Northern Ireland Assembly, 20 March 2001

72 contributions from 33 members. The official report.

Assembly: Voting

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

At the end of the sitting on 6 March Dr Paisley raised a question about decisions by the Chair and the collection of voices. Standing Orders are clear that the Speaker shall judge whether a motion be carried by a collection of voices. Where the outcome is unclear the question will be put again. If the Speaker’s decision is challenged by a number of Members clearly pressing their case — even if only a few voices — the matter will be put again. If the "Aye" and "No" voices are similar, it will be put again. The Speaker will call for Tellers, and if Tellers are provided, the House will divide. I trust that the matter is now clear.

Assembly: Unparliamentary Language

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

During questions following a statement by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development on 12 March, a Member was alleged to have described another Member, from a sedentary position, as a "papish bigot". The Member was also alleged to have repeated the remark to another Member for having raised a point of order on the matter.

I have considered the matter carefully, and I am not aware of a precendent set elsewhere clarifying such a remark as unparliamentary language. That said, I find it inconceivable that such a remark could be regarded as anything other than a term of abuse. While I wish to ensure that we have robust debate in the Chamber, I do not see the case for abusive language. In that respect I consider that this term should henceforth be regarded as unparliamentary language in the Chamber.

However, I am not aware of any precedent set down elsewhere in respect of such remarks. The Member involved, if he did make such remarks, could not have expected the Speaker to consider his remarks to be unparliamentary language. Therefore, in terms of natural justice, it would be inappropriate to take any kind of retrospective action regarding the remark. However, I repeat that, from today, such remarks in this Assembly will be regarded as unparliamentary language. Also, remarks made from a sedentary position that are subsequently referred to by another Member during debate should be considered part of the proceedings of the Assembly and subject to the rule of the Speaker.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Are you prepared to rule that the term "Protestant bigot" will also be sat on in this House? You cannot say something about one section of the community and not about the other. "Papists" are referred to in the constitution of the United Kingdom.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is quite true. I trust that we shall not see such invective used in the Chamber. With regard to the use of the term "papish" or "papist", immediate assumptions are being made, not only about a person’s religion but also regarding the standing and reverence in which he or she holds the pontiff. At least, one would suppose that that is what is meant by it. In fact, it is usually used as a simple term of abuse. I trust that other such terms — for example, "Orange bigot" — will not become part of the parlance of this Chamber.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Or "Protestant bigot"?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

And, indeed, "Protestant bigot". It is unhelpful and it is unparliamentary. I am unaware of terms of that kind having been used in the Chamber. Then again, I am not here absolutely all of the time.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. What about "Unionist bigot"?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We could quickly get into a situation where, off the cuff, I go through a whole series of remarks and make rulings in regard to them. That is not a helpful way to proceed. If Members sail too close to the wind, I will undoubtedly consider the matter — particularly when it is raised by a Member to whom such a remark is directed. When my attention is drawn to it, I will then consider the question and see whether or not it is appropriate, inappropriate, parliamentary or unparliamentary — as distinct from true or false, which is a different matter.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair that day made a ruling on this matter. Are Deputy Speakers’ rulings now to be referred to you, or is it the case that such rulings cannot be challenged?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The subject was raised again, in writing, on more than one occasion after the Deputy Speaker had ruled. Hence, a further ruling was necessary.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I must confess that the use of this language is not something that I approve of. However, is the ruling in relation to the word "bigot", or is it in relation to "papish"? If one calls someone an "extremist bigot", a "sectarian bigot", a "papish bigot" or a "Prod bigot", the first word is simply an adjective specifying the type of bigot. What I am concerned about is whether the essential core of your ruling is "bigot" or whether it is the adjective preceding that word?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is not the term "bigot" of itself.

Assembly Business: Adjournment Debate

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is to be no Adjournment debate today. The Strangford MLAs have put down a motion concerning the plight of fishermen in Northern Ireland in relation to the cod recovery plan, which will come into effect on Friday. Also, the need of compensation for fishermen who have to tie up for the next five to six weeks —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member knows perfectly well that it is not in order to raise questions of that kind. It is a matter for the Business Committee. This is clearly not a point of order but an attempt to put the Member’s views on record at this time.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it possible for you to call the Business Committee together at lunch time to see if it would allow that Adjournment debate to take place this evening?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I recall that Mr Robinson has raised this precise point of order in respect of various motions. My response has always been the same. It is not possible for the Business Committee to add matters to the Order Paper as published. I can understand that, with age and grandfatherly duties bearing down on him, the Member may have forgotten that, so I remind him of the rulings that I made in the past.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. It should be clear to Members that if they do not discuss this plan today, they will not have any opportunity to do so, for it will be passed on Friday.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member knows that it is the Business Committee, on which he and his Colleagues have representation, which decides what matters need to be on the Order Paper. The Committee will be meeting at lunch time today, as usual, and representatives may raise these questions if they wish. The question of order that the matter raises is clear.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a serious issue. In most, if not all, other elected bodies, Standing Orders allow for emergency debates. Can we not, through the Procedures Committee, see whether, when an emergency occurs, there can be a proper debate in the Assembly?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There is no reason why the matter should not be raised through the Procedures Committee. The Member may talk to the Committee Chairman, Mr Conor Murphy, who will undoubtedly oblige by putting the matter on its agenda.

Rates (Regional Rates) (No 2) Order 2001

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the Rates (Regional Rates) (No 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

This short statutory instrument specifies the regional rate poundages for the financial year 2001-02 and the amount of the domestic rate aid grant applicable to that year. It also revokes and replaces an earlier rule that has been made but which, as I will explain shortly, will not now be brought before the Assembly.

Members will recall that on 12 February, I announced in this Chamber that the uplifts in the regional rates previously incorporated in the Budget plans would be abated from 8% to 7% in respect of the domestic rate and from 6·6% to 3·3% in respect of the non-domestic rate. The Order that we are considering today prescribes the actual rate poundages that reflect these lower percentage increases. I will quickly describe each of the articles in the Order.

Article 1 provides legal definitions of the two main classes of rateable property. A specified hereditament means, broadly, a commercial property. Consequently, an unspecified hereditament is a domestic property.

Article 2 fixes 30·42p as the commercial regional rate poundage and 192·95p as the domestic regional rate poundage.

Article 3 specifies 69·15p as the amount by which the domestic rate is to be reduced. The domestic rate that ratepayers will actually pay will therefore be 123·8p.

Article 4 revokes an earlier Order, which was similar in every respect to the present Order except that it would have come into operation on 14 May instead of 1 April. Subsequent to the Order being made, it was revealed that a May start date for the new rate would have posed more significant operational difficulties for the Rate Collection Agency than had been realised.

A second Order was therefore prepared, and urgent steps were taken to complete it in a shorter time frame than previously intended. Before being halted, the original Order had not progressed far enough to be laid before the Assembly.

Members will be interested to know that in this coming year revenue raised from the regional rate will exceed £300 million, which will make a very significant contribution towards the expenditure plans set out in the Budget announcement in December. At that time, however, I made it clear that we would be keeping under review revenue forecasts and other related matters and that I would be prepared to reduce the proposed rate increases if the opportunity arose. Members will recall that, as a result of the December monitoring round, some room to manoeuvre emerged. Having listened carefully to the views of Members and ordinary ratepayers, I was pleased to announce to the Assembly on 12 February the reduced percentage increase now included in today’s Regional Rates Order.

I stress that the regional rate is an important part of the funding for our public services. As a result of last year’s spending review, our total spending on services under the control of the Executive has increased by 8%, as expressed in the departmental expenditure limit set for us by the Treasury. That is a much more relevant comparator in this context than is the rate of inflation. Increasing the regional rate by 8% would have done no more than keep constant the proportion of spending which is funded from the regional rate. However, as I have explained many times, the level of local revenue raised here is relatively low, and the Treasury has pressed consistently for a relative increase. We were able to reduce the increase in the domestic rate to 7% because the information on valuation showed that the level of revenue would be higher than had been expected.

I do not deny that major issues remain in relation to financing local services, and I am taking three initiatives towards resolving them. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, and for the information of Members present, I should like to make a few brief remarks on each one.

First, a comprehensive review of rating policy is now under way. An interdepartmental steering group has been set up, and work on the review will be taken forward as quickly as possible. The role of local revenue raising in our Programme for Government will be explored, including its impact on households, commerce, industry and the voluntary sector. Fairness in the system, and the relationship between the regional Government and the district councils will also be examined. Widespread public consultation will take place later this year, and I hope that the review will be completed by spring 2002.

Secondly, I am pleased to confirm that I am bringing forward a scheme for mandatory rate relief for shops and post offices in rural settlements. Additional discretionary relief will also be available for such businesses and other undertakings by way of a qualifying settlement. That will benefit the local community, and the scheme should be in operation by October 2002.

Thirdly, a non-domestic revaluation for rating purposes is in progress. Work on this will continue until the autumn of 2002. A new valuation list will be issued before the end of December 2002 and will come into force on April 2003. The valuations in the new list will reflect the social, economic and demographic changes which have taken place since the revaluation six years previously.

I am certain that Members will agree that these three initiatives, along with the reduction in the previously announced rates increase represented by today’s Regional Rates Order, demonstrate clearly that I and my ministerial colleagues in the Executive are prepared to listen when representations are made to us and to act in the best interests of the whole community — even when difficult issues have to be faced and equally difficult choices have to be made.

I commend the Order to the Assembly.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A Cheann Comhairle, go raibh maith agat. The Finance and Personnel Committee discussed the Regional Rates Order at its meeting on 15 March, when officials explained the background to it. Generally there were feelings of unhappiness among members of the Committee about the rates increases. Members, however, agreed to support the Order — a motion being carried by three votes to two, with one abstention. That shows the disagreements and concerns that there are within the Committee on this matter.

I ask the Minister to ensure that in the review the issue of rates as a means of taxation is looked into. The Committee has voiced concerns on a number of occasions that this is a crude system of taxation that is, in some ways, discriminatory as it does not take into account the services that are provided within a district area or the difference between urban and rural areas. Members of the Committee had difficulty accepting any suggestion that the level of rates increase in the North should be linked to increases proposed by other Assemblies. Members also resented the implication that the Treasury would be able to use the adoption of a lower rate here as a weapon in negotiations on the Barnett formula.

