the Civic Forum’s report. It is an elaborate book printed on the finest art paper, which must have cost thousands of pounds to produce. I have not seen printing like it before.

The Assembly — the elected body — cannot print its reports on solid art paper. However, the Civic Forum can. It was not dealing with a Programme for Government; it was dealing only with a response to a draft programme, and yet it requires all this expense.

At the end of the report — and I am sure the Women’s Coalition will welcome it — the Civic Forum includes many lovely pages on which to make notes. Therefore, one only gets the content, but pages for your notes — all on the finest art paper. Yet the First Minister complains when a Member of the House asks questions.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I thank the Member for his point about the notes at the back of the report being handy for the Women’s Coalition. We appreciate the opportunity to write, learn and tell as much as we can.

Is the Civic Forum document not proof of the valuable work that that body is doing, in that the amount of detail it went into helped our deliberations on the Programme for Government?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I have never listened to such rubbish. I was not talking about the report’s contents; I was talking about the printer’s work. Does the Forum’s report have to be printed on the finest art paper?

I wonder whether the Member, if she is a candidate at the next election, will tell of the day she fought a lonely battle for art paper for the report of the Civic Forum.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

We are getting a little far away from the Programme for Government.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

You allowed her to do it.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Dr Paisley, we have only until 6.00 pm this evening, which is another 25 minutes or so. Will you — I am not by any means saying that you must stop — bring your remarks to a close fairly soon and allow at least one other person to speak.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I asked earlier what the time limit was for speaking and was told that there was no limit. Therefore, I can do what we do in the British House of Commons in a similar debate. We travel from Beer-sheba to Dan and from Dan to Beer-sheba, and I intend to do that. I intend to make my remarks on this Government. After all, this Government should be prepared to stand up to scrutiny.

Surely we should be allowed to debate and discuss this wonderful blueprint for future blessings on a land flowing with milk and honey. Why do you, Mr Deputy Speaker, want to stop me? You once stopped me when you wore a certain uniform — you stopped me dead in my tracks. However, I am not going to be stopped tonight; I am going to go on. I digressed to give Ms Morrice an opportunity to defend fine art paper for the report of the Forum, but that is past and gone.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I referred to its contents.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I can assure the Member that there is no art in its contents. She should read it. She must have a poor view of art. I may not have a very high view of art, but I have some view of it, for my daughter is an artist, as the Member well knows. I say to the Member that I see no art in this document — [Interruption].

I am going to go on, and I am not going to be distracted by the Women’s Coalition. I have given that party enough publicity, and I want to go on.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

So long as you go on, Dr Paisley, on the Programme for Government.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am on pages 1 to 205. I do not know what stupidity this House can have in its membership when it actually asks me what page I am on — I have not even completed my introduction. I have no intention of saying, "Finally, brethren". The people who sit here are not my brethren, so I could not address them as such.

I was referring to the fact that you did once stop me in my tracks, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I got going again, and I am going to get going again now on this matter.

Mr McGrady said that we have one shortage, which is money, and he was absolutely right. Those things cannot be retrieved without finance. Unfortunately for us, those people who negotiated with Europe were never able to entend to us the benefits that came from Europe to the other part of this island, which got £5 million every day from European coffers. That, of course, has ceased. Anybody could work a good economy if they had £5 million put into their pocket every day. If we had had £5 million put into our pocket every day, and if that money had been well spent and invested, Ulster would be a different place to live in today.

We have to look at where we can get the money. First, charity begins at home, so there could be a pruning of over-government in Northern Ireland. There is far too much government in Northern Ireland. For instance, there are 10 Departments in the Assembly, and we need only five. We have a superabundance of Ministers, and yet when there is an agricultural crisis not one can be spared to deputise for the Minister of Agriculture when she is away.

I do not know why another Minister cannot stand in for an absent Colleague, as is done in other places. Here, Ministers cannot even cover for a Colleague who has to attend to something of vital importance. I am not criticising the Agriculture Minister for wanting to go to a meeting with the Prime Minister about the crisis; I am sure that she needed to go. However, there was no reason why Mr Nesbitt who is, I understand, a very capable man — he thinks he is, anyway, and he seems quite happy with my eulogy — could not have made a statement. Mr Nesbitt and Mr Haughey serve in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, so why could one of them not have made a statement on agriculture? After all, they have very little to do; they do not have a portfolio.

Northern Ireland is over-governed and the time has come when the Executive need to cut out the nonsense of printing reports on art paper and reduce the amount of money that is spent. Today, I learned that the Assembly is going to enlarge its camp. It is going to lengthen its cords and strengthen its stakes. Another property will be taken over because, it is said, the Assembly does not have enough room. Where will it end?

Northern Ireland needs money. There are untapped benefits in Europe, including agrimoney that we should have had long ago. The money was not drawn down from Europe, because the Government were so ham-fisted. However, because of the foot-and-mouth plague, the Government are going to draw it down now. There are opportunities to get large sums of money from Europe that could be used in the agriculture industry if the United Kingdom Government were prepared to bring in match funding.

I met a group of men today from the abattoir and meat-processing industries. Their plants are closed down; their rate bill is £500 per day. They do not want to sack every member of staff, because, if they do so, they will put families in jeopardy. If they reopen, their whole business would be in jeopardy.

