Northern Ireland Assembly, 12 March 2001

114 contributions from 44 members. The official report.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

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)

As a result of new information that became available over the weekend, I have adjusted my statement. The revised statement will be available in the Business Office.

I am grateful for this opportunity to update Members on the foot-and-mouth disease situation as it has developed over the past week. Since making my last statement on this subject there have been no futher outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Ireland. My efforts have been devoted to ensuring that that remains the case and to discussing with the industry how we can deal with the practical issues which flow from the present situation. As time goes on, we can be increasingly hopeful that we have been able to nip what could have been a major disaster for the agri-food industry — north and south of the border — in the bud.

The process has required enormous effort on the part of Department of Agriculture and Rural Development staff. We have slaughtered and incinerated some 2,500 cattle, sheep, pigs and goats that were in contact with infection. We have been manning the checks at the points of entry to and exit from the 1km zone around the outbreak area — 24 hours a day — for almost two weeks. The helpline which I established on 21 February to deal with queries had, by last Tuesday, handled over 12,500 enquiries, including over 3,000 on one day alone. This has been a huge operation by any standards, and I want to take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the efforts of all the staff concerned over the past few days.

I am acutely aware, of course, of the enormous impact that the outbreak has had on farmers, the public and the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland. My officials and I have been meeting with all sectors at regular intervals, collectively or individually as appropriate, to hear at first hand about the practical impact of the disease and the effects that our controls have had on it, and to see how we can help.

My officials have also been having regular meetings with the RUC and the Army to keep them up to date with the situation, to explore how our controls are working on the ground and to sort out any difficulties. Contrary to what has been portrayed by some sections of the media, I have no difficulty at all in seeking and obtaining RUC and Army assistance where I thought it was needed, and they have duly provided it.

The foot-and-mouth disease situation in GB is much less happy, and there are as yet no signs that the outbreaks there have been contained. The contrasting situations there and here vindicate my decision on 21 February to ban imports from GB of the relevant livestock and products. I know that that decision has caused problems for various parts of the industry and, indeed, the public. However, this is a price which simply has to be paid to protect us from foot-and-mouth disease.

So far as the Republic of Ireland is concerned, I met with Joe Walsh TD last Wednesday to compare our respective situations. The Irish Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and his officials were able to assure me that, while they have a number of herds restricted on a precautionary basis, foot-and-mouth disease has not been found in the Republic. The situation remains that there is no justification for controls on imports of animals or produce from the Republic over and above those that have already been imposed at EU level.

As time has moved on, the emphasis of our work has shifted away from containment and eradication to other issues. After the outbreak in County Armagh, it was necessary for the Department to follow up all instances where animals had moved to Northern Ireland and had been traded illegally. That we have now done, and the papers have been passed to the RUC so that the necessary actions can be taken against those responsible.

At this point I need to depart slightly from the wording of the printed version of my statement, which went to Members on Friday, to take account of the latest information I have received over the weekend. There are now anecdotal reports that the consignment of sheep which came from GB and which led to our single outbreak in Armagh may — and I stress the word "may" — have been larger than we had been led to believe.

My staff are presently working with the various police forces to get to the bottom of this, but we are receiving little co-operation from those who are under suspicion, which makes the task much more difficult. Until our enquiries into this new information are complete, I am unable to state categorically that all the potentially infected animals have been traced and accounted for. This matter is being pursued with the utmost urgency, and I will update Members as soon as I can. I want to emphasise that we need as much information as possible, and I appeal to anyone who has any information to let me or the Department have it immediately.

Understandably, people’s minds are now turning to the financial aspects of this outbreak. In broad terms, current Government policy is that compensation is paid only for anything the Government require to be destroyed — whether animals or, for example, feed. My Department is processing the compensation claims we have received, and payment will issue shortly. We are, as Members would expect, looking at all those claims to ensure that those responsible for the illegal trading which was at the root of this outbreak do not benefit further from it. We are also arranging to pay out as soon as possible as many subsidy payments as we can in order to help farmers’ immediate cash-flow situations.

Members will have noted from what I have said that there is no provision for compensation for consequential losses.

While I realise that many businesses are losing substantial amounts of money as a result of the foot-andmouth disease crisis, the financial implications for Government of compensating for those losses is potentially enormous. Nevertheless, I know that Ministers in Great Britain will be under pressure to pay compensation for such losses, and obviously I will be stressing that any change in policy in that area will have to apply in Northern Ireland too.

As the present controls begin to bite, we are all becoming aware of the practical problems that they cause and I am increasingly being asked to make exceptions in relation to particular situations and activities. The fundamental principle under which I have been working, and will continue to work, is that my prime objective is to prevent any further foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in Northern Ireland and to ensure that should the virus still be present somewhere in Northern Ireland, its spread will be limited. So, while I will, of course, look at particular problems thrown up by our controls, I am simply not prepared to agree to any relaxation which may undermine that prime objective.

Looking to the future, it is imperative that all of us continue to exercise the utmost vigilance against the threat of foot-and-mouth disease. As the days go by with no fresh outbreaks here, there will be an understandable temptation to drop our guard. However, with such a major disease outbreak on our doorstep, that must not happen, and I urge everyone, whether involved in the agri-food industry or not, to adhere to the guidelines issued last week by the Executive Committee.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute again to our hard-pressed farmers and to the wider agri-food industry for their continued fortitude in the face of this crisis, and to assure them that I will continue to do everything that I can to help.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I remind Members that we have one hour for questions to the Minister and that they should be questions rather than statements.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I congratulate the Minister on all the steps that she has taken, and pay tribute to all her staff. I know that we are going through a very difficult time. One of the main issues, which we cannot get away from, is that yesterday in Great Britain was one of the biggest days for outbreaks since this foot-and-mouth crisis began. This emphasises a point raised in the Minister’s statement this morning — that we cannot afford to drop our guard. I hope that people will bear that in mind. Again — to quote the Minister — it can be short-term pain for long-term gain. I read a press statement in the paper at the weekend —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Can we get to the question.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I will come to my question; I am building up to it.

In the statement there were comments made that those responsible for this outbreak in the very first place would be immune from prosecution if they were to come forward with information. I was surprised to read that in the press. I urge the Minister not to go in that direction.

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

I too have read those reports in the paper. I assure Mr Savage that my departmental fraud investigation unit, the veterinary service enforcement unit and the serious crime squad of the RUC are meeting again this morning to take forward the issue of investigations into the individuals concerned.

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

The Minister has our full support in the restrictions she has imposed. However, looking to the medium or long term, the Minister will be aware that many social, sporting and cultural organisations have cancelled or postponed events because of the crisis. Can she give any indication when she believes the controls can be relaxed?

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

I understand the concern that is out there. Before I answer the question, I want to pay tribute to the many sporting organisations such as the Gaelic Athletic Association and those involving soccer and rugby and, indeed, other event organisers who have so willingly co-operated in a situation that makes life very difficult, not only for those participating in the sports but also from the commercial interest point of view. I do appreciate that.

It is extremely difficult — even more so when one has people who are still not co-operating — to be sure of when this crisis will end. As soon as my veterinary advice tells me that there is a possibility of relaxing the controls in any way, I will review the situation. However, given the additional information that I received over the weekend, there is absolutely no question of relaxing the controls at the moment and I want to make that clear. Whenever it is possible, be it in a week or so, we will review the situation with a view, possibly, to making some adjustments to the present restrictions.

In relation to the east-west trade, however, and given the situation in Great Britain, it will be a fairly long time before we can afford to make any adjustment to the present restrictions on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement and for bringing this additional information to our attention. I note that the papers are with the RUC. I hope that prosecution will be swift, certain and severe and that an example will be made of the reprobates who did this to the industry in Northern Ireland. I trust that the Minister agrees.

With regard to the additional information that the Minister gave us this morning, I have two questions. If the beasts have not all been traced, can she give the House an idea of how many of them are unaccounted for? Have the Republic of Ireland Government confirmed to the Minister how many have been slaughtered in its jurisdiction and sold on to France as Irish lamb?

Turning to the issue of compensation, has the Minister been able to calculate the loss to the Northern Ireland tourist industry and the agri-food sector? Does she agree, and can she give a commitment to the House, that now is the time to put together a special case for widespread compensation in order to assist the entire sector in Northern Ireland that has been affected by this terrible disease?

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

I thank Mr Paisley for his questions. There seemed to be not two but rather three or four. However, I will try to deal with them.

First, there are possibly 60 animals that are unaccounted for, but, given the manner in which these illegally traded animals have been moved about, it is impossible to be absolutely certain of the number. It is not clear whether they are here or in the Republic. To the best of my knowledge, there have been 4,500 animals slaughtered in the Republic to date as a precaution.

In relation to animals’ being slaughtered in the Republic and sold on, the Member is aware that under the current EU regulation, processing plants are not required to designate the country of origin or the country of slaughter on their produce; they merely have to give details on where it was processed. That will be a matter for the Republic. I do not want to comment on that, but it is perfectly legitimate to have animals processed in another state and then have them exported elsewhere as produce of a particular processing plant.

The loss to the tourist industry is not a matter that comes within my remit; it falls to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, as the Member will know. I cannot, at this stage, give the Member any such figures, but I do understand the real difficulties being faced by the tourist industry and empathise with it. The sooner these people are brought before the courts and prosecuted and the Department gets all the information it needs, the sooner normal trading and business will be resumed in the industry. However, there will still be problems for the tourist industry, given the situation in Great Britain.

As the Member knows, farmers will receive 100% compensation for each animal. The slaughter premium that they will lose will be added to the market value.

Mr Paisley’s question is also concerned with cash flow difficulties. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is doing everything possible to ensure that farmers are receiving cash as quickly as possible via subsidies in other areas.

Consequential compensation is a matter for decision at national level. My monthly ministerial meeting with Nick Brown and the other regional Ministers will take place next Wednesday, and I have already asked Mr Brown to put consequential compensation on the agenda.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. Last year I wrote to her Department about the practice of spreading blood from slaughtering plants on to farmland. At that time I had grave concerns about the implications of that for the spread of diseases, particularly BSE. However, given the rapid spread of foot-and-mouth disease, can the Minister say whether that practice is still going on in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and whether it will continue?

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

I cannot give a specific answer now, but I will give the Member a written answer.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, but I am sure that I am not the only Member who is concerned about the additional information that the Minister brought to the House this morning. I am sure that there is a unanimous feeling that there should be no immunity from prosecution for those people responsible for bringing foot-and-mouth disease to Northern Ireland. Does the Minister think that there should be a reward scheme for those people who may be in a position to provide tip-offs? Some people who work for dealers may be in a position to supply information that would benefit the police and the Minister’s officials in following up the issue.

At the Agriculture Committee meeting last Friday, I asked Dr McCracken about the issue of permits for special movement of animals where welfare conditions required it. Dr McCracken highlighted the issue of dairy heifers coming close to calving. Will the Minister confirm that that is still an option, despite these further concerns? Obviously we will expect the Department to maintain the highest standards of scrutiny for any possible effect on the disease.

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

The investigations should be allowed to run their course. That is my priority. My officials are having one of their regular meetings with the RUC this morning in order to bring forward the investigations.

Animals can only be moved for welfare reasons under licence authorised by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. That is due to the risk involved.

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that it would be inconsistent and hypocritical to allow the St Patrick’s night function to take place in this Building, with up to 500 people from all over Northern Ireland due to attend?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

That is not in order.

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

Will the Minister call for that function to be cancelled?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

That is not a matter for the Minister. I would like the Assembly to take note that the Speaker is considering the matter. It is under review, and a decision is expected shortly.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your ruling, but an advertisement has been placed in the newspaper, with advice from the Assembly’s Executive for the public and other bodies to cancel events. Therefore it is right that the Minister should involve herself and give some direction to the Speaker on this matter.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Speaker will take account of that advice in making his decision.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I hope I do not incur the Deputy Speaker’s wrath with my question.