Over the last year members raised the possibility of using savings from the in-year monitoring rounds to offset increases in rates. In the follow-up to the December monitoring round, the Minister did use such money to reduce the planned increase in the non-domestic rate. However, the reduction in the domestic rate was linked to increased valuations. That is unfortunate because the Minister pointed out that the proposed rise in the domestic rate will only bring in £4 million. That is a lot of pain for very little gain, and the pain is going to be on the domestic dweller because the rates are once again being hiked up.

The Committee made the point a number of times, and we welcomed this fact that the reduction in the non-domestic rate will help small businesses and towns that are suffering. I welcome the idea of the rural rebate put forward by the Minister. It is most welcome that consideration is starting to be given to the rural areas. I hope that this will not be abused by out-of-town shopping centres that might try to make the case that they are now rural. The Minister will have to ensure that this is not abused by different operators. There is quite a difference between an out-of-town shopping centre with a large turnover paying a reasonable rate and an in-town shopping centre, shop or business paying a large rate because it is based in a town centre. I hope that in the review the Minister will ensure that adequate concern is shown to the changes that are happening in town centres. Town centres are not now the viable propositions they once were. A user of premises in towns does not have the free parking, the services or the flexibility that a user of an out-of-town shopping centre has. There has been a change of character in the whole business of shopping.

I must make the difference between my position as Chairperson of the Committee and my own position, although they are similar. The Committee decided to support the motion although concern was expressed. I say again that we need to look at the review of the rates system. We need also to make sure that revaluations do not become simply paper exercises that look at the square footage of a property and then increase the rates accordingly.

We need to look at the turnover and viability of the business and ensure that the rates reflect that, rather than simply measuring the building and putting a square footage price on it. I hope that that will be taken into consideration in the review, together with the concerns that have been raised both by Members in the Committee and the Assembly and by the general public in relation to the domestic and non-domestic rates.

The Committee supports the motion.

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

The issue of the rates has already been debated in the Chamber, and the pros and cons of rates have been raised many times. However, the real argument is not about rates, but about how we continue to make effective public spending decisions and how we finance them. Some people here take a very simplistic approach — that we need to cut the rates or cut elements of the North/South bodies. That cannot be tolerated any longer. The North/South bodies are an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement and, as such, need to be funded.

The real issue is the economics of the real world and the steps that we need to take to improve our schools, hospitals and infrastructure as a whole. Those are the demands on the public exchequer. Our only indigenous fund raising mechanism is the rates. We need to explore more innovative means of supplying resources to the public sector.

The fact that this Budget is administered by local Ministers will help to reassure the Northern Ireland public that local issues will be addressed and that there will be an opportunity for innovation and, in particular, for Departments to become more proactive, rather than reactive, with their budgets.

Value for money is essential to promote optimum return for the limited resources available. That will involve allocating funds to particular areas of need and social deprivation. The targets defined in the Programme for Government have to be regularly reviewed and examined to enable us to turn them into realistically achievable objectives. However, we cannot do that without adequate funding. I welcome the Minister’s commitment in the Programme for Government and the Executive to explore new, innovative ways of finding finance. I understand that the Minister is actually taking steps to do that. One of the ways, for example, is the rural rate relief scheme, which makes provision for two types of relief from rates for non-domestic properties in rural settings. One is 50% relief for a single general store post office; the other is a discretionary relief for properties used for community benefit. Those will benefit local communities by maintaining essential services in rural communities and promoting social inclusion for some of the most disadvantaged sections of our population.

I believe that the Finance and Personnel Committee as a whole needs to look at ways to complement the Programme for Government, to find new finance and to support the Minister in doing that. Many Members know that the Committee is looking at some research into public/private partnerships and private finance initiatives. No one here thinks that we should not be meeting the needs of all our constituents. We all want better education systems, schools, hospitals and infrastructure. We have to stop this constant criticising and bringing forward glib solutions to a very difficult and complex situation. It is about time we harnessed our energies in support of what the Minister, Mark Durkan, is trying to do with regard to balancing need and fairness.

I ask Members to support the motion.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

We return to the issue that will continue to dog the Minister for as long as he continues on the road down which he is planning to take the Assembly. There is a basic inequity about imposing on householders an increase in the regional rate that is over twice the rate of inflation.

That is the basic fact that we are dealing with in the House today. No matter how they try to run away with it or talk round it or obscure it, the Members of this House know that this is not a fair approach. They know the context in which this increase is being proposed: 8% increases in each of the last two years already and, under the Minister’s Department, plans by the Executive to have increases far above the rate of inflation for the next two years as well. This is not a one-off for non- domestic ratepayers; this is part of a five-year programme of yearly increases way above the rate of inflation.

There was outrage and outcry in this very Chamber among those who have just spoken when increases of a similar nature, extent and range were proposed for Northern Ireland Electricity and when there was even a suggestion of an increase in Housing Executive rents of 2% above the rate of inflation. What outrage that provoked. Members should also bear that in mind. All sides of the House were concerned that this would run against the basic tenets of targeting social need (TSN), and the same people come here today and tell us that an increase of 7% for domestic ratepayers is wonderful and acceptable. Indeed, when the Minister announced a couple of weeks ago that he was taking the massive step of reducing it from 8% to 7%, they were clapping and cheering. I wonder how many of them have asked their rate-paying constituents whether they think that that is an acceptable level of increase.

The Minister has said that he listened carefully in respect of the non-domestic rate increase. Although I do welcome that fact, I must say that when he announced it in his statement to the House in February, he did it on the basis of having gone back to the figures. In fact, if I remember well, he was at pains to tell us that it was not as a result of popular pressure or of pressure from the House. Rather, he said that it was something that he had always intended to look at in the light of the figures and the revenue implications. Now he tells us that it is a result of his having listened carefully. Well, I urge him to listen a bit more carefully. I urge him to listen to working families. He should listen to those who are earning just above the rate that would qualify them for rate rebates and housing benefit and to people who complain about the basic unfairness of increases of above 8% in the regional rate over the last two years, of 7% this year and of more to come. He must listen to this as well as to the opinions of traders and small shopkeepers. I would be grateful if the Minister were to outline his plans for the next two years, perhaps in his response at the end of this debate. He did say in his initial statement that rate increases of 8% were planned for the financial year after this one as well as for he year after that.

I also urge him and those parties who will troop into the Lobbies today to support this increase to listen to what their members are saying in councils up and down the Province. I understand that the Finance and Personnel Committee is today going to hear representations from a cross-party delegation from Belfast City Council, which is coming before the Committee to voice concerns about general rating issues as well as about the level of the increase in the regional rate. Members of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party and other parties who will today vote to increase the regional rate for domestic ratepayers by over twice the rate of inflation should really be listening to their councillors and to what their representatives at the coalface have to say about this issue.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

A person’s rates bill is made up of the regional rate, which the Minister is setting, and the district rate, which councils set with real prudence in the pursuit of tight fiscal policies. Is there not something dreadfully unfair about that system? For instance, Castlereagh — the best council in Northern Ireland — boasts the lowest rates in the Province.

There is a nil increase in the district rate there. Then the Minister comes plodding in, hiking the rates by 7%, and people get the impression that, somehow, councillors are also to blame.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Mr Robinson has made an entirely fair point, which will be endorsed readily by ratepayers and people in general.

It is also the case that in Belfast City Council — which you, Mr Speaker, will know something about, given your past membership of that body, as will other Members — all parties have been trying to keep the district rate down as far as possible to the rate of inflation. Increases in the district rate level by Belfast City Council have been kept to the bare minimum.

Time and time again, the Department of the Environment, as it was called under direct rule, stepped in with swingeing increases in the regional rate to the horror, anger and spoken outrage of Belfast City councillors. Some of those councillors are present today among the SDLP Members. The Ulster Unionist Members are not present. Assembly Members who are also members of Belfast City Council expressed outrage at these levels of increase while wearing their council hats. However, in the Assembly, they say "It is OK. We are going to increase the rates at more or less the same level for domestic ratepayers as that which we expressed outrage at as councillors." It makes people wonder what has made the difference.

I am grateful to Ms Lewsley for making it clear from the outset that the increase is important because North/ South expenditure is an integral part of the Budget. She was very clear about that, and all Members should bear in mind that right at the heart of this matter is the fact that the money is needed because North/South expenditure is integral and cannot be done away with.

There are tens of thousands of people out there who do not look at it that way. They look at trying to meet their household bills and manage their weekly budget as being more important than implementing the all-Ireland aspect of the Belfast Agreement.

Undoubtedly, some people — including the Minister — will say that we need the increases because of the programme of expenditure we have set out. That is why, throughout the debate and discussions, the Democratic Unionist Party have been up front about our views. We did not just say "Cut the expenditure." We went further and said where the cuts could be made. We make no apology for saying that they should be made in the expenditure on the all-Ireland bodies.

Increases in North/South expenditure have been outlined before. In some cases they are of the magnitude of 50%; in others it is 100%. In total, taking into account the North/South tourism body, it amounts to £18·1 million.

There may be Members in the House who want to justify that, but I think it is unjustifiable. When you look at the sort of figure we are talking about — £4 million — which would be needed to reduce the 7% increase to approximately the rate of inflation for domestic ratepayers it is not a lot of money. This is especially so when we consider the sort of largesse and the amount of money that the Minister informs the House about during monitoring rounds.

I make no apology for repeating these figures because they need to be hammered home to some people who think that £1 million here or £4 million there is not much. I remind Members that for every million pounds saved from North/South expenditure we could pay for 200 heart operations in Northern Ireland, 25 new homes could be built, or 300 homes that have no heating at the moment could be centrally heated. We could have 1000 homes adapted for people with disabilities. That is a far better way to spend the money than on North/South expenditure — if the Minister is looking for a different way to spend it.

The case for reducing the regional rate for non- domestic ratepayers to the rate of inflation, while maintaining an increase of more than double the rate of inflation for domestic ratepayers, is simply unsustainable. There is no justification whatsoever for that. The Minister could easily find that money. He could find it in the way that we have outlined. Others have described other means of finding it.