There is an opportunity to get money in Europe to help such people to stay in business until they are able to do business. Where is the compensation that we hear talked about? Others have lost out and others still will lose out. If the machinery of agriculture — Northern Ireland’s largest industry — is destroyed, how will the story end? The Assembly should demand that the Government show the will to ensure that the industry is not destroyed. That responsibility rests with those in the Departments who know the story and know how much money is needed.

I agree with Mr McGrady. It is vital that the necessary money be made available to keep the industry ticking over. We hope that the industry will get back into gear, although we cannot be sure that it will. The fishing industry has the same requirements. Every possible European subsidy should be investigated. Northern Ireland deserves to have them, and they should be exploited to the hilt.

Matters such as planning concern all of us. I do not know how other Members feel but I felt very sore when I walked up a farm laneway with a man who had borne the burden and heat of the day in the farming life of our Province and he told me that he was not allowed to build a house for his daughter on any part of his land. His wife had doctors’ certificates that stated that she needed her daughter to live beside her, but still they were turned down. I could spend hours bringing records to the House to show that that scenario is repeated over and over again.

That was on land near Slemish, and the planner had the cheek to tell me that there was no room for gates on the property, so a house could not be built there. I asked him where it stated in his remit that a house had to have a gate and a wall on which to hang a gate. There was a tree beside the opening and I said that the owner would attach a gate to the tree. The planner said that he would not accept that. However, he was eventually overruled and the man was able to build a house for his daughter who needed to be near her mother.

I disagree with planning like that. The people who live on the land should have the gains of the land. Planning must be in proportion to need. Where there is need in a rural district, a farmer should be entitled to planning permission. He should also be allowed to develop his land. I attended a planning appeal at which a man was told that he could build five houses on his property but that he would not get planning permission if he intended to put them up for sale. I said that it was his land and asked why, since he was in difficulty, he could not build houses and sell them. The Housing Executive then came along and built 25 houses one field away.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Is the Member talking about Kircubbin?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

No. It was in north Antrim: dear, lovely north Antrim, far better than County Down.

That man was prohibited from building. It would have given him something for his retirement, a house for a member of his family, and he could have sold the rest. However, the Housing Executive came along and built 25 houses one field away. There is something wrong with the planning laws. I am not in favour of building houses where they ought not to be, but many houses are built in such places. Before I became a Member of Parliament I was not bothered about that, but now when I drive along the road I look at every house and I wonder how some people ever got planning permission. Members would be amazed where permissions have been granted. We produced a report that said that that matter needs to be addressed and that there must be a realistic view of planning.

If the farmers are in difficulty and if, all things being equal, they can build property and sell it, they should be encouraged to do that and get some money back from their heritage. Who could refuse that particular proposition?

Then, of course, roads need a great injection of cash — even the roads in beautiful south Down. I used to spend my holidays there, in a place called Killowen. It is a lovely place, and I go along that way whenever I am in the area, just for old times sake. However, the roads have deteriorated. If roads are not maintained they reach a state where they need a very large injection of money. There is no way that one can build a road, say that it will do, and then use it continuously. When the time comes to upgrade it there is a tremendous amount of work to do. Rural roads need to be attended to, and attended to speedily. We must have an infrastructure that is safe and that is continually being improved. That is another part of the trouble with which we need to concern ourselves.

That might bring me to page 67 of the document, but I am glad that I made a moving speech, and that I talked my opposition away. I always like to make a moving speech and get people away who will not listen to sense.

What about this whole programme? What about the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety? What about social services? Mr McGrady talked about the elderly. We need to think about the elderly. I visited a home, and the lady who lives there said to me, "I have lost my home help, I do not have her any more." What did the home help do? She lit a fire, made a cup of tea and enquired about the lady’s health. That was all the home help did, but she was the anchor of that elderly woman’s life, and now that anchor has been removed. When I meet and talk to old people they tell me about the terrible events that are happening — burglaries, old people being raped and other tragedies. Some of them live in desperate, terrible fear.

I have been a minister of religion for more than 54 years. I have visited thousands of homes. I know what I am talking about. The elderly deserve our best, but they are not getting it. We have a responsibility towards them.

I could go on and talk about many matters that are crying out for help, but we come back to the fact that unless we create stability, unless we create trust, unless our families can be educated in peace, unless we can get rid of those who harbour arms and use them, unless we get rid of those who cause explosions and maim and kill and destroy society we shall not be able to. We have a colossal task. Sometimes we shall despair. However, we must remember that it is not to despair that we are called into this world; it is to triumph. We can do the job if we are prepared to pay the price. I hope that this Province of ours has people who are prepared to pay that price so that we can get the job done for the better future of us all.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Thank you, Dr Paisley. We have listened with great attention to your quite lengthy discourse. Unless there is Member who is prepared to speak for five minutes only, we should adjourn until tomorrow.

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

I wholly defend Dr Paisley in the time he took to make that fine speech, which covered many topics. Shall I, as the Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, and other Members be allowed a similar length of time tomorrow?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

We shall spend tomorrow morning debating the Programme for Government. We must wait and see how much ground we can cover in that time. Undoubtedly, you will be called to speak tomorrow. However, the next person on my list is Mr Maskey. I hope to see all of you tomorrow after prayers.

The debate stood suspended.

Adjourned at 5.57 pm.