I welcome the statement, and I congratulate the Minister on what she has done so far. I am sure that she has had very little time to spend with her family. It must be the same for her officials also, due to the amount of work that they have put in.

I have a serious question, which needs to be answered. I am totally confused about the way in which we are dealing with this matter. There are hundreds of people in this building today. Some have come from rural communities and others come from farming communities. My difficulty is in that we are telling people that they cannot go to events.

At the weekend, Rangers and Celtic fans travelled to Scotland to watch football, and they mingled with people from the community there. Some of them will be back today. Manchester United’s match was called off. If it had not been called off people from both sides of the border would have travelled to the match. There would have been large numbers of people involved — not just a couple of hundred.

Why have the Minister and others called for the cancellation of junior soccer and Irish League soccer, considering that one of the matches cancelled was between Cliftonville and Crusaders in north Belfast, which does not have a rural community? There are probably more people in the Chamber today than would attend that match.

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

I thank Mr Hutchinson for his kind remarks and his consideration for the problems my family are going through. I will pass his comments on to my husband — it might go some way towards compensation. I assure the Member that he has not incurred my wrath, for his question is perfectly legitimate. I understand that there is confusion.

The Executive Committee have issued guidelines which people need to look at and apply to their own situation as individuals or as organisers of events. The guidelines were worked out on the basis of clear advice from the experts, who are the Chief Veterinary Officer and other veterinary officers.

With regard to events and public amenities, the guidelines state that events in urban areas, which do not involve large numbers of people travelling from England, Scotland or Wales, can go ahead. I am not aware that I have asked for any junior soccer to be postponed. It would be crazy not to go ahead with junior soccer in urban areas that involves only people from urban areas. However, it is understandable that large numbers of people should not travel from England, Scotland or Wales given the present situation across the water.

I cannot ask Celtic, Rangers or my own team — Manchester United — to cancel their games, for many people across the water go to them, and that is their business. I am trying to protect the Northern Ireland industry. People who travel to those matches should look at the guidelines. For instance, if they are farmers abiding by the guidelines of fortress farms, in their own interests they should not travel to those matches. That is the first rule.

The first line of defence is the farmer himself. Secondly, anyone in a rural community, or in touch with farming people, land or animals, should certainly not be travelling across the water at this time. I ask individuals to take responsibility for themselves. It is impossible to police every person. The guidelines are there and the implications of foot-and-mouth disease coming in to Northern Ireland have been spelt out. I am simply asking for continued public support.

If someone from north Belfast, the lower Shankill, west Belfast or another urban area is a supporter of either of those teams and is going across there and coming back here again, the risk is possibly not as great. It depends on whom they are in contact with when they are over there. It is impossible to legislate for everyone. In relation to large crowds coming to events over here, the guidelines clearly state that in urban areas, events which do not involve large numbers of people from England, Scotland or Wales should go ahead, but if they do involve such visitors, then cancellation should be considered.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for all that she has done over the past weeks on foot-and-mouth disease. I have some concerns. Can the Minister assure me and the House that she will encourage the United Kingdom Minister for Agriculture, Mr Nick Brown, and the Prime Minister to put measures in place that will ensure persons or traffic at ports are monitored, especially if they have been in contact with farmers on the UK mainland?

My biggest worry is that foot-and-mouth disease could be brought across to this Province on clothes or vehicles because of lack of precautions at the ports on the UK mainland. I do not think that precautions at the UK mainland ports are as stringent as those in our own country. When a person or vehicle from the UK mainland comes into Northern Ireland carrying foot-and-mouth disease, it is there, and you cannot send it back.

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

I agree with the Member and share his concern. I will be reviewing, and possibly tightening further, the GB controls. I visited Larne last week to see for myself and was entirely satisfied by the enormous effort being put in by my staff and by the vet in charge there. Not only were the lorries there going through a very wet and squelchy disinfectant mat when they arrived; they were then being brought into the yard and sprayed with disinfectant. I saw that for myself.

We have now ensured that mats have been placed on ships and boats, so that lorry drivers, in particular, who would otherwise simply drive off, have to go through the mats on the boat before they get into their lorries. That measure was not there before. Our measures are very strict and well adhered to, but I will be keeping them under review. It is an issue that I will be discussing next Wednesday at the ministerial meeting. As the situation in GB worsens, we have to keep our controls very tightly under review.

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

Like other Members, I commend the Minister and her officials on their tremendous work and their dedication to this particular problem. I am sure that every Member is concerned that there may be some animals that have not been traced. We hope that that problem is resolved as quickly as possible. In view of her statement, will the Minister look at particular problems thrown up by the existing controls? Is she aware of that substantive economic sector in the agriculture community — horse-breeding? The studding of the mares must be carried out at this time of the year, within a particular time frame.

Can she examine the controls and negotiate with the Republic of Ireland’s Minister of Agriculture so that carefully controlled licensing of movement between mares and stud farms can be facilitated thus allowing the industry to survive the season? If this cannot be achieved within the next couple of weeks then the breeding season will be cancelled until next year.

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

That is a very relevant question because specific problems are being faced by the equine industry at the moment. Horses are not susceptible to the disease, but they can be carriers. I assure Mr McGrady that my chief agricultural officer had a productive meeting with equine industry representatives at the end of last week. Some adjustments to the controls have been made and, as a result, the industry has expressed satisfaction with the current position. Mares can be brought in to foal, and, in welfare situations — where they cannot be treated on the premises — horses can be brought to the vet under licence. At the moment, all animal movement is permitted only under strict licence.

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

How does the Minister expect the co- operation of farmers to restrict the spread of foot-and- mouth disease when Greenmount Agricultural College was spreading cattle slurry on land at a rented farm last Thursday? I am sure the Minister is aware that the spread of foot-and-mouth disease is a risk, but so is the spread of brucellosis — and I believe that Greenmount has had an outbreak of this disease. Has the Minister and her chief veterinary officer considered the risk in spreading animal slurry? What steps can be taken to prevent it in the future?

Will the Minister consider that there may be an opportunity to reduce the number of cattle being transported across the Province by suspending the over-30-month cull until the end of the incubation period? These animals are being slaughtered at Langford Processors, Largy Road, Crumlin. This transportation and slaughter is not necessary, and it is putting neighbouring farms at risk. Can the Minister give this House constructive advice on the issue?

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

My Chief Veterinary Officer advises me that slurry spread is not a problem, and I have been guided throughout this crisis by his expert advice. I cannot comment on Greenmount, except to say that it is not a problem.

I am not aware of the situation regarding transport of cattle for the over-30-months scheme cull. I know that cattle are being transported for slaughter because that is essential in order to keep the food chain going. It is carried out on the basis of cattle going straight from farm to slaughterhouse in order to minimise risk. All over-30-month scheme cattle are going direct to slaughter and not through the marts. The old practice of collecting cattle from different farms before taking them to be slaughtered is not happening.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement and her prime objective of preventing further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. Does she think that the continued running of events in Belfast will give the wrong message to the public?

Hugh Byrne, who is a Minister in the Southern Government, said today that Britain was now the leper in Europe. We seem to have a "business as usual" attitude in the face of the foot-and-mouth crisis across the water. Should people not have a more responsible attitude in terms of cohesion and how we approach the whole subject, in relation to events in Belfast that bring large numbers of people from rural areas, and, in particular, the meeting of the General Assembly of the Free Presbyterian Church at the Odyssey complex next weekend? [Interruption]

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

I thank Mr McHugh for his question.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ian Paisley Jnr called Mr McHugh a papish bigot. Will you rule on that? [Interruption] Madam Deputy Speaker, I am only after being called a papish bigot as well. [Interruption]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I remind Members that they must temper their language. The dignity of the House must never be compromised.

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

Such remarks are unfortunate at a time of crisis for such an important industry.

One of the issues that we must face when holding events is that of public confidence. We need to protect our industry, and we need to ensure that there is a proportionate response and not an overreaction. As the guidelines spell out, there will be events in urban areas that can go ahead with minimal risk. I can only appeal to the public and to those holding events to look at the guidelines, apply them to their own situation and take whatever action they feel is responsible and necessary.

The first line of defence against this disease lies with the farmer. Therefore people in rural communities, and particularly on farms, must not go to any such event in case they bring back infection. They must take responsibility for the availability of disinfectant and so forth as they go in and out of their farms. The "fortress farmer" attitude is important.

I will not comment on other remarks made by other people, except to say that in relation to this crisis I have had full co-operation from Minister Walsh in the Republic and I am entirely satisfied that that co-operation has been working well. Minister Walsh is on record as saying that we have been in constant contact and that he is entirely satisfied with the co-operation. Both Departments have been in contact on an hourly basis, and sometimes on a half-hourly basis — particularly my Chief Veterinary Officer, Dr Bob McCracken, and the chief vet in the South. There is entire satisfaction that everything is being done to keep foot-and-mouth disease off the island of Ireland.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I note with concern the Minister’s additional remarks regarding some untraced sheep. I thank her for bringing that matter promptly to the attention of the House. It is clear why she cannot be completely specific about this. I note the Minister’s assertion that she will not be relaxing controls for as long as she deems that there is a risk to justify them. I assure her of my full support in taking that stand. I trust that she will err consistently on the side of caution until we reach the end of this episode.

Further to the points raised by Billy Hutchinson and Billy Armstrong, I refer again to the vexed question of travel to and from Scotland. Surely the Minister has noted, as we all have, the severe clustering of cases of foot-and- mouth in the Scottish border counties. Unfortunately, these are absolutely adjacent to the main arterial routes that both cars and lorries travel up and down to get to Northern Ireland. There is an inconsistency and vagueness as to how real we think the threat is of infection being picked up by people travelling in that way.

I understand the restrictions in relation to those who have been on farms, but can the Minister assure the House that everything is being done to ensure that infection is not being brought in completely innocently by other people travelling through those areas?

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

It is impossible for me to say that I am completely confident of anything, given the situation I face and the amount of illegal trading that has gone on. This is a real concern, and we will look at how we can tighten our controls where necessary.

I take this opportunity to appeal to people who are travelling and who have been on or near farmland or in infected areas. If they have any doubt at all as to whether there is a risk, I appeal to them to own up on their return and to be disinfected at the port or airport to make sure that they are not carrying the disease.

It is virtually impossible to police everyone. We will continue to keep everything under review, and everything possible is being done at the moment, but we do need the co-operation of the public. People must recognise how important it is. There would be no problem if everyone were to take responsibility for his or her own behaviour, but I cannot categorically assure the House that every person will do that. All I can do is appeal to people to be responsible and to look at the guidelines. The clusters in Scotland are clearly a constant source of worry. A television programme a few nights ago showed the routes taken by trucks and the areas of infection. We can just do our best.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Given this morning’s information, it is timely.

Would she care to comment on the suggested need to formally register legitimate cattle dealers in order to keep track of the movement of all farm animals now or in future?

Can she clear up confusion among the public about whether Northern Ireland’s resident sheep should be tagged?

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

I thank the Member for his question, but I am not sure what the last part meant. We will look at all those issues once we get over this emergency. Clearly, issues will arise from what has happened, and there are lessons to be learnt. Where there is a need to tighten up controls, we will do so.

As the Member will be aware, all Northern Ireland sheep are tagged and can be traced. Any lessons to be learnt from the disastrous events of the last few weeks will be learnt. At the moment, all my efforts are concentrated on trying to ensure that we do not exceed the one case of foot-and-mouth disease that we have.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The news that over 60 animals, which came from the infected area in England, are circulating somewhere in the Irish Republic or in Northern Ireland is alarming. Will the Minister assure us that she is encouraging the RUC to arrest and charge the people responsible for not co-operating with the Ministry of Agriculture on this issue? Furthermore, will she use this experience to clamp down on the illegal smuggling ring that has existed for many years — particularly in south Armagh — and take herd books from those farmers who take many thousands of animals into their herds each year? Those animals seem to go nowhere else. They seem to die on those farms, when in reality they go south of the border.