The Minister came to this House previously and said that there was no room for manoeuvre. I suspect that when he heard the reaction, the outcry, the deputations and the representations, he made a move, but he did not go far enough. On behalf of my party and others outside this House, I appeal to the Minister to think again, if not this year then at least next year. If he is prepared to ram this through with the support of his Colleagues in other parties, then let him think next year and the year after, and not impose this unfair and inequitable burden on domestic ratepayers in future years.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the opportunity to have another crack at this iniquitous tax. It should be remembered that when we started this particular battle, a flat 8% increase was proposed right across the board. That increase had come about through the application and implementation of a former regime that ruled and controlled the finances of Northern Ireland.

I remind Members that, from 1979, that regime was a Conservative regime. We all know how the Tories feel about those impoverished and less-well-off people in Northern Ireland. It can be put in a few words. They could not care less about those people.

However, we now have a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. The political parties in Northern Ireland, some of them with very nice names referring to their democracy and social conscience, decided that they were going to roll over and implement exactly the same type of policies and increases as previous Tory overlords had proposed for the people of Northern Ireland: they were going to adopt an 8% blanket increase on an iniquitous tax that is known as the regional rate.

Battle commenced. There was a total outcry throughout Northern Ireland from all right-thinking people, who expressed their opposition to such a swingeing increase in an iniquitous tax like the regional rate. Gradually, slowly but surely, a little bit of progress was made. We managed, for reasons that I shall not go into, to get the regional rate reduced.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

If the tax, as the Member has said on at least four occasions, is iniquitous, what is the alternative? Is it a poll tax? Is it higher income tax for Northern Ireland? We need to hear that.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

The iniquity lies in the fact that it is unfair. It takes no account whatsoever of ability to pay and it strikes those who are less able to pay it. Is it fair that a senior citizen living on her own should have to pay the same sort of rate bill as a family of up to six adults living in a similar dwelling? Is that fair? Can anyone advocate that type of system and say that that is fair play and recognises the needs of our citizens?

I welcome the review of this system that the Minister has already announced. It goes without saying that the system is not being reviewed because it is fair or because it is the best system for raising money or for squeezing money out of individuals. We will all be reviewing the system because it is recognised as unfair and iniquitous. There is that word again.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I am glad that the Member has rectified the lack of clarity of his thoughts on this matter. If he thinks that it is unfair to levy the tax per household, irrespective of the number of people in the household — and there seems to be some strength in that argument — is he saying that it would be fair to levy the tax per adult head and not per householder?

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

The hon Member knows quite well that that is not what I was saying. I refer the Member to a verse that I think is from Ecclesiasticus:

"In a shaken sieve the rubbish is left behind. So too the defects of a man are found in his talk".

The Member should pay attention to that before he rises to interject. This could be the last time that the Assembly has the opportunity to recognise that it is a listening Assembly — that it listens to the electorate, the people of Northern Ireland, and to the pleas of those who are less well off. This could be the last opportunity for the Assembly to prove that, having listened, it is prepared to take action.

I get a bit fed up with people who jump to their feet in here and speak about Members who criticise the regional rate, alleging that they propose simplistic solutions. For as long as I can remember every single council in Northern Ireland has objected for reasons similar to those that I am exposing and expounding. I have sat on local authorities for 28 years and not once in that time have I heard one councillor from any party in Northern Ireland say that the regional rate was a good thing or show support for it. Each year when the rates are set every party objects to the swingeing increases. What has changed?

The only thing that has changed is that some people who once sat on local authorities now have some power. How do they use that power? That is the fundamental question, and that is what we are trying to get to the bottom of. We are pleading for those people to apply the same rules and regulations and show the same social conscience that they applied and showed when they sat on the local authorities and voted against large increases in regional rates. Do not change your tune because you have become a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, because people will not forgive you for that.

However, we have made some progress because we have managed to have the non-domestic rate reduced to 3·3% and the domestic regional rate reduced to 7%. The issue was raised at the last meeting of the Finance and Personnel Committee. The Committee has a scrutiny role and an advisory role. What advice did the Committee give to the Minister? The Committee divided, and there were three votes for the increase in the regional rate, two votes against it and one abstention. That was not what you could call an enthusiastic vote of support for the increase. That was not a tremendous endorsement of the Order before us today. Views on the matter are split, and we should still be able to oppose the Order.

If we really are democrats, and if we really believe in the possibility of change and of making life better for the citizens of Northern Ireland, we should take the opportunity today not to accept this Order.

How much money are we talking about? If the domestic regional rate is reduced to the same level as the non-domestic regional rate, in other words an increase of 3·3% instead of the 7% that is proposed, we are talking about around £4 million. That is a drop in the ocean compared with the overall level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland, but it is not a drop in the ocean given the individual rates bills that will drop through letterboxes in Northern Ireland in a matter of weeks. It is not a drop in the ocean to the senior citizen who finds himself or herself with a large rates bill in a few weeks’ time. It is not a drop in the ocean to the family that falls just outside the benefits regime and is struggling to clothe and feed its children.

That type of increase will drag those people unremittingly into the poverty trap that the Assembly should be endeavouring to squash out of existence rather than add to it through such large increases. References to and comparisons with what takes place across the water are absolutely irrelevant. We know that our fuel prices are far higher. We know that it costs more to clothe and feed children here. We know that car tax and insurance costs are far higher in Northern Ireland. Let us compare like with like.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Does the Member agree that the average industrial wage in Northern Ireland is significantly lower than on the mainland where people have the advantages of cheaper clothing, food and fuel?

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that pertinent point. I think that the figure in Northern Ireland is £100 less per week. We must put the blame where the blame lies — fairly and squarely on the Executive. The Executive should say that council tax across the water has gone up by 8% and that that is where that figure came from. We must make no mistake about that; this has nothing to do with the needs of Northern Ireland. This is following directly what is happening in the rest of the UK. That is unfair; it is unjustified; it is iniquitous. We cannot stand here today and endorse that iniquity or turn a blind eye to it. If we really mean what we say, if we have concern for our people, we will share that concern and not support this Order.

The other question is: where are you — not you, Mr Speaker, but the Assembly — going to get the money? When the rates issue was first raised in the House I stated — and Hansard will show this — that the money was in the system. The money is still in the system. If Members take the time and effort to look through the various monitoring rounds they will find that since the issue was first raised, virtually enough money has been raised through the monitoring rounds to cover the total amount of money raised through the regional rates.

At today’s meeting of the Finance and Personnel Committee further savings will be shown as a result of the February monitoring round. How much money are we talking about? It is another £25 million. Reducing the rate of increase of the domestic regional rates to the same level of increase as that of the non-domestic regional rates would cost £4 million. My plea is for the Executive to take that £4 million from the latest £25 million of savings and demonstrate once and for all that they have the care, concern and the interests of the people of Northern Ireland at heart.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Mr Close quoted Ecclesiastes, I think. I shall make a play upon some words from Ecclesiastes:

"All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full"

and there is no new thing under the sun. The rivers of taxation flow into the coffers of the Exchequer and it is not filled, but that is nothing new so far as Ministers of Finance are concerned.

I do not often find grounds for agreement with the First Minister, but in a speech he made on 3 November 2000 to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives — interestingly called SOLACE — he said this about the cost of bureaucracy:

"In addition to the Assembly, its Committees and the 11 Departments, we have a Civic Forum, nearly 80 executive quangos, 50 advisory bodies, 26 district councils, and a range of partnership boards.

It is difficult to argue in favour of a system that is as elaborate, complex, fragmented, and expensive as ours. We need to be able to provide the public – our customers – with better quality services and value for money."

The Minister of Finance, in proposing the Order, said that £300 million would be raised through the rates, and that in the current year there would be an increase of 8% in the cost of expenditure, presumably on services such as education and health. There is some financial sleight of hand taking place in connection with this because there is no question that those services could still be delivered and significant savings made.

Mention has been made in an earlier speech about the vast sums of money — £57 million on one occasion, and an alleged £20 million on the present occasion — found during the monitoring rounds. In those circumstances it is extraordinary that out of those vast sums of money £4 million cannot be found to reduce the proposed increases in the domestic rate to the level of inflation. We are only talking about £4 million.

Perhaps Mr Close put his finger on the matter when he said that the figure for the 8% rise really came from the mainland, where social, economic and domestic considerations are entirely different from those in Northern Ireland.

Where can these savings be made? The Democratic Unionist Party has argued, with some force, that if £18 million is being spent on cross-border bodies — essentially not a domestic or social objective but a political one — some saving might be made there.

That is a fundamental political question, but huge savings could be made in relation to the administrative matters that the First Minister has alluded to. For example, for the current year the Minister previously indicated that it would cost approximately £670 million to administer this place. I understand that the budget for next year for administering the 11 Departments and running the Assembly will reach a new level of £750 million. Are people honestly going to believe that administrative costs of £750 million per annum could not be successfully pruned, even very slightly, to deliver the £4 million that is going to be raised by the increases in the domestic rate above the rate of inflation. I do not think any sensible citizen will believe that that is not possible. Of course it is possible.

People in the Assembly will say that Bob McCartney is on his usual hobby horse, criticising the amount of money that is spent on running the Assembly and its Executive.

Well, take the appointment of three Deputy Speakers, at £7,500 each, for an Assembly that sits in plenary session two days a week for a limited number of weeks of the year — and not always two days in every week.

Look at the current proposals before the Commission for the payment of short money — only it is not now going to be called that but given some fancy title such as "professional services". These will increase the current very generous payment of short money from something like £440,000 to almost £1 million — £1 million that is being milked out of the system. That amounts to a quarter of the entire money that will be raised by the increase in the domestic rate.

This payment is an entire fraud. The four major parties in Government will receive by far the lion’s share of that £1 million of short money — something like £600,000. Short money is not even paid in the Westminster Parliament. It is only paid to parties notionally in opposition, on the basis that the parties of Government have access to the whole support system of the Civil Service, special advisers and others, who are all paid out of the public purse. How anyone could conceivably justify the payment of that sort of money in an administrative cost, in circumstances where it will represent almost 25% of the total of £4 million to be raised by this increase in the domestic rate, beggars belief.

An enormous amount of money, as the First Minister has pointed out, could be saved. However, money is being poured into all sorts of community groups and other specialist lobby groups. There are now groups for almost everything from nose-picking to bottom-scratching. We are inundated with literature — glossy magazines and annual reports that cost tens of thousands of pounds. The only sign that these groups exist is the presentation of their annual "glossy". That is just one example of Government expenditure being churned out at the expense of ordinary people — ratepayers who are working. I am not suggesting that all these groups do not have worthy objectives. However, in the administration costs of the Government in Northern Ireland, we are now supporting a whole range of bureaucrats and other people who are contributing absolutely nothing to the inherent wealth and welfare of our society — and yet we have increases in the domestic and regional rates.

I welcome the statement from the Minister that a comprehensive review of the whole rating system is in the pipeline. Changes in Government have undermined the whole basis of the rating system. Originally rates where raised from the people in the community to pay for the services being provided by the district or county council. Then, as central Government took an increasing role in providing services in those local or county districts, the rate system was changed. Now we have the Government actually taxing through the rate system, in an unfair and inequitable way, all the people in the taxation area — many of whom do not receive direct benefits from the rating system.

It was fairly pointed out by both Mr Peter Robinson and Mr Close that each and every district council has opposed the regional rate on the basis that, while the councils scrimp and save in order to minimise rate increases, they have no control over the sweeping imposition of a regional rate. Other Members have already pointed out the inequities of that system, and I will not dwell upon them.

However, let me raise one particular point in relation to the rating of agriculture businesses. It has been recently drawn to my attention that in the view of the central Government — and no doubt it will spill over into this devolved Government — the countryside and farming are no longer of major importance. Someone recently said "What is all this outcry about foot-and- mouth and the special relationship with farmers? They should be treated like the miners, since on the mainland they contribute something like 1·6% of GDP, while tourism, which is being battered to death as the result of foot-and-mouth, contributes 6%".

Many farmers are now looking for alternative means of earning a living. They are converting their farms for other interests: horse training, horse breeding, riding schools and the like. But once they do that, once they attempt to utilise their assets for another purpose — since farming is not profitable — in businesses that the Government encourage them to take up, they are hit with the business rate. I hope that that will be one of the aspects of rural life, along with post offices and rural shops, that the Minister will take into account when any rebate scheme is introduced in order to alleviate some of the acute difficulties that people in those communities experience.

However, I return to the central issue of the domestic rate. Four million pounds is a drop in the ocean. It is a drop compared to the vast sums that are available to the Minister. It is a fraction of the sums that, in the monitoring round, he has managed to extricate from all sorts of weird places in the Departments — almost £100 million. Yet he finds it necessary to impose these increases in the regional rate and the domestic rate.

I read recently in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ a tremendous panegyric about the Minister and his capacity to deal with all the intricacies of our financial system. The article dealt to some extent with the necessity to exercise the ministerial powers to raise money by means of the rates. That apologia may have satisfied the readers of the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. It certainly has not sufficed to satisfy the people within this Assembly who do not belong to the major parties that are going to railroad these increases through. It cannot be justified either in terms of the expenditure on bureaucracy in this Assembly or in terms of the money that it will produce, when that is related to the amount of money that is awash throughout the system.

It cannot be justified to those individual householders on the margin who have to pay for it. It is time the Minister really started governing in this Executive in the interest of the people, not in the interest of those who fill official offices and who are financially reaping the benefits of the emoluments of office in this Assembly.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

This is a time-limited debate. If Members speak for substantial periods they will reduce the amount of time that is available to their Colleagues. Indeed, some of their Colleagues will not get the chance to speak at all. Even if you do not share power I encourage you to share time — at least for this morning in order to give all Members an opportunity to speak.

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

I will make some comments about three of the speeches that have been made so far by Mr McCartney, Mr Dodds and Mr Close. I had some sympathy with a few of Mr McCartney’s comments about the cost of bureaucracies in the North, quangos and the system of Government that we had for far too long. However, one of his comments echoed what he said in the Assembly before Christmas when he demeaned Members who were previously unemployed. You were equally demeaning about the community sector in the North whom you characterised in a way that many find offensive and inappropriate. While you make some valid comments, you undermine your legitimacy by the abusive nature of the remarks that you make about those who are not even here to defend themselves.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I encourage the Member to make his comments through the Chair.

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

I also noted what Mr Close said. He made some valid comments too, not least perhaps his remarks with regard to monitoring returns. However, it is inaccurate to characterise this debate and the Government by suggesting — as he did — that we are implementing the same policies as the Tories. Those were the words that he used. Go and ask the farmers if we are implementing the same policies as the Tories. Perhaps even ask those involved in the 11-plus consultation or those who will benefit from the section 75 equality duty and the workings of the equality unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if Tory policies are being implemented. Go and ask those people if this Government is administering Tory policies or implementing Tory practices. I think that their conclusion will be contrary to Mr Closes’s assertion.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I suggest that Mr Attwood read the Minister of Finance’s speech. He said that he was carrying forward the plans of the previous Administration with regard to the 8% increase.

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

Mr Close may have forgotten that there was an election four years ago which returned one Tony Blair to Downing Street and not one William Hague or John Major. It is Labour Party policy that we are listening to and heeding. As my Colleague Ms Lewsley said, in spite of that the Minister is clearly doing his best to remodel the rates in an effort to ensure that they are administered more favourably. She welcomed the Minister’s commitment in the Programme for Government to explore new innovative ways of finding finance. One way is the rural rates relief scheme, which Ms Lewsley described in some detail. That is not Tory policy. This is not a Tory Government; this is a Government which is trying to rework rates policies in the North to benefit the people of the North, especially those in some need.

However, I found Mr Dodds’s speech most instructive. At least our Colleagues Mr McCartney and Mr Close tried to outline ways of finding additional sources of funding. Mr Dodds did not even go that far, save in one regard, which exposed the core frailty of his argument. The only source of additional finance that he could come up with was the North/South bodies. The only strategy that Mr Dodds put forward for finding additional resources was to unpick and undermine the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement, the workings of bodies on this island that have economic and other benefits for all the people of this island and policies that can work well for the advantage of people on both sides of the border.

In that contribution Mr Dodds exposed the core motivation behind his proposals — to unpick the agreement rather than to create a proper Government. That was confirmed by the core inconsistency of his argument. On one hand Mr Dodds said that my Colleague Patricia Lewsley found the Rates Order to be wonderful and acceptable — those are his words — but, on the other hand, he said that SDLP members of the Belfast City Council considered the rates increase to be an outrage.

That revealed another core flaw and fault in what Mr Dodds said, because the SDLP does not deny or diminish the consequences that rates increases and the Rates Order will have on ratepayers. The SDLP does not deny or diminish that. In fact, the Minister has attempted to mitigate the effect of rates where that is consistent with the proper management of the country’s finances.

We have not denied or diminished the fact that there are consequences, and the SDLP and Ministers in the Government will try — where feasible and possible — to mitigate the rates burden in the future. That is why the Government and the Finance Minister made their commitments in the Programme for Government.

It is ironic that in attacking the Finance Minister on the Rates Order, Nigel Dodds affirmed the policy of targeting social need. Mr Dodds spoke affirmatively and generously about the programme and policy of targeting social needs adopted by the Government and being implemented in the North. When the DUP Ministers come to implement the targeting of social needs, I trust that they will target the disadvantaged communities in the North — which are common between our peoples — and those communities that have been discriminated against over many years. That category applies particularly to one of the traditions in the North. It is to be hoped that the DUP Ministers will implement Nigel Dodds’s warm phrases about targeting social needs. The Assembly will then judge them more fully than we do at the moment.

Over the past few months one of the consistent and prevailing themes of those who present themselves as the Opposition in the Assembly has been the rates increase. That theme has been raised many times. It seems as though the rates increase is their only point of attack against a Government that is working demonstrably on behalf of the North’s citizens and communities. If that is the only criticism that they can level at an Executive who are working effectively for the citizens and communities in the North, it is a sad indictment of the argument that they are making.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Some Members who spoke in support of the Order have admitted that the Assembly is finally ratifying the bill for the Good Friday Agreement and the chopped-up Government that have led to the formation of ten Departments — which were set up to ensure the inclusion of two Sinn Féin Ministers in the Executive — and the cross-border political institutions. Despite what was said by the previous Member —who has done his usual stunt of making his speech and leaving before anybody can comment on it — those cross-border bodies are nothing to do with the economic or social betterment of the lives of people in Northern Ireland. They are to do with political chicanery and with setting up institutions to keep Republicans and Nationalists happy.

Ms Lewsley was quite clear about the rates increase. She said that the North/South bodies must be funded. Part of the price of that is an increase in the domestic rate over and above the level of inflation. There is no doubt that ratepayers are getting a bill for the political institutions and the political arrangements which are essential to keep Nationalists and Republicans happy and to finance what they want from the Good Friday Agreement.

You cannot fault the SDLP and, to a lesser extent, Sinn Féin for supporting the Rates Order. However, I find it very odd that Unionists are supporting it. To date, no Members from the Ulster Unionist Party have spoken on this important issue. However, they have made various declarations in the past and a couple by way of interventions this morning. The Member for North Antrim, Mr Leslie, who is at least sitting through the debate, said on a previous occasion that we should be rejoicing at the increase and that we should be looking forward to paying our bills and standing on our own two feet.

Today he has sought to defend his party’s support and his party’s vote by taunting Mr Close about his alternatives for raising money. I will not go through Mr McCartney’s proposals, because you have encouraged us to be brief, Mr Speaker.

Mr McCartney and Mr Dodds outlined ways in which we could raise money without increasing the rates bill and without hurting the people of Northern Ireland by cutting services. But rather than applying itself to the rigour of doing that, and rather than offending those who demand the North/Southery which is all part of the agreement, the Ulster Unionist Party has decided to support the Rates Order. However, there have been reductions since the increase was first announced. Before he left the Chamber, Mr Attwood said that the only way in which the anti-agreement parties have been able to oppose the Executive — and that shows that he does not sit in the House long enough to listen to anybody — is by raising the rates issue. At least we have had some success on that.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I wonder how the Member would feel if we had a cut-price model of Government such as direct rule under which the rates increases would be forced through every year with no opportunity to argue for the reductions, which have been delivered this time round. Perhaps he would prefer something much cheaper, more autocratic and on the Cuban model administered by Ché Close and Fidel McCartney.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do not understand the point that the Member was making. Anyone, by any stretch of the imagination, could say that Northern Ireland has got an austere system of Government. Mr McCartney pointed that out and his contention is supported by the comments of Mr Leslie’s party leader, who has said that we are over-governed and that the bill for Government is way too high. I am not suggesting any kind of hair shirt type of Government for Northern Ireland. I am simply saying that there are plenty of ways in which the pain of this Rates Bill that we are discussing this morning could have been reduced with ease. But, of course, for political reasons, that will not be done.