Will the Minister also act against those cattle dealers who buy calves in marts but have no permits to take them elsewhere? It is quite clear that those animals are being smuggled. Further to that, will she consider taking a case to the Agriculture Minister in England to get compensation for the livestock markets? Their business has been completely stopped, and they have had no income for the last three weeks. Will she support a reduction in their rates?

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

I thank Mr Poots for his five or six questions. In relation to his first few questions, I find it rather strange to be asked if I will encourage the RUC to arrest those responsible. My officials have been meeting — and, indeed, are meeting today — with the RUC and the Department’s fraud unit and veterinary investigation units. They are taking the investigation forward, and I imagine that they are taking it forward for no other reason than to seek the arrest and conviction of those responsible. I sincerely hope that they succeed.

Mr Poots talked about clamping down on illegal smuggling and acting against cattle dealers. These are matters that arise from the present situation, and clearly they will be looked at in the post-mortem of the foot- and-mouth disease outbreak. My concentration and my whole focus is to ensure that the policy objective of keeping Northern Ireland free of foot-and-mouth disease, with the exception of the one case that we have, is achieved.

With regard to the numbers of missing cattle, the figure could be up to 60, but, given the lack of co-operation, I am not certain. Further questioning is under way on that issue.

Mr Poots raised another question to do with compensation or rates; I am not sure which.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My question related to compensation for livestock marts.

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

This is an issue of consequential compensation, and, as I have already stated, this has been put on the agenda for the ministerial meeting next week. I am aware of the problem, but it will be dealt with at national level.

When I met with the auctioneers last week, the issue of rates being paid by the marts was mentioned to me, and I raised this at the interdepartmental meeting of officials, which I chair. Following that meeting the matter has been passed on to the Department of Finance and Personnel, and I expect it to be discussed at today’s Executive meeting.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement and particularly the fact that the door has not been completely closed on compensation for consequential losses. An obvious example of this is a case where a dairy herd may be slaughtered, and the farmer will receive compensation for the livestock but not for the loss of milk products for a number of months. Rural tourism projects in the restricted zone in South Armagh area have been hit very hard due to events having been cancelled, and this has resulted in financial loss. If the Minister does not receive sufficient flexibility in order to make available compensation for consequential losses, can she at least ensure that next year, when her Department is considering grant aid to these projects, that situation will be borne in mind?

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

At this point I am not prepared to make any commitment about what might happen next year. I understand the difficulties that people are facing, and I sympathise with them. I am aware of the cash-flow situation in the farming community, and I would like to inform Mr Murphy that I have taken all necessary steps to alleviate it. Payments of the less favoured area allowances are starting to go out today — and 90% will be paid by the end of March. I have asked my officials to prioritise that so that money is getting into the farmers’ pockets as soon as possible. The balance of the sheep annual premium is being paid in March — this may extend into April — but it is being expedited. The first tranche of the sheep agri-money payment will be made before the end of March, and the balance of the sheep special premium will start to be paid at the beginning of April.

I have tried to do everything possible to ensure that subsidies will flow quickly. I cannot, at this point, make any commitments about what will happen in the future. Clearly, there will be sympathy in the Assembly and in the Executive for the industry’s plight. There will, I hope, be some flexibility when I come to the Minister of Finance and Personnel to look for additional money.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for highlighting the need for vigilance against foot-and-mouth disease by demonstrating the use of a disinfectant at the port of Larne, in my own constituency. Can she assure me that all vehicles and foot passengers are required to pass over disinfected mats?

The Minister referred to illegally traded animals. Does she agree that the absence of individual sheep tagging in the Republic of Ireland has enabled this smuggling to occur with relative ease? Has she raised her concern about this lack of tagging in the Republic of Ireland with her counterpart there? Does she agree that the proof that sheep movements into the Republic of Ireland are associated with this foot-and-mouth outbreak demonstrates the clear need for the Republic of Ireland to introduce sheep tagging — in the same way as in the United Kingdom — to protect animal health in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?

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

My response to the Member’s first question is yes. All vehicles are disinfected, as are all foot passengers who disembark. The problem of sheep tagging in the Republic of Ireland no longer exists because the Republic’s Agriculture Minster has announced that, from now on, tagging is to take place.

Will Mr Beggs please repeat his third question?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that this illegal movement and the fact that there was not proper sheep tagging have jeopardised animal health in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? She will also be aware that the implementation of sheep tagging on all farms in the Republic of Ireland will take some time.

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

Of course, the illegal movement of sheep and the lack of co-operation have created a huge problem for animal health and, particularly, as we have seen, the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. I discussed all of these matters last week with Minister Walsh, and they will be discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council when we meet again.

Animal health is already on the North/South Ministerial Council’s agenda. Officials in both Departments are proposing joint strategies for animal health on the whole island. Mr Beggs’s question was well put, and I appreciate its importance.

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

I join the other Members in paying tribute to the Minister on behalf of the farming community for her ongoing efforts. I share other Members’ anxiety about the addition to this morning’s statement. The Minister stated that up to 60 animals from the controversial consignment may have — and I appreciate that she emphasised the word "may" — slipped through the net. How can the farming community help her to investigate and, if necessary, trace these animals?

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

Mr Bradley has made a good point, but we are not certain that these "additional" animals exist. However, I say to the farming community that it is essential that we get to the bottom of this matter. The entire industry will be aware of the implications of the possible existence of irregularly or illegally traded animals, particularly sheep, with which the infection seems to have started. I appeal to anyone in the farming community, the rural community or anywhere else in Northern Ireland to pass on any scrap of information which might help the investigations to me, to my Department or to the police.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister consider applying the provisions and recommendations on disinfectant precautions to roads on, for example, the Ards Peninsula? Some of the farmers in that area have told me that they would be happy if very strict restrictions were imposed to control any possible outbreak of the disease. At the moment, we are fortunate not to be affected.

What is the Minister’s advice to those farmers who are bringing their cattle and sheep off the hills for winter grazing or moving them close to their farms? What is the correct method of bringing livestock closer to home?

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

With regard to Mr Shannon’s queries about restrictions on the roads, it would simply not be possible for my officials to do this. They are already over-stretched. I visited the Newry office last week, and I was very impressed by the enormous burden of work that those people have been doing since this thing broke out two weeks ago. Some of them have been working around the clock to try to deal with one outbreak. It would be simply impossible to put restrictions on roads just as a precaution.

I must reiterate the need for a fortress farm approach. All farmers, in the Ards Peninsula and elsewhere, need to be aware that they are the first front line of defence. They need to guard their farms and take all necessary precautions. The Ulster Farmers’ Union has emphasised that this is the best way of ensuring that they remain free of the disease.

In answer to the question about sheep, I am aware that there are problems — particularly with bringing ewes down for lambing, and it is the lambing season. Indeed, I met one farmer last week going into the Newry office who had a real problem getting his sheep down for lambing. I am keeping this under review, and I will be guided by the advice of the Chief Veterinary Officer at all times.

Movement of sheep would be very risky at this time. I am not yet in a position to say whether it will become possible to make some adjustment under very strict supervision. I am examining all options and if there is a possibility of any easement on the advice of the Chief Veterinary Officer, I will be prepared to move. However, given the information I have put before the House today, I am extremely reluctant to do anything that might endanger the industry. I know that ewes can lamb on a hill when bedding and straw are put down. It is more difficult, and there is a slight risk of losing the lambs, but I have to balance those risks. Which is the greater — the risk of spreading foot-and-mouth disease or the risk of losing one or two lambs? I am aware of the huge inconvenience.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I would like to thank the Minister for the work she and her officials have done and for her report to the House today.

The additional information supplied today deepens my concern on one count. The Minister has referred to the fortress farm approach to help to restrict the possible spread of foot-and-mouth disease. The Minister has also referred to the safeguards put in place at the ports. In the interests of the fortress Ulster approach, I urge her to be aware of the back door.

We do not know where these 60 animals have disappeared to. The Minister will also be aware of the theory — perhaps anecdotal, perhaps factual — that BSE in the Republic may have been curtailed by the JCB. If that continues to be the case in the Republic, and if there is foot-and-mouth disease there which we are not aware of, would the Minister not consider it circumspect for us to check the borders in the same way that the Irish Republic is checking the border?

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

With thanks, I hope that Mr Hussey is not playing politics with this. Maybe he is not. He may be genuinely concerned.

As I have already said, there is no sign of foot-and- mouth disease in the Republic and the resource implications of closing the border would be enormous at a time when our resources are focused on the essential task of keeping foot-and-mouth disease out of the North. The most important area to patrol is the point of entry from GB, where the disease is spreading at an alarming rate.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I remind Members that there are some seven and a half minutes left and a number of Members wish to put questions. I ask Members and the Minister to be brief.

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

I would like to add my thanks and deep gratitude to the Minister and her Department. The past couple of weeks have been particularly tough in County Armagh, and when the going gets tough, the tough get going, and we very much appreciate the tough way in which the Minister has approached this problem. We also appreciate how well she understands the problems of the farming community in south Armagh that are over and above the problems of the farming community throughout Northern Ireland. When we get through this crisis, will the Minister look at those farms in County Armagh in particular, taking measures to ensure that depleted flocks and herds are replenished, and will she also consider how lost markets can be restored? Will she put in place financial counselling to rebuild lost farm businesses and take such measures as are needed to alleviate the emerging problems in relation to collateral and credit with financial institutions?

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

I thank Mr Fee for his remarks and for his questions. I empathise with what he has said about how the farmers in south Armagh are suffering. I have spoken to some farmers who have lost their herds, and I know the trauma they are suffering. I fully understand that many people will need counselling, and I am considering ways in which farm families can be supported.

I will look sympathetically at all the consequences, and there will be immediate compensation for the loss of animals. Any consequentials will have to be looked at at a national level, and I will raise this issue at the ministerial meeting in London next Wednesday. I cannot go further at this stage, except to say that I sympathise with the farmers. However, my current focus is on eradicating and eliminating the disease.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

First, in view of the 60 untraced animals and the fact that an RUC agriculture fraud squad is virtually having to be established, does the Minister not accept that this calls into question the traceability which was much hailed in recent months?

Secondly, I thank the Minister for arranging compensation payments because a west Tyrone lobby has come to me saying that cash-flow problems are strangling the agriculture industry. Will the Minister move quickly, because farmers are in a desperate situation?

Thirdly, on behalf of the consumer as well as the distressed farmer, why has the cost to the farmer gone up by only three pence per kilo over the past month. From an original high of 172p he is now facing a reduction, whereas, I am told, butchers have faced an increase of 12p? Is there evidence of a meat cartel using foot-and-mouth disease to increase its profits?

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

The problem with untraced animals is not the traceability system; rather, it is that some people have been trading illegally. We will have to look at that and tighten it up. Some people have been acting outside the law, trading illegally and flouting the law.

I thank the Member for recognising the measures that I have taken to deal with cash-flow problems. Last week I also had meetings with the grain trade and the banks. I had a very sympathetic hearing and was assured that they are aware of the cash-flow problems that the agri- food industry and farmers in particular are experiencing. They are prepared to be flexible and will not come down hard on people with real cash-flow problems at present.

In relation to the consumer and the prices being charged, I have no evidence of a cartel, and if there were one I would be very concerned about it. That would be a matter for the Office of Fair Trading. I have met with the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland this week to hear its concerns. I would be extremely concerned if the price of meat was rising at a time when the price of animals was falling. That is a commercial issue that I could not get involved with, but it would be an indication of what could be called an unfair exploitation of farmers at a time when they are in real difficulty.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In relation to Mr Hussey’s comments about fortress Ulster, is that two thirds of the nine counties of Ulster?