I now move on to the reductions that we have seen and where there has been some success as a result of the pressure applied by my party, and by others, on this issue. When the Minister first announced this, he was emphatic that it was required. In the debate of 18 December he stated

"The Budget plans … are based on an assumed level of regional rate revenue of £334 million … the indicative allocations of 2002-03 and 2003-04 would imply further increases in the domestic regional rate of 8% and 5·5% in the non-domestic regional rate in 2002-03 and 2003-04."

But by February the Minister seemed to have got his sums wrong. In the short space of two months he recalculated his figures and in February he told the Assembly that because of strong continued growth in valuations of domestic property, there was some scope for adjusting the domestic regional rate increase. He then went on to make the announcement.

I suggest that, rather than the Minister’s getting his sums wrong, the effect of opposition by the DUP and other parties in the House — and the opposition that was found outside — forced the Minister to look at his sums again. As Mr Dodds said, if the Minister could find that within two months, surely to goodness if he looked a bit harder — and along the lines indicated by Mr McCartney in the House this morning — he would find sufficient money to keep the regional rate increase at to the rate of inflation.

There is one other point that I want to make regarding the Minister’s statement this morning. He announced three things. The first is a review of the policy and, as has been said, you only review something if you know it is inherently wrong. Secondly, we are to have rates relief for shops and post offices in rural areas. [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

May I suggest that the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am going to finish now.

There are just as many owners of small shops on arterial routes in main towns — especially in the inner part of Belfast — hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Are they going to be included in that review?

The last announcement is not a reason for hope; it is a reason for dread, especially for householders: he has announced a revaluation of properties. In one east Belfast street there are new properties on one side, old properties on the other and a 75% difference in what is being paid between the two. Both sides of the street will be revalued under current rental rates, and what is being paid by those in the old properties will eventually rise to the same as what is being paid by those in the new ones. So the final announcement made this morning should not — as has been suggested by some members of his party — be a source of hope. It should be a source of dread for many people, especially for those on the margins who do not qualify for housing benefits and who will be forced to pay higher rates bills in the future.

12.00

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar forbartha uile-Éireann i gcúrsaí eacnamaíocha, agus cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht seo.

I welcome the debate on the rates issue and the repeated indication of a comprehensive review of the whole rating system — a root-and-branch review, which is to be instituted later this year.

Similarly, I want to identify with other Members in acknowledging the hard work of the many councils that wisely manage their resources at local government level. Armagh City and District Council seems to be one of the exceptions, and Castlereagh Borough Council should not claim to be so masterful in this respect either, given the fact that many of the services used by the citizens of Castlereagh are in Belfast and that the industrial base is concentrated there. Castlereagh Council members are, perhaps, blowing their own trumpet a bit too much.

Many councils deserve commendation to have arrived at a district rate which is sensitive to the views of local people. This year, Omagh District Council — which includes a number of Members of this Assembly as members — instituted an open forum approach whereby citizens of the district came to a publicly advertised meeting to be consulted, for discussion and for councillors to listen in line with best value principles. As part of the root-and-branch review, I hope to see that exercise being repeated as much as possible at the macro level in Six Counties terms.

There is much talk of rates relief, and that is worth exploration. Areas of disadvantage — namely, County Tyrone and County Fermanagh — do not have the requisite infrastructure or investment and, therefore, should be treated as being different until such time as the playing field becomes considerably more level.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. If Members wish to have ongoing conversations, they should, in fairness to the House, have them in the Lobbies.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. In relation to one political untouchable for many, I believe that a comprehensive programme of British demilitarisation in the North would free up resources for necessary spending elsewhere, such as in areas of health, education and industrial development. This is an area where savings can be made and money redirected.

It is poor reasoning in this day and age for Nigel Dodds to be advancing the argument that what he calls "North/ Southery" is costing money, when the reverse is true. To examine the folly of having separate economic systems on the island of Ireland shows that the underdevelopment of North/Southery is costing money. There should be further development and further intensification of all-Ireland harmonisation, which will benefit everyone concerned. There is an economic rationale for this in terms of health provision. For example, why should seriously ill patients from Donegal have to bypass Derry and Omagh on their way to hospitals in Dublin?

It makes sense to have a single island’s wholehearted embrace of tourism potential and agriculture — this has all been said before. Here are three key areas where all-Ireland development will make a tremendous benefit. It would be great if the Celtic tiger got its paws wet more often in the North. The DUP are swimming against the tide of economic rationale and history by opposing the economic coming together of both states on this island. Go raibh maith agat.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before calling the next Member, I want to refer to remarks made by Mr Wilson earlier. He said that a Member had left the Chamber shortly after having spoken. I know that Members who are here are not the ones to be reproved. I have noticed from time to time a number of Members coming in almost immediately before they intend to speak and/or leaving immediately after they have spoken, frequently having put a number of questions to a Minister and not returning to hear the replies.

This is discourteous to the House as a whole and to individual Members. Mr Sammy Wilson made the point. I think that it is worthy of note and emphasis — not only in respect of the particulars to which Mr Wilson referred, but also in the generality. I ask those who have taken the trouble to be here — people in all parties — to convey this to their Colleagues. My experience is that all parties have from time to time transgressed. No one should point at anyone. [Laughter] It has often been remarked that when someone points a finger, there are at least three fingers pointing back.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I have listened to the debate, and there is no doubt that there are many double standards in this House. Many of us have been members of district councils in Northern Ireland — those of us who managed to get elected. If we are honest we will admit that we have all condemned direct rule Ministers over the years for continually hiking the regional rate. Some of us — right across Northern Ireland — felt so strongly about the matter that we frequently met with those Ministers. We made it clear that if local councils decided to strike a lower rate it would be unfair for a direct rule Minister to then take advantage of that by striking a very high regional rate. Indeed, in Mr Durkan’s council there was deep concern at the rise in the regional rate. Our council felt so strongly about this that, rather than just voicing concern, it was proposed that a letter expressing our concerns should be sent to Mr Durkan.

The tragedy is that, when it comes to the rise in the regional rate, all of us — certainly the Members who have spoken this morning — seem to be saying one thing at local Government level and then doing something different in the House. That is what is happening here today. I have no doubt that when councils were striking the local rate, most of us — and most of the councils — expressed deep concern at the rise in the regional rate. Members need to be honest when they express concern at the regional rate hike.

For quite some time we had a situation in Northern Ireland where direct rule Ministers were responsible for a number of issues, including that of the regional rate. As public representatives from all political parties, we have all over the last 30 years continually and absolutely condemned direct rule Ministers on many issues relating to Northern Ireland. That was because we ourselves had no control over some of the matters. It was easy to blame the direct rule Minister, to opt out and to point the finger somewhere else. We can no longer do that. We must lay the blame fairly where it belongs — in the Executive and in this House. The Minister of Finance knows quite well that when he was on his local council he expressed deep concern at direct rule Ministers’ taking advantage of the local rates struck by local councils.

We must be honest about this. Small businesses in Northern Ireland will continue to suffer in the way that they have done for many years. In my city of Londonderry the retail business sector is under severe financial pressure because of our proximity to the border and the exchange rate differential between the punt and the pound. Many small business owners’ biggest expenditure is their rates bill, and, over the past five to eight years, many have found it extremely difficult to pay that bill. As Assembly Members, we are responsible to the entire community of Northern Ireland, but especially to the small retail businesses here. Some Members are defending the decision to increase the regional rate, but there are no grounds for this stance.

People are only interested in the size of the bill that drops through their letterboxes. We can debate the niceties, such as the contribution that the extra finance will make to the entire block budget. The tragedy is that it is the local council’s name that will appear on that bill. Members who vote for the rates rise today in the hope that they will get away with it in the smoke must remember that it is the local councils which will be blamed when these huge bills arrive. Many still believe that the councils are responsible for rates increases in Northern Ireland. Public representatives have been trying to explain the situation. During direct rule they went out of their way to explain that the councils had been striking very low rates in their areas and that people should not blame the councils if the Minister decided to strike a very high regional rate.

It will be the Assembly’s fault if we decide to increase the regional rate. The DUP has been very clear on this issue from the outset. There are no grounds for defending this decision to increase the rate.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

This is a time-limited debate, and I regret that a number of Members who wish to speak will not have the opportunity to do so.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. The Assembly has before it the Regional Rates Order, and we are setting the rate poundages for next year. Although many councils disagree with the level at which the regional rate has been set, they recognise the importance of formally fixing the rate since they depend on this information for planning purposes. As I explained, there has been some delay in relation to the Order. It is important that we undertake that business today.

Quite a number of points were made. Mr Molloy, as Chairman of the Finance and Personnel Committee, took up the point about the review of rating policy. I have written to the Committee about that, and officials will discuss it further with its members. The review will take place in several stages. We will consult with the Committee at each stage and will come back to it on points raised. It will be, as Mr McElduff said, a root-and- branch review looking at the whole rating policy. This is not a new announcement, as Sammy Wilson seemed to think. I announced it some time ago, and it is contained in the Programme for Government. It was drafted and proposed in the Programme for Government before we tabled increases in rates as part of the draft Budget precisely because we recognise that anomalies and inequities exist in the rating system. Those apply in the non-domestic sector, as well as in the domestic sector and we are determined to overcome them. However, there is an underlying imperative that we raise money from our own resources, such as rates, in addition to that which the Treasury allocates us under the Barnett formula.

We have to be realistic in the representations that we make on the Barnett formula. However, we also have to be determined in our representations, and many people in the House have on previous occasions urged me, the Executive and the First and Deputy First Ministers to take a fairly aggressive line. We want to take a strong line in order to increase the resources that we get from the Treasury. We have to argue that we need the money for valid public expenditure purposes. We must say that our service programmes and our communities need it. Our infrastructure, which, as everybody tells me, has historically been underinvested in, needs it, as does our service infrastructure, which has also suffered from underinvestment. If we choose not to raise additional resources ourselves and concentrate our argument instead on what the Treasury will view as raising additional money from English taxpayers, the Treasury will argue that that is not a convincing demonstration of our belief in the necessity of additional public expenditure.

The argument has been put that that represents only a small amount of money. I deal with lots of bids for small amounts of money that are equal to or less than the amount discussed here. There are many additional outstanding bids, many of which were supported by the Committees during the Budget consultation. Many cases are being made for additional public expenditure. I hope that when people argue that it is only a small amount, they will also realise that all the so-called small amounts of money and bids add up, unlike the contradictory positions of some Members in today’s debate, which do not always add up.

We have historical underfunding in a number of areas. All the Ministers have been emphasising that. Most of the Committees that have been looking at the Departments’ programmes and historical spending profiles have emphasised that. Many different policy makers have emphasised that. In these circumstances, we need to put more money into those programmes. That is what the Budget does. We are increasing public expenditure by some 8% in the next year. The original domestic rates increase that we were talking about was 8% and the non-domestic rates increase — to contradict Mr Close — was 6.6%. That is what we announced in October. That was to fund public expenditure increases of some 8%. We are still proceeding with those.

Contrary to what Sammy Wilson suggested, not only in December but as far back as October I said that if the buoyancy figures showed that we could raise the same amount of money with a lower rates increase, we would do so. I said that at the draft Budget back in October. I obviously was not believed then; people believed their propaganda rather than my assurance on that point. I repeated that again at several Question Times, in the context of the monitoring round and again in the debate on 18 December on the Budget.

I again made the point that if the figures showed we could raise the same from less, we would. The figures indeed showed that; hence the reduction in the domestic regional rate. We also took advantage then of the figures which became available in the December monitoring round. A number of Members have said today that all sorts of money becomes available in monitoring round, so the best tactic is to assume that that money will be available and budget accordingly for a low rate increase. That would be very convenient thing for me as Minister of Finance and Personnel. It would suit me fine to do that. It would save me a lot of hassle and bother. However, it would not be entirely fair to the rest of the Executive. Nor would it be entirely fair to other ministerial colleagues, because we cannot always rely on the sort of out-turns from monitoring rounds that we have had this year. In fact the out-turns from monitoring rounds this year have been quite exceptional in comparison with those of previous years.

I could be bold and pretentious and claim that this is something to do with the fact that I am Minister of Finance and Personnel. I do not believe that it is.

I hope that the devolution factor is making a positive difference, in particular to recognition of the monitoring rounds — I do not think that many people knew very much about them before devolution. I also hope that a positive contribution is being made to the decisions taken in those monitoring rounds by the fact that the monies which become available are recycled to good use elsewhere to give sound public expenditure that is focused on public needs. This is the difference from direct rule.

I have listened again to this lecture about social conscience from Mr Close, as though I parked my social conscience when I took ministerial office. This applies to Mr Hay as well. Mr Hay knows that in Derry City Council debates on the regional rate, we always argued that direct rule Tory Ministers were cutting back on public services and areas of public expenditure while imposing regional rate increases at the same time. That is not happening with this Executive. There are public expenditure increases right across the board that are well above the rate of inflation.

In areas like health and education where we are under serious pressure, all parties recognise that the Barnett formula does not give us what we need. We have managed to achieve increases in health and education expenditure over and above our Barnett consequential for those areas. The Executive has not done the same as direct rule Ministers. A number of years ago direct rule Ministers were, for instance, cutting back on elective surgery and imposing cuts in health services while imposing high regional rate increases. There is therefore no comparison whatsoever.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

No. I have listened to a lot of points including those from the Member’s Colleagues.

Let us also be very clear about the choices we have faced with public expenditure. For instance, in monitoring rounds one hobby-horse question has been "What can we do with the money?" In the December monitoring round we held money over because we had to address the deficits of the health and social services trusts, particularly on the acute hospital site. We held some £28 million back at that point. As it turned out we only needed £18 million to deal with the deficits so there was then £10 million available.

If I wanted to suit my own purposes entirely and if, as Members have suggested, I was running scared of the rates increase, I would have been proposing to use the spare £10 million to reduce the rates right across the board.

However, I recognised that there was a strong case for moving further and faster with the scheme to permit free travel for the elderly, and I proposed that we use £3 million of that £10 million to start the scheme this October, rather than in April 2002, and said that it would be fully funded. Members are suggesting that I should not have made this proposal and that my priority should have been to bring the rates down to keep myself right in the eyes of the Assembly and the public.

I believed that there were strong public policy grounds for prioritising the earlier commencement of the free travel scheme for the elderly rather than decreasing the regional rate. In the December monitoring round I also proposed that £2 million be used as a safety net to cover the interim funding arrangements that we want to make for the European programmes.

Again, people may think that that money might have been better spent on reducing the regional rate. It would have given me an easier time today. However, it would not necessarily have made it easier for those who are providing excellent projects and facing the difficulties created by the funding gap between our European programmes. That is why we made those decisions.

I recommended that we use the additional £5 million from the December monitoring rounds to reduce the regional rate, particularly in the non-domestic sector. Mr Sammy Wilson and Mr Dodds seem to be questioning my motive and whether I examined this issue myself. I used the £5 million to reduce the non-domestic regional rate because when looking at the figures, not least in my advanced work on the rating policy review, I recognised that arguments based on comparisons between our domestic regional rate and council taxes or water charges across the water do not apply when comparing our respective business rates. Therefore, our allocations under the Barnett formula would not be jeopardised. That was why the Executive, advisedly, went for that proposal. This point was not made in the Assembly or by anyone lobbying on the rates issue.

Further moneys will become available in future monitoring rounds, and those moneys will be used for public expenditure. There is no shortage of bids or calls for those moneys, and there is no shortage of need. Contributors to this debate seem to be suggesting that there is either a shortage of need or an excess of moneys. It has been claimed that all sorts of funding is washing through the system, that we have no good means of spending it, and that we are wasting it. I hope that I do not find myself in a situation in which the Treasury makes the same claims to me as have been made in this debate and elsewhere.

The Executive are determined to reduce the cost of administration. We are carrying out a review of public administration with a view not just to reducing cost but also to improving performance and responsiveness. This is one of the objectives of devolution.

There have been arguments that money which might be a drop in the ocean where public expenditure is concerned is not so insignificant when it comes to individuals. I accept that even a marginal increase in the rate can significantly squeeze the domestic finances of families in hard-pressed households, whether they are single occupancy households, as in the case of pensioners, or more standard family households. Let us be clear that there will be an average increase of less than 30p per week per household and that the least well-off families will be protected through the housing benefits system. We will be trying, in the wider policy review to deal with other inequities — and not least with Mr Close’s point about single pensioner households.

I have written to the Finance and Personnel Committee about the rural relief scheme.

That is permitted under existing legislation, but many of the other forms of relief which have been suggested are not. We are now making moves to implement that legislation, notwithstanding the imminent wider rating policy review. I did not think that it was fair to start moving on the rural rates relief scheme until we had completed the wider review. That was simply because the recommendations of the wider review will take a long time to implement. It must be remembered that that will cost us money. Some estimates suggest that the rural rates relief scheme will cost around £4 million per year. We need to recognise that we are making changes and advances in this important area.

I know that I have not covered all the points raised by Members — I will write to them individually on those I have left out. Let me underline that the Budget was about securing spending increases right across the range of services. Members ignore that fact when they just concentrate on North/South expenditure.

Not all of the North/South expenditure is entirely new. If we were not conducting that expenditure on a North/ South basis, we would be spending it through Northern Ireland Departments, agencies and other arrangements. That was the case before the North/South bodies came into place, and it is wrong for people to misrepresent that spending in this way. I have made that point on previous occasions.

As an Executive, we will also have to come forward with Budget proposals later this year and again in future years. In presenting the indicative figures for the next two years, we indicated the type of rates increases that we were looking at. Obviously, pulling back on the rates this year will have consequences for future years. We know that we face difficult Budget rounds in the future. We will not have the same uplifts in future years as we have had from the spending review this year. Things are going to be difficult and money will quite possibly be tight after future monitoring rounds.

When we deal more fully with the full Budget cycle over the course of the year, I hope that Members will realise that the Executive have to be prudent in seeking their target rate increases. More importantly, they should realise that the Executive are being strategic in putting our total public expenditure, both from the Barnett allocation and from the rates, to the best possible use for much-needed public services. People will welcome this investment right across the region, regardless of the fact that they are again having to pay higher rates. However, people know they would probably have been asked to pay additional money on the regional rates in any case, without necessarily receiving the benefits of our new additional expenditure.

It must be remembered that we are spending in areas in which Whitehall is not. For instance, we spend on free transport for the elderly, and we are making very distinctive moves on student financial support. Contrary to what people suggest, therefore, we are not absolutely handcuffed to Whitehall. However, nor are we entirely free agents. Not all public expenditure comes entirely free.

Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 54; Noes 29.

Ayes

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Ivan Davis, Bairbre de Brún, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, David McClarty, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Ken Robinson, George Savage, John Tierney, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.

Noes

Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Seamus Close, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, David Ford, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Kieran McCarthy, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Rates (Regional Rates) (No 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

Electronic Communications Bill: Final Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. If Members are not staying for education in this complex matter, will they please leave quietly.

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

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

I beg to move

That the Electronic Communications Bill [NIA 9/00] do now pass.

I thank Members for their speedy consideration of the Bill. The Electronic Communications Bill is a vital component of the Administration’s transition to the electronic age. It represents a major step towards enabling Departments to offer speedier and more comprehensive services to our citizens on a par with the kind of services that are offered to citizens in Great Britain, the Republic and other EU countries.

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage ministerial colleagues to ensure that their Departments exercise the powers conferred on them by the Bill as soon as possible after it becomes law. Electronic communication is fast becoming a feature of everyday life. We owe it to our citizens and to those in business to ensure that they can take full advantage of the new developments in technology.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Electronic Communications Bill [NIA 9/00] do now pass.

The sitting was suspended at 12.47 pm.

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

Inland Fisheries

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the report of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee on inland fisheries in Northern Ireland and calls on the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to implement the Committee’s recommendations at the earliest opportunity.