Is the Minister satisfied with the measures put in place by the Post Office, given its central role in the matter? I have been informed that farmers from the restricted area of County Armagh have to travel to Newry to collect their post, and in some cases disinfectant matting is not in place. Can the Minister assure me that there is close liaison with Post Offices to ensure that appropriate measures are taken?

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

I consider this particular crisis to be an all-Ireland crisis. It crosses the border, so the term "fortress Ulster" refers to the nine counties. Indeed, it is fortress Ireland at the moment, so I do not have a problem with the term used. It is not a time for making political points.

The Post Office is aware of the guidelines that we have set out. I will look at the matter, but I cannot give an exact response as it has just been brought to my attention.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order is further to a point of order on this subject which I raised in September. It is to do with the taking of points of order during questions on ministerial statements. We seem to have at last achieved consistency, and questions are not taken during questions to Ministers. However, I understood that the Speaker ruled in September that points of order would not be taken during the hour allocated for questions to a Minister on a statement, but would be taken at the end of the period. There seems to have been serial recidivism on the matter since. I ask you to confer with the Speaker’s Office so that a clear, unequivocal and consistent line will be taken on the matter.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I thank the Member for bringing up that point about procedure. The matter will be looked into.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I accept your earlier ruling about the use of the term "papist bigot". The Member who was alleged to have made the comment from a sedentary position has not denied it. Such language is not of a political nature but, rather, of a religious nature that is deeply offensive to the House. I think that all Members will share that deep offence.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like you to reflect on your ruling and perhaps give further advice to the House with regard to such deeply offensive religious abuse. Perhaps you could tell the House what further action might be taken in such circumstances and advise the Member concerned to avoid such offensive religious remarks.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You, rightly, gave a ruling on this matter. It is my understanding that, under Standing Orders, this matter cannot be re-examined. It is therefore an abuse by the Member for North Belfast to attempt to re-examine it in these terms. It is unhelpful to the House, and it is a clear abuse of his responsibility as a Member.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I have listened to both points of order, and I am grateful for the advice from both sides of the House. I ruled on the issue, and I repeat that the dignity of the House or any of its Members must never be compromised. However, this matter will be taken up with the Speaker for further advice.

(The Environment: North/South Ministerial Council Sectoral Meeting)

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will make a statement on the third environment sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, which was held at Belle Isle, County Fermanagh, on Friday 23 February 2001.

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

Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Mr Mark Durkan and I attended the meeting, which I chaired. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Noel Dempsey, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. This statement has been agreed by Mr Durkan and is also made on his behalf.

The meeting began by reviewing progress on the current environmental work programme. The Council noted progress by the Environment and Heritage Service and the Environmental Protection Agency in developing a joint register of environmental research projects. The agencies are in the process of tendering for a joint contract to develop a web site of current environmental research. Access to this information will help researchers to avoid duplication of effort and to identify topics for research and possible funding sources.

The working group on water quality reported on the two areas that it was tasked to take forward — namely, water quality strategies for the Erne and Foyle catchment areas and the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive.

Dr Alan Barr of Kirk McClure Morton made a short presentation on the main findings and recommendations of the review of the Erne and Foyle catchment management strategies. Copies of the report have been placed in the Assembly Library.

The Council also approved the publication of a report — ‘New Technologies for Monitoring’ — which was prepared jointly by the two environmental agencies. This report has been placed on the agencies’ web sites, and copies have been deposited in the Assembly Library.

At the second environment sectoral meeting the Council agreed that co-operation on new technologies for monitoring should concentrate initially on water quality monitoring. In view of the importance of water quality monitoring for the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive, the Council decided at the Belle Isle meeting that this work should be taken forward by the working group on water quality as part of its work on the implementation of the Directive.

The Council noted the progress being made by the two environmental agencies in developing databases of environmental information. Ministers agreed that initial work should concentrate on cataloguing the information held by both jurisdictions. Decisions will then be taken on how best to provide Internet access to the data.

The Council agreed that the two Environment Departments should conduct a joint study into a number of the most significant impacts of agriculture on the environment. The terms of reference of the study include: assessment of the use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers; consideration of good farming practices and relevant controls both North and South; and assessment of the cross-border movement of slurries and spent mushroom compost. A steering group including representatives of the relevant Agriculture Departments will take the work forward.

The Council then turned its attention to cross-border waste management. Ministers agreed that officials should begin work on identifying options to encourage the expansion of waste recycling in Ireland. In particular, it was agreed that a joint approach to developing uses and markets for secondary materials and recyclates would be of mutual benefit.

Ministers also noted the arrangements for taking forward the issues raised by Assembly Members, following my first report to the Assembly on 11 September 2000. Pollution of the Erne system and the spread of zebra mussels will be studied by the water quality working group in the context of its work on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.

Investigating problems of disposing spent mushroom compost will form part of the study on the environmental impacts of agriculture. Primary responsibility for transposing the Major Accident Hazards Directive in the South rests with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment rather than with Minister Dempsey’s Department. It is not, therefore, a matter for the environment sectoral group.

Finally, the Council considered and agreed the text of a joint communiqué that was issued after the meeting. A copy of that communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library. The Council agreed that the next sectoral meeting on the environment will take place in June in the South.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement, in particular the announcement on co-operation on new technologies for water quality monitoring. Does the Minister believe that there are adequate measures in place to protect our waterways, and that there are sufficient fines to deter polluters?

Is he considering raising the 10% target reduction of medium to severe water pollution incidents to a more challenging level and, indeed, perhaps raising the fines?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

New monitoring technologies are extremely complex and must be thoroughly considered. Copies of the joint report on new technologies for monitoring have been placed in the Assembly Library. The report is also available on the websites of the two environmental agencies.

The report concluded that there are well-established methodologies for monitoring emissions to air and water and for measuring air quality. The report stated that co-operation should initially concentrate on monitoring water quality. The initial work in that area will focus on three main issues; the chemical and biological monitoring of surface waters, and the assessment of fish stocks.

Our interest in fish stocks is purely as an indicator of environment quality — any work will be undertaken in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure as appropriate. Where there are other issues, these will be followed up.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s statement that the working group on water quality has reported on the water quality strategies for the Erne and Foyle catchments and the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive, and also that the working group will be studying the pollution of the Erne system and the spread of zebra mussels as part of the Directive.

What progress has the working group made in the water quality strategies? What advice would the Minister give to boat owners and anglers in the Lough Erne area?

Can he give an assurance that positive action will be pursued on the zebra mussel problem in Lough Erne? That was not our problem — it was one that we could have used the policy of "fortress Ulster" on — but unfortunately it is with us. Will the Minster update the Assembly on progress, if any, that we can make?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Water Framework Directive requires member states to identify cross-border waterways as international river basin districts and member states are required to co-operate on the management of water quality throughout such a district on both sides of the border.

Northern Ireland’s three main waterways are the Erne, the Foyle and the Lough Neagh systems. They form part of catchments with the South. The group has made good progress in two areas: the Erne and the Foyle water quality strategies. Kirk McClure Morton, consulting engineers, were commissioned to review the Erne and Foyle catchment management strategies. They presented the main findings of the report at the meeting at Belle Isle.

Significant water quality management advances have been made since the original strategies for Lough Erne and Lough Foyle were completed in 1997–98. However, there are important new areas of work to be done to meet the water framework directive requirements.

The working group has begun to plan for the long-term implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Relevant officials from both jurisdictions and their counterparts in Great Britain will have to liaise on technical matters.

The occurrence of zebra mussels outside their natural habitat is a problem in many parts of Europe and north America. They first appeared in the Erne system in 1996. They probably spread to Ireland on the hulls of boats that entered the River Shannon and then to the Erne system by the pleasure craft.

The main thrust of my Department’s spring publicity campaign will be to educate the public abaout the mussel problem. It will be aimed particularly at boat owners, anglers and those who engage in watersports. We need their help to stop the spread of the mussels to waters that are not yet affected. The campaign will alert those groups to the danger of transporting zebra mussels to unaffected waters and will explain how their boats and equipment can be cleansed by steam-cleaning —[Interruption]

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Order. There is someone in the Chamber who has a mobile phone. Will he or she please remove himself or herself and the phone.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The campaign will explain how boats and equipment can be cleansed by steam cleaning hulls, and so on.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In October 2000 the environment sectoral meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council agreed to proposals for the development of the database of environmental information. It was agreed that the emphasis should be placed on a few specific matters such as the options for completing the CORINE Land Cover Project 2000 and the development and integration of several key databases on matters such as river and air quality. Today, the Minister told us that the sectoral meeting of the Council noted the progress on those issues. What exactly has that progress been?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The land cover map records in detail the extent and type of land use — for example, forest, wetland, farmland and coastal areas. The information is valuable to environmental planners, regulators, agriculturalists and conservationists. The main difference between the UK land cover map and the CORINE map is the level of detail in each. The CORINE map records information to a minimum of five hectares. The UK land cover map is more detailed and records information every one hectare. Northern Ireland is included in the more detailed UK land cover 2000 map.

It is a European requirement that Northern Ireland also be part of the CORINE land cover map. There should be no additional costs to Northern Ireland. The cost of converting the UK land cover map to CORINE will be shared by the UK and European Environmental Agency. The obvious benefit of a joint land cover map is that land types will be classified in the same way in the North and in the South. It will be essential to have similar information in the North and the South when characterising shared river basin districts for the water framework directive.

We are working on other databases, and the first step in the integration of key environmental databases will be to catalogue the information held by both jurisdictions. Full integration of data may not be necessary — the catalogue itself may be sufficient.

People will have Internet access to the information in both jursidictions. It is too soon to estimate the cost of developing a catalogue of environmental information. However, both environmental agencies had already begun the process for their own purposes.

Progress is slowly being made towards integration, which is not expected significantly to increase the costs.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

The Minister had a meeting on 23 February, and foot- and-mouth disease was confirmed around that time.

What controls has the Minister considered placing on environmental issues? Was that discussed at the cross- border meeting? What advice has the Minister given to people travelling either North to South or South to North — for example, hill walkers?

12.00

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There were no confirmed cases of foot- and-mouth disease when the environment sectoral meeting was held. We have assisted the Department of Agriculture by taking the necessary measures and precautions over the movement of people. We have eased the enforcement of the tachograph rules. We have worked in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, and we will continue to do so. We work with that Department — it is mainly a Department of Agriculture issue — under the guidance of the Executive Committee.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I am interested in the fact that the Council has noted the progress made by the Environment and Heritage Service and the Environmental Protection Agency in developing a joint register of environmental research projects. The Minister mentioned that the progress of the two environmental agencies in developing databases of environmental information was also noted. What progress has been made so far in developing the joint register of environmental research projects? Can the Minister briefly outline the benefits that will arise from the involvement of the two agencies in developing the databases of environmental information?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

An advertisement calling for tenders for a contract to develop a web site for the joint environmental research register was placed in newspapers both North and South on 22 February 2001. Access to the register will be through the web sites of the two agencies or through the sites of partner organisations that have contributed information about their research to the register.

The register currently contains information about environmental protection research carried out by the Environment and Heritage Service and the Environmental Protection Agency. Research about nature conservation will be added next. Thereafter it is planned to add information from academic institutions and the private and commercial sectors where available. The register will be of great benefit to anyone who is involved in environmental research or anyone — such as universities and colleges, environmental groups, industry, environmental consultants and agriculturists — who wants to know about the current and past studies. Sharing the information will help researchers and sponsors to avoid duplication of effort and cost, identify new areas for research, find partners for collaboration and identify potential sources of funding.

Information about the new monitoring technologies is in the Assembly Library; it is also available on the web sites of the two environmental agencies. The report concluded that there are well-established methodologies for monitoring emissions to air and water and for measuring air quality and that co-operation should concentrate initially on monitoring water quality. Initial work in this area will focus on three main issues — chemical and biological monitoring of surface waters and the assessment of fixed fish stocks.

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

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive report on the joint work by the two environmental agencies. Can he confirm that the Environment and Heritage Service is an agency of the Department of the Environment, whereas the Environmental Protection Agency is independent of the Republic of Ireland’s Department of the Environment and Local Government? Northern Ireland is the only part of these islands that does not have an environmental protection agency which is independent of the worst polluter — namely, the Department of the Environment itself.

Is the Minister aware of the inland fishermen who complained bitterly for over two decades that they could not get the Department to act on proven pollution? Is it not time for Northern Ireland to have an independent environmental protection agency that would act unilaterally to guard the environment on all the issues that the Minister so clearly listed in his report this morning?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

This question is very important and the issue is one that has been referred to many times. The Member is referring to pollution incidents where there has been Crown immunity. If we were to introduce an independent agency, we would be creating another quango — and I am not sure that that is what is wanted.

There are advantages and disadvantages. I assure the Member that any Government agency that pollutes the water will certainly be exposed. We do that rather pedantically. Sewage treatment is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development; it is not within my remit. Regarding pollution, we will certainly go after the polluter, whoever he may be, and we will enforce the issues when they come before us and where it is possible to do so.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

At the October 2000 meeting the Minister raised the issue of the Major Accident Hazards Directive, which had not been implemented by the Republic of Ireland. Today, he has told us that it is not appropriate to the environment sectoral group but to the South’s Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Has the Minister passed our deep concerns about this Directive to the relevant Minister, to have something done about the issue?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Major Accident Hazards Directive is not within the remit of Mr Dempsey’s Department and, therefore, did not come under this sectoral meeting. I assure the Member that where the issue impinges on us, we will be pursuing the matter vehemently with the Republic of Ireland’s Government. This would be a national issue, and the UK Government would be involved.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a leasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and particularly welcome the presentation of the two reports — the working group on water quality and new technologies for monitoring. I look forward to examining these reports, particularly given the recent evidence presented to the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee that the Department of the Environment is one of the major polluters. I would like to see the actions, proposals and recommendations that those reports contain taken forward.

My question to the Minister is on the part of his report that deals with waste management. While I welcome the announcement about the cross-border waste study, it is somewhat vague and general. The study is very important, and I want to know when it will begin. How urgently is this matter being addressed, and how long will it take? Will the Minister undertake to review the current waste management strategy in the light of this important research?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am pleased with the progress that has been made on implementing the waste management strategy since its publication in March 2000. My Department will make £3·5 million available to help councils implement the strategy, which requires district councils to submit their waste management plans to my Department by June 2001. District councils have formed three waste management planning groups to meet this requirement.

Further planned work includes: establishing a new advisory board, which will comprise 15 members, including a chairman, to assist my Department implement the strategy; the issue of planning policy guidance on planning and waste management; the introduction of regulations to place a duty of care on anyone handling controlled waste to ensure that it is managed properly and recovered or disposed of safely; and the introduction of a waste management licensing scheme to control the operation of waste disposal sites. The progress may be slow but we are working on it and movement has been made.

A study is beginning straight away, and I will also inform the Member when the first review of the waste management strategy comes around.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. With regard to the study on the expansion of waste recycling, what involvement will there be of private sector bodies, which seem to be playing the major part in recycling and on which we will be depending if we are to meet the targets now being set?

As regards the study on the impact of agriculture on the environment, this is not exactly the best timing for such a study. Moreover, it is couched in terms such as "consideration of good farming practices" and "relevant controls", as opposed to perhaps "consideration of the encouragement of good farming practices". Would it not be better to encourage farmers, by grant aid, to move towards better practices — especially in the face of the current crisis of BSE and foot-and mouth disease — rather than suggest further controls, to add to their problems?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member has referred to the waste management strategy. It has set a target for district councils to recycle 15% of household waste by 2005. This will entail a significant increase in the current level of recycling with district councils, estimated to be around 5%. I am pleased to state that my Department will provide, as I have said, £3·5 million to help councils to implement the strategy. This can include assistance with recycling and the development of targets for recycling.

With reference to the farming issues, one takes into consideration the great difficulties farmers have at this time. However, agriculture is a major contributor to the economy of both Northern Ireland and the Republic, of which we are all very much aware. I fully appreciate the dire circumstances that the agriculture industry finds itself in at present, particularly with the current foot-and-mouth emergency.

Nevertheless, we have to take a longer-term view and recognise the impact that agriculture activities have on the environment. The greatest problem is the run-off of nutrients to lakes and rivers, leading to excessive growth of algae and plants. This can cause oxygen levels to fall, which is the most serious water-quality problem affecting waterways on both sides of the border.

At Belle Isle, Ministers agreed that a joint study should be carried out into a number of the most significant impacts of agriculture on the environment. The study will involve representation of both Agriculture Departments. It will assess the use of fertiliser application rates, identify good farming practices and relevant controls, and assess cross-border movement of slurries and spent mushroom compost. Data from private bodies will come in through the Waste Advisory Board, which will be appointed very shortly.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the Minister’s announcement that the Department of the Environment and its Republic of Ireland counterpart will be conducting a joint study into the significant impacts of agriculture on the environment.

I also welcome that the terms of reference for the study include assessment of the use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers, cross-border movement of slurries and mushroom compost and good farming practices.

The Minister also mentioned the problem of disposing of spent mushroom compost, saying that it will be part of the environmental impacts of the agriculture study. Will he briefly outline what the study will be looking at and what impact will this have on the agriculture industry?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I said, the agriculture problem is a big problem. It is a difficult time for farmers, as I appreciate. The waste management strategy deals with the management of controlled wastes, which includes household, commercial and industrial wastes. Agricultural, mining and quarrying wastes are not included. However, the EU Waste Framework Directive requires that controls will be extended eventually to agricultural wastes.

My Department and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will be working together to bring such wastes within the control regime and to develop an agricultural waste strategy. The aim is to incorporate within this the waste management strategy at its first review in 2002.

So far as the cross-border issue of spent mushroom compost is concerned, the mushroom industry is concentrated in the border counties of Armagh, Tyrone, Monaghan and Cavan. Spent mushroom compost (SMC) has become a major environmental problem in those areas. In Monaghan, around 60% of SMC is dumped, only 10% is composted, and 30% is land spread. If the compost were to be imported into Northern Ireland for disposal, the district council would need to be satisfied that environmentally sound disposal methods were not realistically available in the country of origin.

Disposal options for SMC include utilisation in the potato sector, vermi-composting using worm beds, pelleting of pig slurry and SMC for use as fertiliser, and waste-to-energy recovery through incineration. Those are issues that we take on board, and, as I said earlier, we appreciate their importance and the difficulties that agriculture is having at this particular time. We are all involved in what is good for agriculture, and for all of us, in the long term.

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

My question relates to waste recycling options. This is an urgent matter in view of the punitive deadlines on district councils to produce and implement waste management strategies. The Minister suggested, in answer to a previous question, that work would begin at once on identifying such options. Can he be more precise with regard to the

"joint approach to developing uses and markets for secondary materials and recyclates"

that he mentioned? When will this approach move beyond the agreement stage to the setting-up and operation of effective joint working strategy groups?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The waste management plans are due from district councils by June 2001 and will include proposals for achieving the recycling targets. Cross-border co-operation will provide the economies of scale necessary to make investment in recycling and recovery facilities viable. Northern Ireland is not large enough in itself, so there will be co-operation as far as that is concerned. We will look at it on an all-island basis. As I have already emphasised, that will also provide a larger market for products made from recycled material. That is a big issue on which we are working jointly.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I note that the Minister’s water quality control group is going to undertake a study of the freshwater zebra mussel. He used the term "pollution of the Erne system". Is it true that the zebra mussel is a pollutant? Has any effective study been done? Has anything been done to see what its effect is on fishing? Does it usurp and take the food of the fish, or is it an excellent means of clearing the water? Furthermore, what has been done to prevent the spread of this mussel to the Foyle estuary? There are concerns in the fishing industry and, among those who enjoy fishing, concerns as to the effect of the freshwater zebra mussel.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The zebra mussels at first seem as if they are clearing the water, but they do a lot of damage to it. I am not aware of any full investigations having being done. I understand that the Department of Agriculture is undertaking a major study of the zebra mussel issue because, as I said earlier, it is a very big issue that has really been imported. It looks as if the emphasis needs to be on prevention rather than cure because, as I understand it, whenever one has the problem, it is very difficult to get rid of it. Therefore prevention is an important issue. That is why I emphasised that boats and equipment can be cleansed by steam-cleaning the hulls. We depend very much on the people who move boats and equipment in waterways to ensure that they steam clean. The emphasis must be on prevention rather than cure.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Like others, I wish to home in on the issue of waste recycling. The Minister will be well aware that the group of councils in the north-west is of a cross-border nature and, from the point of view of my council in Strabane, we have had difficulties in working in a cross-border manner, particularly with Her Majesty’s Treasury.

Will the Minister tell the House under what conditions the United Kingdom management plan is likely to allow cross-border imports and exports of waste? Will the cross-border study involve a study of energy recovery from residual waste?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The waste management strategy allows for cross-border co-operation as part of the district council waste management plans. Any cross-border co-operation needs to comply with the waste management strategy and the United Kingdom management plan for exports and imports of waste. The United Kingdom plan is currently under review. It is likely to allow cross-border imports and exports of waste where there are sound economic and environmental reasons for such activity and so long as the activity is included in the district councils’ waste management plan.

The waste management strategy encourages groups of councils to draw up joint waste management plans to achieve economies of scale. Everything that is done will be controlled. The strategy will be watched closely, and control will be exercised on all cross-border activity. The North and South are co-operating so much, because waste management is a big issue — almost too big for Northern Ireland to deal with on its own. It is good that we, as two separate jurisdictions living in a neighbourly fashion, can work together on this big issue.

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

I too welcome the Minister’s statement. It is a clear indication that there is good work going on. When can Members expect the full implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive? Is there a programme for its implementation, and have dates and benchmarks been set?

Has the Minister noted the publication last Thursday morning of the report from the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee? Among the 67 recommendations made in that report, a large number referred to the Department of the Environment. Can the Minister give me, as Chairman of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, a commitment that he and the Department of Environment will give early attention to all those areas that are the responsibility of his Department?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There is a 15-year package associated with the Directive, so it will be some time before it is fully implemented. The report from the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee that the Member referred to was issued only last Thursday. My officials have not yet had a chance to consider fully the implications of the recommendations that affect my Department. Some of the recommendations relate to the work of the Department of the Environment. My officials will be in touch with their counterparts in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. It is premature at this stage to speculate about how the Department of the Environment might respond. However, where there is a duty to respond, I assure the Member that the Department will do so.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

When will the EU Water Framework Directive be implemented, and how will it be funded? Is the Minister aware of the problems that there are in many constituencies relating to that? The Minister also mentioned waste recycling in his report. What financial incentives will be offered to individuals and companies to promote waste recycling?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Finances are always a problem. The issue will be pursued, possibly through Europe and the Executive as well. We have 15 years in which to achieve the good water quality specified in the Directive. It will take some time for us to get there, and undoubtedly the money is a problem. That is why there is a cross-border study. Northern Ireland is not big enough to tackle waste management on its own. The Department of the Environment wants to encourage people to recycle and make them realise that it is a valuable thing to do.