It may be helpful to Members if I begin with an outline of the background to the report. The Committee embarked on its first major inquiry into the subject of inland fishing in Northern Ireland on 20 January 2000, which is some time ago. The terms of reference were as follows:

"To examine existing policies in Northern Ireland concerning the management and conservation of salmon, trout, eels and freshwater fish"

and

"To report to the Assembly, making recommendations to the Department and/or others on actions which would improve inland fisheries in Northern Ireland."

The Committee agreed that the inquiry should take particular account of the need to maintain and enhance, where appropriate, biodiversity and the need to maximise the economic, social and recreational benefits derived from salmon and freshwater fisheries. We had to take account of the interests of local communities, local factors and traditions and the need for the management of fisheries to be on a fully sustainable basis.

The inquiry also considered other factors that may affect the development and sustainability of inland fisheries such as planning policy in respect of industrial and housing development along river corridors and lake source, drainage, pollution and tourism.

Finally, the Committee examined the institutional arrangements for the regulation and management of inland fisheries, including the role of the public sector and the need to involve all interested parties.

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

The Committee received 76 written submissions from a variety of groups and individuals. Some of them were considerable, bulky submissions. To say the Committee was overwhelmed is an understatement. Following these submissions, the Committee went on to hold 32 oral evidence sessions, which encompassed individuals, large and small angling clubs, Government Departments, organisations with direct and indirect responsibility for inland fishing and related areas and a number of non-governmental organisations.

During the course of our inquiry, the Committee was gravely concerned to discover that Northern Ireland’s fish population had declined so dramatically in recent years. It is clear to us that much of the blame for this deterioration can be attributed to man’s abuse and neglect for his environment. It was brought to our attention in particular that the Atlantic salmon is in danger of becoming extinct unless urgent action is taken.

In this regard, commercial netting has been identified as a major contributor to the decline of the salmon population in Northern Ireland’s rivers. Pollution incidents are simply far too frequent and are having devastating effects on fish stocks and habitat quality. As I have indicated before to the Assembly, this current year appears to us to be the worst record for pollution incidents. In other words, the situation is deteriorating even as we sit and deliberate on the matter.

There is an urgent need for action on sewerage treatments works, which have already been identified as causing pollution problems. Improvements to infrastructure must be given a much higher priority in the Water Service’s capital investment programme.

The Committee also felt strongly that the removal of Crown immunity for the Water Service should be considered. Incidentally, the Public Accounts Committee also referred to this issue in its recent report on the control of river pollution in Northern Ireland.

Farming related pollution is also a serious problem. While Members agreed that we do not wish the agricultural sector to feel that there is any more on its plate at present, there is strong evidence that good farm management is a major factor in preventing river pollution. It is critical that farmers are provided with sound, well targeted advice, that effective farm pollution regulations are in place and that existing pollution control legislation is strictly enforced.

Our inquiry also underlined the importance to the Northern Ireland economy of being able to offer an attractive, recreational fishing product to the tourist industry. It is a geographical fact that we have some of the best rivers on the island. Currently fishermen wish to go to the West of Ireland, where they have made great inroads in improving the river fishing habitats and stocking levels. Indeed, we were given evidence to the effect that each salmon caught was worth £700 to the local economic community.

We can do the same. What a great opportunity this would be for the tourist industry. We argue, therefore, that every effort should be being made to promote opportunities for game and coarse angling, opportunities that should be offered to as wide an international audience as possible.

The Committee considered other issues: the impact that drainage schemes, weirs and artificial sluice gates had on the physical habitat of inland fisheries; the impact of hydroelectric schemes on migratory fish; the complexity of the current licence and permit scheme; and the financing and composition of the Fisheries Conservancy Board. In total, the Committee’s report sets out 67 recommendations. We consider their implementation to be essential to the conservation of inland fisheries and the protection of fish.

The Committee accepts that the responsibility for the delivery of many of the recommendations in the report does not fall directly on the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The Department of the Environment, the Department for Regional Development, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment all have a part to play in delivering a vibrant and sustainable system of inland fisheries in Northern Ireland within the terms of the report, and the Committee urges the Minister to engage with his Executive Colleagues to ensure that their Departments give the highest priority to it. I also urge the Chairpersons of the relevant Committees to take forward the issues that we have raised with their Departments. I have spoken to the Chairpersons involved and was encouraged by their interest and positive response.

To say that the angling fraternity has welcomed the Committee’s report is like a fisherman saying that the one that got away was on the small side. The enthusiasm with which it has been greeted has been staggering. I am not simply making this point to bring attention and glory to the work of the Committee. However, the protection and enhancement of Northern Ireland’s inland fisheries is an issue that has been neglected for too long, despite many people’s deep and passionate interest in the subject. The angling community is like the watchdog of the environment. It amazed the Committee that more attention has not been paid to concerns of its members in the past.

Perhaps this is one of the great benefits of devolution and in particular our brand of devolution — accessibility to the public. From the outset we were encouraged by the level of involvement in the inquiry. I thank all those organisations and individuals who produced written or oral evidence. Their input gave us vital food for thought. I also pay thanks to the staff who serviced the Committee. They were a dedicated and hard-working bunch of people who were of great help and support to us. In particular, I place on record our deep appreciation and thanks to the current Committee Clerk and to her predecessor.

As Chairperson, I also pay tribute to the hard work of my Committee Colleagues in bringing forward the report. It has been a great example of people working together for something which is clearly in all our interests and for the common good. I know that other Committee members will not object if I single out the Member for South Antrim, Mr Jim Wilson. His expertise and guidance on the subject was invaluable to everyone throughout the inquiry.

I commend the report to the Assembly and invite Members to support the motion.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion and the comprehensive recommendations contained in the report of the inquiry into inland fisheries. As the Chairperson has already done, I pay tribute to the Committee Clerks, the researchers and to all who gave evidence to the inquiry.

In total, our report has made 67 recommendations, each important in its own right. However, if our work and recommendations are to address the crisis in inland fisheries, then those recommendations that call for the management and development functions of fisheries to be constituted in a new single fisheries body must be addressed as a priority by the Minister and the Department. This report must not be left on the shelf to gather dust like its predecessor.

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has indicated that it intends to undertake a review of the Fisheries Conservancy Board. Recommendation 61 of the inquiry report states

"a sub-committee comprising membership of the Fisheries Conservancy Board and the Loughs Agency should be established to review the harmonisation of responsibilities".

Harmonisation involving the various agencies and cross- border bodies is, of course, essential, but it will not produce the fundamental change needed to resolve the current problems of the fishing industry.

The suggestion of a new body appeared in 56% of the submissions to the inquiry — a sufficient indication that many of those giving evidence have little faith in the major old bodies. The submissions from groups and individuals detailed the advantages that would arise from such a fundamental undertaking. Those who subscribed to the call for a new body did so for sound, pragmatic reasons as well as the expectation that all Government agencies should adhere to the principle of accountability and democratic practices.

The present system of management in fisheries is unnecessarily complex and fragmented. It involves four Government Departments: the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development. In addition, there are the geographically-based organisations — the Fisheries Conservancy Board, the Loughs Agency, the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, as well as the Environment and Heritage Service and the sub-bodies of the Rivers Agency and the Drainage Division. That makes some nine organisations of varying status with responsibility for inland fisheries and waterways.

The system is probably unique in the Western World — a top-heavy and bureaucratic oversubscription of bodies which, on face value, appear to be operating on the principle that the left arm need not know what the right arm is doing. If the angling fraternity is confused by so many layers of bureaucracy, one can imagine how difficult it was for members during the inquiry to determine and understand such complicated management arrangements.

The facts of how that management system carried out its duties to protect and develop the fishing estate are contained in our report. They make stark reading. But the report should be read not only in terms of addressing the crisis but as an exposé of undemocratic principles, absentee Government and jet-set Ministers who seemingly left it to the old boy network to run the show.

"Running the show" has almost decimated the fishing estate. The fish population has declined so dramatically that some rivers are only stocked with what anglers describe as "sharpening stones". The indigenous species of brown trout, peculiar to certain rivers, is almost extinct. The Atlantic salmon is an endangered species. The complexities of the licensing system have contributed to the decline in angling tourism.

The report has been researched thoroughly. It contains evidence on river pollution, water quality, water abstraction, hydroelectric schemes, exemptions, fish farming and other issues of serious concern to the fishing estate and the environment. The report notes the failure of the Fisheries Conservancy Board to use its existing powers to halt the serious decline in fish stocks. There is a feeling among anglers who gave evidence that commercial interests have taken precedence over the future protection and preservation of the fishing industry.

Whatever the reasons for that, one thing is certain: there is a crisis that is producing dead fish, polluted rivers and lakes, toxins in the waters, ineffective legislation, demoralisation among anglers and, in some instances, muzzling of officials. That crisis is exemplified by the statistics and evidence that were given to the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee’s inquiry. Some of the statistics are alarming. Between April and November last year 5,000 salmon entered the Lower Bann. In 1961 — 40 years ago — over 104,000 salmon entered that river. Why is that decline in fish stocks continuing, when there are nine organisations and agencies in operation? Why are the people who try to warn others about the situation victimised and demonised? Those questions will only be answered by a root-and-branch overhaul of the existing management structures.

It is common and economic sense to have a single fisheries body operating in the North with strong cross- border linkages to the regional bodies in the South. The present unyielding bureaucratic system is not working and is not cost-effective. The setting up of a new body would, in the long term, not only begin the process of resolving the problems identified in the report, but also put the fishing estate and industry on a sound economic footing. An enhanced Fisheries Conservancy Board is a non-starter. This report deserves better than that.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee Chairperson for his kind words. In anticipation of this report, a journalist who is well known in the angling fraternity said

"These recommendations have taken much longer to produce than anyone anticipated, but we are hoping for major changes in policies after thirty years of decline. Our waterways cannot withstand another three decades of pollution, damage and abstraction, nor policies which favoured industry and commerce over the environment."

Those are telling words.

When the inquiry began, some Members knew that it would lead the Committee to examine matters way beyond the pleasurable sport and pastime of catching a fish with rod and line. The report runs to five volumes. It examines how mismanagement by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland during the years of direct rule contributed to a decline in angling in Northern Ireland and how silage effluent, pig slurry and heavy and unnecessary dosages of phosphates on grassland contaminated Northern Ireland’s streams, rivers and lakes.