A number of financial incentives will be considered to encourage recycling, but the first step is the development of markets and plans. We are working on that at present. This is a difficult issue which is going to be bigger than Northern Ireland can deal with on its own. It is worthwhile for the two different jurisdictions that border on one another to work hand in hand for the mutual benefit of all concerned.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I too would like to focus on waste management and recycling. I welcome the Minister’s statement and agree on the importance of economies of scale. What problems have arisen with respect to ensuring the maximum co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic? The United Kingdom immediately implemented the relevant EU Directive, whereas the Republic of Ireland sought, and got, a derogation. That means, in practice, that it is behind us on implementing recycling targets.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It can be very difficult if the two jurisdictions are not running in co-operation and co-ordination with each other. However, we hope to get that married together and balanced so that it will work. It is an important issue, but it will take some time to get us working in co-ordination.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister said in his statement that officials are to start work on identifying options to encourage expansion of recycling with a joint approach to uses and markets for secondary materials and recyclables. However, the Department is currently considering proposals from district councils on a sub- regional implementation of waste management strategy. The Environment Committee was given that information in a recent presentation by a key official from the Department. Is there, therefore, a danger that this initiative from the sectoral group will be seen as pre-empting the outcome of the present consultations with district councils? Surely the Department of the Environment’s would be better actively participating with district councils to develop our own waste management strategy.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I take Dr McCrea’s point. There are issues that concern everyone, and everyone must work together to get something which will bring us together. The data will be used to support councils’ plans, and the study is welcomed by them. This is why I emphasise that we will be receiving concurrent data, which will be useful and will give us something to go on. I want to emphasise that we are not there for the sake of just being there. We want to gain something which will be of mutual benefit to both jurisdictions.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. I would like to raise again the matter of human sludge. Has the Republic of Ireland failed to sign up to the EU Directive on putting human sludge on to agricultural land? If the disposal of such sludge is close to the border regions, will it pose a danger to the Erne system?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We will take those concerns into consideration. We have to be very careful about what comes into our territory. It has to be guarded and watched. Co- operation between myself and the Minister across the border is vital so that we can watch carefully what takes place.

I am willing to co-ordinate and work this. I want to ensure that what we do is for the benefit of our people up here as well as for people in other jurisdictions.

(Trustee Bill: First Stage)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill to amend the law relating to trustees and persons having the investment powers of trustees; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

The sitting was suspended at 12.31 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

Draft Life Sentences Order

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That the report of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to consider the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 referred by the Secretary of State be submitted to the Secretary of State as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Perhaps it will be helpful to Members if I set out some details of the workings of the Committee. The Assembly established the Ad Hoc Committee on 22 January 2001 to consider the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and report to the Assembly. The draft Order seeks to introduce new provisions for the sentencing, review and release of life-sentence prisoners and those in prison at the pleasure of the Secretary of State. It will establish a specific body of Life Sentence Review Commissioners and move to address the matter of compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Our first meeting was held on 29 January 2001. We met on four further occasions, all in public session. The Committee considered the draft Order and debated the purpose of and changes to the legislation. As a result of extremely tight deadlines the Committee decided to invite written evidence from seven organisations, as listed in the report. The Committee also invited the Secretary of State and senior Northern Ireland Office officials to give oral evidence on the background to the Order.

However, owing to pre-existing diary commitments they were unable to accept the Committee’s invitation.

Overall, the Committee received six written submissions and took oral evidence from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and Prof John Jackson from Queen’s University, Belfast. This provided a good spread and balance of evidence, considering the extremely tight deadline. All written submissions, minutes of evidence and minutes of proceedings are included in the report for completeness.

Having heard oral evidence on 5 and 6 February the Committee carried out an article-by-article consideration of the draft Order on 12 February. This also included consideration of the four schedules overall. A majority of the Committee welcomed the draft Order, as it attempts to bring the law on the release of life-sentence prisoners into line with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the Committee had a number of concerns, including the fact that the Secretary of State would retain certain powers, potential breaches of the ECHR, lack of clarification on all life prisoners recall and revocation of licence. The Committee made the following recommendations and comments in relation to the draft Order.

For article 3, a statement should be included that the Commissioners are to be independent of Government. The appointment of commissioners should, as far as possible, be made through open competition.

"In discharging any functions under this Order the Commissioners shall have regard to —

(b) the Convention rights of life prisoners;

(c) any representations made by or on behalf of a victim or a member of his/her family."

"Convention rights" and "victim" need to be defined.

For schedule 1, the Commissioners must have security of tenure to ensure their independence of Government, and provision should be made for a fixed-term appointment of five years. For article 4, there should be a role for the commissioners in deciding what information should be disclosed to the prisoner. This would entail a process whereby the Secretary of State would refer to the commissioners for a decision on the extent to which certain information should be withheld from the prisoner.

For article 5, new arrangements whereby courts will be required to fix the punishment part of a life sentence were welcomed. Political interference with the court’s power to sentence convicted offenders who were over 18 when they committed their offence was questioned. The power of the Secretary of State to review the court sentence when the offender was under the age of 18 when the offence was committed was considered appropriate.

For article 6, an amendment was recommended to exclude consideration of certain factors when deciding when to release a life prisoner. For article 7, the Secretary of State should consult the commissioners in all compassionate release cases.

For article 8, there should be an amendment to allow the commissioners to review the licence at regular intervals and to give commissioners the power to annul a licence after a certain time has elapsed and where there have been no breaches of the licence conditions.

For article 9, there should be an amendment of the wording of article 9(2) so that it reads

"The Secretary of State may revoke the licence of any life prisoner and recall him to prison before a recommendation by the Commissioners is practicable where it appears to him to be necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm."

An amendment to article 9(4) should specify a timescale:

"The Secretary of State shall as soon as reasonably practicable refer the case of a life prisoner recalled under this article to the Commissioners."

On article 10, the power to specify the tariff or punishment part of the sentence of transferred life prisoners should be given to the court. In order to comply fully with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the determination of the tariff requires a hearing before a court. There should be a procedure whereby the Secretary of State refers the case of a transferred life prisoner to the court for the tariff to be determined.

On Article 11, as with article 10, the power to certify the part of the sentence which should be served before a prisoner is due to be considered for release should also be given to the court.

These recommendations are outlined in detail in the report, together with the Committee’s conclusions, which stress

"The need for the Secretary of State to enter into meaningful consultations with the relevant organisations before implementation."

The Committee was set tight deadlines to complete its work, which militated against the provision of oral and written evidence from the Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Office and to some extent the legal profession. That timely evidence would have helped us to produce a more fully informed report.

The Assembly is often put in the position of presenting complete reports or commentaries on pieces of legislation within tight deadlines, giving it little time to perform these functions adequately. A strong message should go from the Assembly to the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State that Members should be given a reasonable time to react to proposals from the Government.

I thank the members of the Committee for their assistance, their hard work and their contribution to the report. I also thank the various organisations for their written submissions and oral evidence, which were given short notice.

Finally, I thank the Assembly staff for their support.

I invite Members to support the motion.

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

I thank Mr Savage for his chairmanship of the Committee and for the contribution he has made to the House. It was a comprehensive presentation on behalf of the Committee on this proposed draft legislation. I agree with the Chairperson about the time frame. All members of the Committee and, indeed, other Members of the House agreed that insufficient time was given for consideration of this draft legislation. The same was the case with the flags regulations, the financial services legislation and so forth.

Under section 85(4)(c) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the period we are given is, in effect, 60 days. It should be emphasised to the Secretary of State that 60 days is not long enough and that the Act should be amended to extend the time period. The code of practice on written consultation issued by the Cabinet Office in November 2000 stipulated a period of 12 weeks, which compares unfavourably with the time allocated to the Assembly. Strong representations should be made not only by the Committee in its presentation to the House but also by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Northern Ireland Office.

This has resulted in a very tight schedule for Members in the completion of their work, and it is unfair that we, as legislators, should be so pressurised, especially on such important legislation.

The other effect is to impose an even more unfair burden upon outside organisations which are very dependent on voluntary contributions to their various internal and policy committees. We are therefore not getting the benefit of fuller presentations from those organisations. That is a further point for consideration by the Secretary of State.

Moving to the substance of the report and of the draft legislation, the Committee has emphasised the need for the commissioners to be truly independent of Government. The Committee has made several suggestions in that regard. A constant theme in the Committee was that independence should not just be notional but that it should be firmly established. It was suggested, for example, that the commissioners’ terms of office should be for five years, which would guarantee their independence. Other provisions were also suggested.

Also, in that section of the report, the Committee suggested that representations should be made by victims or their families in relation to the decision-making process concerning releases. That is a very important matter which the House should bear in mind. Those who have suffered, or families which have suffered, as a result of the offences committed by the people with whom we are concerned today, should also be considered by the independent commission in the exercise of its functions.

In relation to schedule 2, a point was made regarding the disclosure of evidence and information to the commissioners but not to the prisoners. In the view of the Ad Hoc Committee, that creates problems. It was felt that that would be in contravention of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is not just some sort of minor reservation. It is a very real reservation of the Committee, and it should be emphasised in the House that it is not right that such information and evidence should not be disclosed to a prisoner or his representative. To some extent the proposed legislation tries to meet that, in so far as the legislation indicates that a special advocate could be appointed by the commission to consider the evidence and information presented.

While that to some extent ameliorates the problems, it does not remedy in full the defect in this schedule. It would therefore be best if all evidence and all information were disclosed to the prisoner appearing before the commissioners.

There are differences between evidence and information. Evidence is subject to various proofs and has been brought to the commissioners with weight and authority; information has not necessarily been tested. It is important therefore that all information and evidence is brought to the attention of the prisoner so that his legal representatives can deal with any problems as they arise. A prisoner must be in a position to rebut defective information or evidence.

Under article 5, which is at the heart of the proposed legislation, a judge will fix the tariff. He or she will fix the punishment for retribution and deterrence. That is a crucial innovation because it will make our approach to sentencing compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In no way will the sentencing of an individual depend on anything other than a court.

However, a distinction is made for "whole-life prisoners" — prisoners who receive sentences that do not have fixed terms. When a person is under 18 the Committee believes that it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to be able to say that that person can be referred to the commissioners. That is an important move by the Secretary of State.

The Ad Hoc Committee divided on prisoners who were over 18 when they committed the offence and received a whole-life tariff from the court. Although the Committee’s majority view was to accept the provision that the Secretary of State could act, some members objected in principle, saying that that allowed for political interference with the court’s power to sentence convicted offenders who were over 18 when they committed the offence. I agree with the majority view on this matter because I cannot envisage a situation in which a person should be sentenced to a whole-life tariff and suffer an indeterminate sentence for the rest of his or her life. In those circumstances someone has to intervene in order to review that sentence at an appropriate stage. There is no provision for a court to do so and the best possible alternative is for the Secretary of State to intervene or, if such matters are devolved, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. We should support the majority view of the Committee, which is to accept this provision. I know that that deviates from the concept of there not being any political interference in sentencing.

However, for the reasons that I have just outlined, I believe that, in these circumstances, it is necessary for there to be an intervention, albeit from a political source. I believe that it is fair and just in all the circumstances. A better alternative would be for a court to review that, but there is no provision for that in this or any alternative legislation. In these circumstances, I support the majority view.

In relation to article 8, it was the Committee’s view that the imposition of a licence or licence conditions on a prisoner for the rest of his life after release from prison was unduly harsh. I agree with that. There must be circumstances when a prisoner who has been released for a number of years should be given the opportunity of wiping the slate completely clean so that there is no longer anything hanging over him, and he can get on with the rest of his life. The stigma of having a life sentence would therefore be removed. Where a person has shown himself to be of good character and has rehabilitated himself, it is wrong and unjust that he continues to carry the stigma of a life prisoner. I believe that there should be some provision — and the Committee has accepted this — for the annulment of that licence. This would be of benefit to the released prisoner.

I know that this will probably not be accepted by the Secretary of State, although I hope that it is, for it is a very important message for the Assembly to send to the Secretary of State so that this stigma can be removed from released life prisoners at some time in the future. We should all support it. If the Secretary of State does not accept the terms of the present draft legislation, perhaps at some point in the future he will accept them in alternative legislation before Parliament.

Finally, I have points in relation to articles 10 and 11. Article 10 deals with transferred prisoners, and article 11 deals with existing life prisoners. It was the view of the Ad Hoc Committee that these two provisions were incompatible with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Again, we have the interference, as it were, of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has a sentencing function and can specify the remaining tariff that a prisoner has to serve. That is in relation to either an existing life prisoner or a prisoner who has been transferred, for example, from prison in England or Wales, or even from the Irish Republic. The Secretary of State should have no significant role in deciding the term or tariff that the prisoner will have to spend in prison. That function should be exercised by a court. I fully support that — I believe that the court should exercise such a function. The provision in the legislation before the House says that the Secretary of State should deal with the matter in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice.

However, I believe that that is insufficient to meet the terms of article 6 of the European Convention. It seems to be wrong in principle to allow that to happen. I support the Committee fully in its recommendation that a court is the appropriate body for dealing with this, notwithstanding the fact that the Lord Chief Justice would have some sort of role, according to the draft legislation before the House.

The Committee did outstanding work in the time available, and its members worked very well together in a non-partisan fashion. It produced a consensual report that it can be proud of, and I believe that the House should give it the fullest support.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Once again this House has demonstrated that it is able to put together a report under the difficult and, at times, perplexing circumstances in Northern Ireland. It allows Members to produce a report from which they can select á la carte, and which says, essentially, that we agree to disagree. That is a unique feature of this House. We did the same with the flags report. In that case none of the parties agreed with each other, but nonetheless we were able to produce a report. In this case, although the disagreement is on technical issues, we have been able to produce a report wherein we agree to disagree. We came up with a report that expresses and represents all the different points of view. That at least gives us the ability to come forward and suggest that we can support it, if the Secretary of State agrees to certain points.

On that basis, my party will be supporting the motion that was so ably presented this evening by the Chairperson of the Committee. I wish to add my congratulations to the staff of the Committee for the way in which business was conducted. We have produced a report, under difficult circumstances, which would not otherwise have been proposed or supported in this way.

The report deals with a number of issues, and I would like to break them down into four areas. The first is the issue of consultation. Both of the Members who have spoken on this have indicated their disappointment and dissatisfaction with the way the consultation process operates. I have to add my voice to their concern. There is a recommendation in the report that reflects our concern about the lack of consultation.

We asked the Secretary of State and officials from the Northern Ireland Office to make themselves available to consult with us, in a meaningful way, about many of the terms that have been introduced into this draft Order. As we see from the report, the Secretary of State had too many diary commitments, and officials from the Northern Ireland Office were too busy to attend. We must express our concern that neither the Northern Ireland Office nor the Secretary of State could make themselves available to discuss this very important issue, to give us their point of view and to answer questions. Many members of the Committee had questions and concerns about this proposed Order.

Once again, the way that the Northern Ireland Office has handled this makes a mockery of the consultation. It should take that to heart. If it is going to take this House and its representatives seriously then it must consult with them seriously, instead of treating them in the off- hand way that it did during the course of the deliberations of this and other Committees.

The Order raises an issue that divides us on fundamental grounds. That is the issue of whether or not the Secretary of State should have a role in the sentencing process. That was discussed at the Committee meetings.

My party is of the view that no politician should have a direct say in the sentencing of a prisoner. That is an issue for the court — the court should make a determination, and the sentence should be served unless it is overturned at appeal. This Order gives the Secretary of State a direct input into the sentencing of prisoners. I object strongly to that measure because I believe that it is open to abuse.

Politicians, by their very nature, are lobbied, and they can succumb to a lobby. On an issue of justice that should be arbitrated independently by the court, it is wrong that a politician should have that say. I have had some experience of that.

I was involved in a case, over 10 years ago, known as the "UDR four". The mechanism that was then open to us was to lobby a politician. We had to provide him not only with evidential issues but with political reasons why he should reopen the case.

Fortunately, as a result of an appeal relating to that case, that mechanism has changed. You have to go back through the courts, and an independent Criminal Cases Review Commission must come up with evidence and put forward a case that shows that there is sufficient evidence to warrant an appeal, as opposed to there being both evidential and political grounds for an appeal.

There has been a subtle change, but this Order allows for back-pedalling on that, which is wrong in principle and could be open to abuse. There have been a number of cases that have demonstrated in England and Wales — and, in principle, could demonstrate here — how this measure would operate.

Under article 5, for example, it is essential that those people who serve a whole-life tariff do actually serve that tariff. If you do the crime, then you must be able to serve the time. Although that is a cliché, any political interference with how a person serves that time should be restricted.

I believe that life should mean life. That is a view that raises the hackles of some people, but it is one to which my party holds firmly. We think that any attempt to undermine what life means, and what a court means when it sentences someone to life, should be resisted.

There are three types of case where we can see that abuse could arise. There is what I would call the Hindley- type case, where, under article 5(4), a person can, through political lobbying, ask for his or her case to be looked at again. That should be avoided. The Criminal Cases Review Commission should be the only mechanism used, and on an evidential basis only.

Then there are the Bulger-type cases. Those cases again indicate — even where juveniles and very young children are involved — that they can be open to political interference.

In addition, under article 7, the Secretary of State may, at any time, release a life prisoner if he is convinced that there are exceptional circumstances. We could name that the "Kray clause" — the Home Secretary was convinced that, under certain circumstances in that particular case, a prisoner could be released.

This Order does not allow for consultation. I am glad that we, as a Committee, attempted to plug the gap by saying that if the Secretary of State wants to use those wide-ranging powers he must, at least, consult. He must consult with people who are openly recruited and appointed as independent commissioners.

The third area that concerns me is the role of the independent commissioners. I think that the Committee was agreed that the commissioners should be independent and independently appointed. Indeed, on page 18 of the report, we recommended that the commissioners

"should be independent of Government and appointed through open competition".

We recommended that they should,

"in exercising their functions, have regard for the Convention rights of life prisoners".

It is essential that those commissioners demonstrate that they have human rights experience, because to date most commissioners have not been able to demonstrate that.

There are two issues relating to the commissioners: who are they — they should be independent — and what are they entitled to hear? The non-disclosure of material to commissioners causes great concern right across the community. If we believe in fair trial, there must be a fair and transparent legal system. Such a system could not include a mechanism that would allow a prisoner to be shut out of a hearing so that he or she would not know who was making the accusations or what case was being made and would not be able to respond directly to the allegations. I share with most members of the Committee the concern that the draft Order allows for something that could lead to a travesty of justice. We should guard against introducing an Order that could pervert justice. That is why I support the relevant recommendations.

When we first considered it, the draft Order contained no article that addressed the issue of victims’ rights. That was disappointing. I am glad that the Committee’s recommendations in relation to article 3 proposed that the commissioners should listen to representations made on behalf of the victims. Prof Dickson, chief of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, gave evidence to the Committee and suggested that, at the very least, a victim should be able to make a case in writing. I agree. However, there should be a mechanism available to victims that would allow them to make their case to the commissioners, so that the commissioners would know exactly the feelings that they would evoke and the reaction that they would cause if they were to allow a particular prisoner to be released on licence.

It is essential that people understand how victims feel. Until now, they have been excluded from the process. The one thing that the Secretary of State should learn from consideration of the legislation is that victims have rights. He should give them not only a voice but an ear in the process. People must see that victims have rights and that they must be listened to.

Prof Dickson said that he would consider with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission the issue of how victims should bring their case before the sentence commissioners. On page 59 of the report, we have published a letter from Prof Dickson that reveals a careless and flippant disregard for the rights of victims:

"the Commission was not able to discuss further the respects in which victims’ views could be taken into account."

The professor goes on to say

"we had so much else to discuss that day that we did not reach that item."

I do not doubt that Prof Dixon is a busy man and that the commission is a busy commission. However, the fact that there was so much else on the agenda that victims’ rights were not even reached will be a bitter pill for victims of crime to swallow. Their rights must be considered.

Many people perceive that more attention is paid to prisoners’ rights than to those of victims. The letter from Prof Dickson and the Secretary of State’s Order do nothing to dispel that perception. Many people will argue that that is just a perception and that prisoners have a hard time of it. However, that perception must be addressed. If life is too busy for the views of victims even to be taken into account, they will be justified in holding on to that perception. Victims have been ignored until now. I hope that the recommendations that we have made in respect of the Order will spur the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office into recognising that they must take cognizance of victims’ views.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I too want to congratulate the Chairman and staff of the Ad Hoc Committee for the work that they did in a such a short time. The question of time is important, as Alban Maginness pointed out. The usefulness of the Ad Hoc Committees comes into question when no time is given to properly conduct an inquiry into the subject that is under consideration.

We asked the Secretary of State to attend a Committee meeting, but the invitation was refused. That is a further indication of how little regard they have for Ad Hoc Committees. The same is true of the judiciary and their non-attendance at the Committee.

We welcome any move that aims to put human rights legislation into practice. It is not enough to amend existing legislation or to adopt a model that has been designed for use in England and is fraught with problems. There are a number of radical progressive alternatives in Scandinavia, for example, that provide fair and more humane regimes.

It must be remembered that, for the most part, the intermediate and subjective elements of life sentences have been used against Republicans. There is nothing new in this system to guard against that happening again. My party has long argued in favour of the abolition of both mandatory and discretionary indeterminate life sentences. The proposed introduction of a tariff system throws up many new concerns that will only compound the problems associated with life prisoners and those that are being detained at the Secretary of State’s pleasure (SOSp).

If the judiciary were given the power to set a tariff — with all the connotations that its loyalty to the Crown has — what checks and balances will be put in place to ensure equality under the law for both victims and perpetrators? Political prisoners are still being brought before Diplock courts with all their inherent bias and willingness to convict on the most dubious of evidence. It must be noted that the only two prisoners that were given natural life sentences were Republicans who were convicted of single killings. That contrasts sharply with the treatment in court of the Loyalist death squads such as the "Shankill butchers". There is much that we can do about that, but we should be mindful of these things when considering any new proposals.

If a commission is to be set up to oversee the release process, a number of safeguards must be put in place to ensure that the system is open and fair. The Secretary of State currently has extensive powers to deal with life and SOSp prisoners that should be given over to the commission. Sentencing should be a matter for the judiciary, and release should be a matter for the commission. The separate arrangements that are in place under the Good Friday Agreement are the appropriate mechanisms for dealing with political prisoners.

The commissioners should be representative of the community and not simply political appointees drawn from particular professional classes. The commission should be open to representatives of community organisations such as community restorative justice committees. We should be told clearly what skills, experience and training the commissioners will need. The commissioners will need staff. The staff should not be drawn from the Prison Service or the Civil Service but should be independent and accountable only to the commissioners.

There is a need for clear guidelines, definitions and directions to be given to the commissioners. Terms such as "risk to the public" need to be defined. There should be widespread consultation on the issue, and it should include the views of the community, ex-prisoners representative groups such as Coiste na n-Iarchimí and Restorative Justice and prisoners themselves. The review process should be transparent and open. There should be no secret hearings or undisclosed evidence.

Prisoners should have the right to be present, along with their legal representatives or any other person nominated by them. People serving life and those serving sentences at the Secretary of State’s pleasure need to be able to challenge any aspect of evidence presented and any decision of a review or commission hearing.

The present system of phased release needs to be overhauled, to give a meaningfully structured release programme of paroles. Information and support should be part of the release process, but the Prison Service is not necessarily best equipped to provide that. Consultation with current and former lifers would be useful in that regard. After a period has elapsed, the commission should have the power to annul licences. Former life sentence prisoners and prisoners at the pleasure of the Secretary of State should also be afforded that facility. Release should be unconditional except in the case of sex offenders, who should be placed on the sex offenders register.

The criteria for releasing a lifer or a prisoner at the pleasure of the Secretary of State on compassionate grounds should be clearly laid out and administered by the commission. That would avoid situations where prisoners are discriminated against, as has happened in the past with British soldiers released after serving only a few years. The power of recall should be removed from the Secretary of State, who is, after all, a political appointee. Recall should not happen unless new evidence is brought before a court.

At the outset I congratulated the Chairperson and the members of the Committee for the work that they did in such a short time. The question of Ad Hoc Committees and their usefulness, considering the scant amount of regard that is given to them, should be taken up by the Business Committee.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I will start by declaring an interest in this, as a former life-sentence prisoner still on licence. I have not had that licence removed, even though I have been released for 11 years. Also, for the Hansard record, I will clear up misinformation from John Kelly, which I know he did not give deliberately. In the case of the "Shankill butchers", two people were sentenced to natural life, and on the day of sentencing the judge repeated that both should serve natural life. Also in the 1970s, two other Loyalists were sentenced to death for the killing of a policeman, but both had the sentence commuted. We should not give out misinformation. I do not know why we are talking about Loyalists and Republicans. I would like to think that that is all behind us. We are now dealing with a new breed of prisoner.

I have to agree with what John Kelly said about the tariff. I am concerned when I hear people talking about rehabilitation and then a tariff. We need to decide what happens to people when they go to prison — is it about rehabilitating or about punishing? I think that a tariff is about punishing, not rehabilitating. How can you sentence someone to life imprisonment and say that he should serve at least 15 years before you consider him for rehabilitation? You can only judge whether a person is rehabilitated by their actions in prison. There is no evidence to suggest whether a person is rehabilitated or not.

I agree with Alban Maginness that we need evidence rather than information, but the information that keeps, and has kept, people in prison for a long time has only been information — it has not been evidence. If we were to take examples of people who have been in prison for a long time, whether Republican or Loyalist, the information was given by the Prison Service and by people on the outside, who made a judgement of whether the prisoner would be a risk to society. How can someone decide that when there is no evidence, only information? In some cases that information was 15 and 16 years old — not current.

We need to be careful about that. I want to be careful about setting tariffs. Rehabilitation is an individual thing, and not something that you can lay down for everybody. People take different lengths of time to be rehabilitated — some can be rehabilitated quite quickly; others cannot. From my own experience, having been in prison, I think that some people are kept in prison too long — they have been rehabilitated, but actually start to turn back. They feel that they have been victimised, not because of something they have done but because of something that people think they are doing or have done. That is a big danger. We need to be careful about tariffs.

Like everyone else, I need to mention that we lacked enough time to respond to every issue. We can complain about that bitterly from now until the cows come home, but it is not going to solve the problem. However, the report is very good, and the Secretary of State and others reading it will get a lot of information from it. It should help them.

Someone once said that nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging — no pun intended. That is what happened to us: we had to concentrate on the job in hand. Mr Paisley Jnr was right when he said that we had to agree on some things and agree to differ on others. At least we produced a report, and it is an example of how this Assembly has worked well. We all set our minds to trying to achieve that, even though we may not necessarily have agreed on the issues.

There are problems as regards the Secretary of State retaining certain powers. I hear quite a lot of people saying — and I agree with them — that there is a difficulty with the decision being a political one. Politicians can be lobbied. However, I would remind them that very few judges in this country do not have a political view. Regardless of whether the view is a party political one, it can be either right or left of centre — and God help the prisoner if it is right of centre, for he will probably not get a fair deal.

We really have to be careful about pinning the responsibility on politicians. Judges also have a role, and I am not sure that the judiciary is independent from political thought or political beliefs. I would not expect it to be. Judges are human beings and they are entitled to hold political opinions. However, is it possible for them to detach themselves from their opinions when they are actually doing their job?

Mr Paisley Jnr quoted quite a good example, and I was thinking about it while he was speaking. I was thinking about his work with the "UDR four". Very few people wanted to get involved with the "UDR four", but Mr Paisley stuck his head above the parapet. He has to be commended for that. He proved to be right in the long run.

The point is that there are ills in this society. There have been travesties of justice the whole way along. Therefore we need to have some sort of mechanism to deal with that. At the end of the day, and irrespective of whether people go back to court to get their cases reopened on appeal, we have to have some mechanism whereby the Government can decide that cases need to be re-opened. These will be political decisions. However, we need to find the appropriate mechanism.

We cannot divorce the judiciary from politics completely. It cannot be done. It is a matter of fact and a matter of life. All of these things are cross-cutting, and we need to have powers whereby politicians or Government can have cases re-opened. It is a question of being above board and letting everybody see it being above board. We need to address the system that facilitates it and ensure that it is above board, so that every person can have that right. Criteria should be laid down, and if people meet the criteria their cases could be reopened. Those are all important issues.

We need to be careful regarding the recall of prisoners. I do not think that anybody in the Committee would have disagreed that there is a lack of clarification about when people could be recalled and when they could not. I am very concerned about it because it is a thorny issue. We need to ensure that there is no breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is very important. Some of the evidence given to us suggests that it might have been the case on some occasions in the past. Therefore we need to be careful about the recall of prisoners and take a longer look at it. We need to make sure that there is some consultation with others and that we get opinions from them.

I congratulate the Chairperson and Committee staff again for pulling this report together. We will have more Ad Hoc Committees, and we may not have the time to respond to every issue that we would like to have.

However, we need to respond in the short time that we have. If this is anything to go by, we can produce reasonable documents — in fact, good documents — in a short time. This report and the flags report are examples of how we will deal with legislation on reserved matters. We must respond, no matter how little time we have.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I associate myself with the comments of Billy Hutchinson, Alban Maginness and Ian Paisley Jnr about the work of the staff and about how agreeing to disagree meant that there was no more serious conflict on the Committee.

Several themes and principles that arise from the Ad Hoc Committee’s report are relevant to this discussion and others. First, I share the concern that the Secretary of State’s consultation with the Assembly on the matter was inadequate. However, as we also know, it goes further than that. At the public hearing, Brice Dickson, the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, replied as follows to a question about whether the Northern Ireland Office had consulted the Human Rights Commission before the draft Order was issued:

"No. We received the first version before Christmas, at the same time as everyone else."

The statutory body responsible for human rights matters in Northern Ireland, as laid down by an Act of the British Parliament was not consulted in any way prior to the issue of the draft legislation. That should not surprise us. At the Ad Hoc Committee on flags, a similar question was put to the chair of the Equality Commission, Joan Harbison, and she confirmed that the Equality Commission had not been consulted by the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland Office in advance of the issue of the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000. There is a structural problem with consultation with the Assembly and the main statutory bodies in the North that are responsible for the issues that have arisen from draft legislation. That structural problem must be addressed.

Like others, the SDLP welcomes the draft legislation, although not without objection. We welcome it for several reasons. First, as Prof Jackson said at the public hearing, the draft legislation introduces a principled and human-rights-based approach to the release of life prisoners. Although there are weaknesses in the draft Order, that principled and human-rights-based approach is the appropriate method for the consideration of future legislation. That should be made explicit, which is why the Committee has recommended that article 3 be amended to read as follows:

"In discharging any functions under this Order the Commissioners shall have regard to" —

inter alia —

"the Convention rights of life prisoners".

That makes explicit the principled and human rights-based approach to the release of prisoners that Prof Jackson said was implicit in the draft Order.

There are some even more compelling principles that inform both the draft legislation and the recommendations of the Committee. If the Assembly can agree to endorse those principles in relation to this draft legislation, I would like us to endorse the application of the same principles when it comes to our own legislation. They are good principles, and they represent good practice.

First, there are a number of principles in the legislation and in the Committee’s recommendations about the independence of membership of statutory bodies, the transparent working of statutory bodies and the belief that such bodies should be free of political interference. That is why the Committee said that in order to ensure that members are independent in discharging their functions, they should have security of tenure for at least five years in the first instance. That will ensure that people who are fulfilling a public function do so independent of obvious external pressures. A tenure that is limited to one, two or three years is an external pressure. By creating certainty of tenure, one creates greater certainty of the independence of a member. That principle should apply across the board in relation to public nominations. In due course the Assembly may have to consider that principle in respect of other public nominations.

Secondly, appointments to public bodies should be decided through open competition. That is an appropriate principle that should influence those who are appointed to public bodies. It should apply equally to other public appointments. In the North there are approximately 3,500 people appointed to quangos and similar organisations. We should have, and are beginning to have, a rigorous system of open competition for filling those appointments. That is good in practice and principle, and it informed the Committee’s report.

Thirdly, and at the risk of going into uncertain territory, another principle was flagged up in the Patten Report on policing. It said that there should be a robust separation of powers between the policing board and the Executive. Those principles also informed the Committee in its recommendations to the Assembly on the powers of the Secretary of State and the powers of the Commissioners.

There are passages in the draft report where the Committee states that there should be a robust separation of powers between the Secretary of State and the Executive on one hand and the Commissioners on the other. Those examples include the power of the Secretary of State under the draft Order to recall a prisoner and the power of the Secretary of State and a judge to determine what part of a life sentence prisoner’s life sentence should be served where he has been transferred to the North from another prison. There are a number of other examples, but they escape me at the moment. The Committee endorses the principle of a robust separation of powers between the Executive on one hand and a legal authority on the other. That principle should begin to inform the Assembly in other deliberations yet to arise.

Fourthly, the principle of transparency is also important. The Committee’s report says explicitly that while there was discussion about transparency, it has concerns about the Secretary of State not discharging information about a prisoner in certain circumstances. While the draft Order introduces a special advocates clause in order to mitigate the prospect of a prisoner not being aware of matters that might be relevant in the consideration of his case, the Committee said that that was not adequate to ensure that there was an accountable and transparent process when it came to determining what a prisoner should or should not know.

It should be for the Commissioners to decide what information is or is not made available to a prisoner whose case is under consideration — not for the Secretary of State or the special advocate. That is an important principle. If the Assembly accepts that principle, it will have a wider application in other ongoing procedures in Northern Ireland where information is not made known to a certain person because it may be security-related or security-relevant.

As a consequence, in the North there are procedures where a special advocate process is already in place in spite of the difficulties that some of us think are associated with that procedure. If the Assembly considers that the special advocate procedure is not adequate with respect to the release of life prisoners, then the Assembly may, in due course, similarly consider that it is not appropriate or relevant in other cases.

The final point I want to make is about release on licence. While Alban Maginness and others have dealt with the substantive parts of the Committee’s recommendations, I want to highlight that part relating to the release on licence of a life prisoner. It seems inconsistent to say that if the process of imprisonment is an exercise in deterrence and rehabilitation, and if a life sentence review board concludes that the deterrence principle has been satisfied, the licence cannot be annulled. The rehabilitation principle should be satisfied to the point where a prisoner on a life sentence licence should have that licence annulled. That person should be treated equally with every other citizen.

I support the report.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

We have heard the views of many Members. This is a very complex issue. When the Committee was given the task to do, it got tore into it. Many loose ends had to be tied up. The Committee knew that there was a job to be done, and we put our backs into it. Overall, there is support for the report. The Committee worked hard to arrive at the report, and there was agreement on the need for this legislation. There was also agreement on the Committee’s recommendations and concerns, and they are all highlighted in the report.

This is a good report. It speaks well for every Member who contributed to it. I would also like to thank the staff for their hard work. We have put into place, I hope, new legislation that will bring about change in an area where it is needed.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I have taken note of Members’ concerns, particularly with regard to the consultation period provided for the Assembly in section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The point is well made in the Ad Hoc Committee’s report. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Speaker on his return.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the report of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to consider the draft Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 referred by the Secretary of State be submitted to the Secretary of State as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Adjourned at 5.13 pm.