The report examines how drainage schemes right across the Province left our rivers’ nursery upland habitat looking like canals. This was probably the greatest of all bad deeds. It also examines how mismanagement by the Department of the Environment led to pollution of our waterways by bad planning practice in river corridors and lake and lough shores, by permitting development to take place when it was fully aware that sewage treatment works were designed for much smaller populations, and by permitting industrial establishments to discharge toxic waste into drains, streams and waterways with ineffective monitoring procedures in place.

It examines how the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, over recent years, managed to put itself light years behind Bord Fáilte in promoting angling as a major leisure pursuit and contributor to local economies. It examined how water abstraction, with questionable practices at hydro stations, drained rivers almost dry to the point where the natural process of fish moving upstream to breed was not possible. When a few fish did get upstream their smolts were often crushed to a pulp at the same hydros on their way back down to the sea.

The report examines the relationship between the Fisheries Conservancy Board and its officers on the ground and raises a big question mark over the management practices of that body. It also examines other important issues which will be touched upon by my Colleagues.

I would like to refer briefly to the Black Report, which was the last report of a committee of inquiry into angling in Northern Ireland. It was presented to the then Secretary of State, Humphrey Atkins, on 23 March 1981. It had 65 pages, only 43 recommendations and contained a minority report. The committee had been set up by Roy Mason MP. A civil servant attached to that committee was pulled into an office before the work got under way and told "Here is what we want to come out of this when it is finished." So much for the Black Report.

I would like to look briefly to the future. Minister McGimpsey would be right to say that he and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure cannot put all the wrongs right. They cannot; they will need the co-operation of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to keep the Northern Ireland Tourist Board focused on catching up with Bord Fáilte.

The Northern Ireland Tourist Board recently announced, with much trumpeting, a new web site, and it was not long before I was scrolling through it. With my knowledge of County Fermanagh and the angling pursuits there, I wondered if it would mention "my other office" (as my wife calls it) — the Mayfly Inn in Kesh. It is a very well- known drinking and eating house where anglers gather from all over Europe, and further afield, for information and to meet old friends.

I know the phone number of the Mayfly Inn by heart. When you log on to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board site and bring up the Mayfly Inn it states "Main Street, Kesh, Enniskillen, County Fermanagh". That is miles away. It then gives a phone number. If you ring that number you will find that you get through to the Mayflower Chinese Restaurant in Portrush. That is the new site.

It goes on to give a description of the Mayfly Inn, and history will show that the Mayfly Inn got its name from the mayfly — if you see the connection. The description of the Mayfly Inn on the site is actually a description of the mayfly. It goes on to tell you where you can find this mayfly all over the Republic of Ireland — this is the Northern Ireland Tourist Board site. I did not search it any further.

The Minister will need the co-operation of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to introduce good farmyard management practices and give encouragement — and perhaps financial support — to farmers who apply fertilisers that do not turn our large lakes into cesspits, such as Lough Neagh. Unfortunately, it looks as if Lough Erne could go the same way.

He will need the co-operation of the Minister of the Environment to ensure that development proposals are not rubber-stamped to proceed willy-nilly where sewage treatment works are known to have been under stress for some time. He will also need the co-operation of the Minister for Regional Development to ensure that sewage treatment works, such as the one in my home town of Ballyclare, are not polluting the rivers.

I doubt whether it is raining outside at the moment. However, if it were raining heavily then in my home town, upstream of the sewage works on the Six Mile Water, a large pipe would be passing items into the river because the treatment works cannot cope with storm water mixed with sewage. I have stood there and watched identifiable personal hygiene, bathroom and household items pass into the river before they even get near the sewage treatment works. That is what is happening. I am not saying that it is happening right now as I stand here because it is probably not raining, but if it were raining that is what would be happening. Despite that, however, development goes on apace in Ballyclare, as it does in other small towns.

This report has been a personal milestone in my life. Along with other campaigners and correspondents to newspapers and angling magazines, we have manfully tried to bring the destruction of angling to the attention of Northern Ireland Office Ministers and civil servants, making suggestions regarding the improvement of the environment as it affected our rivers and waterways.

I must emphasise that I am talking pre-devolution, because I do believe that things have changed. But pre-devolution they did not listen. Indeed, a well known senior politician once described one of these campaigners as a "b…" nuisance because he was trying to bring these matters to the attention of politicians and the public.

I know that the Minister will take care to ensure that the fate that befell the Black Report all those years ago will not befall this report. But he will need the support of his ministerial Colleagues and all the Members of this Assembly. I believe that all our Ministers now know what has to be done.

I encourage all Members to read this report carefully. It is not just about the future of angling; it is about a starting point to address the neglect of the environment that has occurred for too many years. I support the motion.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I am concerned about the time that we have left. Quite a number of Members wish to contribute, so I suggest that they try to limit their contributions to five minutes. But that is only a guideline. I may have to be slightly stricter about the time limit after the first round of contributions.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Committee’s recommendations, and I would like to concentrate on the tourism industry, the potential of which must be realised.

Northern Ireland has a large tourism industry, and we have an abundance of stunning and environmentally significant sites. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) has made a commendable job of marketing certain areas of Northern Ireland, such as Fermanagh and the north Antrim coast. Those areas attract the lion’s share of tourists and enjoy the financial benefits of that tourism. However, more recently, the Board has taken a blinkered approach to the development of tourism in other areas, such as Strangford Lough, where there is game and deep sea angling. Put-and-take fisheries dot the Strangford landscape, but there is a perception that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board is either unwilling or unable to take the resolute action required to maximise the huge potential of such a tourist gold mine.

More than 120,000 visitors arrive in the Republic of Ireland each year with the specific goal of spending their holiday fishing, and that is worth tens of millions of pounds to the Republic’s economy. However, there has been no real focus on developing the angling sector in Northern Ireland and realising its potential. Many of the anglers who visit the Republic are from Northern Ireland, and I believe that they go because, apart from Lough Erne, no area of Northern Ireland has been the subject of a NITB marketing campaign. As a direct result of that lack of interest, even people who live here are not fully aware of the opportunities in Northern Ireland. That potential can be realised, provided that the will and commitment is there. Only 8,000 fishing permits were issued last year in Northern Ireland. Why do we fare so badly compared with the Republic of Ireland? How can we raise the profile of fishing in Northern Ireland? That is the object of the recommendations.

We must have money from the Government and from Europe to restore and rehabilitate streams and rivers. There must be grants for work to extend the angling sector and incentives for those who wish to move into that sector. There are people who are willing to make things happen, a prime example being the Ards and Down Salmonid Enhancement Association project, representatives of which addressed the Committee. Members will forgive me for promoting that project, which could create 260 jobs and a turnover of £6 million, making it the biggest fishing project in the United Kingdom. That is the kind of project that is waiting to be realised, provided that the tourist board and others grasp the nettle.

It is essential that plans, targets and timescales be put in place and enforced. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has shown that it is more than capable of marketing Northern Ireland as a tourist destination. If the board really wants to, it can make a success story of angling in the Province. We have the raw materials, the locations and the people to make it work.

In the past, the tourist board has not delivered on the issue, but I am sure that our goal is attainable. It is time for that potential to be realised. Customers are knocking at our door, looking for exciting fishing locations. We could all benefit from the energetic promotion of the sector by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the creation of spin-off jobs in restaurants, cafes, boat rentals, bed and breakfast accommodation and hotels. With total commitment from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, we can make angling in Northern Ireland a success story and bring benefits to everyone.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I am delighted and privileged to have been part of this critical inquiry. For years, fishermen and the angling fraternity have faced very serious problems. As a result of this inquiry nothing less than a root-and-branch overhaul is required, and required now.

Water pollution was the most important concern of the submissions made. On pages 36 and 37 of the report of 22 February 2001 it is quite clearly shown that 80% of people coming to our inquiry said that quality of water was, in every aspect, the biggest problem. We, as a Committee and now through the Assembly, therefore have a bounden duty to rectify the wrongs of many years.

I am delighted to see the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure present. I know that he will be as determined as the rest of us to put this report into action at an early date.

Water pollution comes about by various means. Perhaps the most common reason is plain and simple carelessness, or thoughtlessness, by some people. There are also instances of chemical pollution from industrial discharges and organic pollution from agricultural and sewerage sources. Undoubtedly pollution of our waterways by sewage provoked the most strongly worded comments from those who gave oral and written submissions. They mentioned the frequency of sewage incidents, lack of policing, the inability or unwillingness to find culprits and prosecute, and the unpleasant visual impact of raw sewage floating around in our waters. A further bone of contention was the low penalties for polluters. The Crown immunity from prosecution for sewage pollution was a thorn in the flesh of many people.

Changes have simply got to be made. In many cases the Department for Regional Development — the Water Service — has got off scot-free, despite being responsible for very serious sewage spills. That is wrong. Every polluter, whether big or small, must be punished.

It is not only our waterways that stink. Management, over the years, has a lot to answer for. The Committee, when listening to those people who made oral submissions, had enormous sympathy with their plight in relation to reducing the incidence of pollution and getting those responsible into court and sufficiently punished for their crimes. Sympathy must go to the bailiffs, who did not, on many occasions, get the support they deserved. One can only imagine the anger and frustration of the fishing and angling fraternity after working hard to provide a good, healthy stock of fish species, only to discover the whole lot wiped out in a single incident of careless pollution. The polluter, if found, will receive little or no punishment.

We have a duty to rectify this anomaly without delay. The Committee has put forward 11 recommendations to eradicate water pollution. They can be found on pages 16 and 17 of the report. Many are plain common sense. One or two will take courage and determination by the Assembly, but the Committee will insist that they be carried out. As a Committee member, I was astounded at what was allowed to go on for years. We have the first opportunity for 30 years to put things right. We cannot — we will not — negate our responsibilities. Let our rivers, lakes, loughs — all our waterways — be the best in Europe. The Chairman of the Committee has charted the way forward through this report. I hope Members of the Assembly will support it today.

Fraser Agnew (UUAP, Belfast North)

The first thing I want to do is congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, Mr Eamon ONeill, for the manner in which he chaired the sessions. Many of them were lengthy and tiring, and he showed tremendous stamina. His attitude never changed; he was a very patient individual and always displayed that sense of humour that people in Northern Ireland are noted for.

I also want to thank the past and present Committee Clerks and their staff, as they were always accommodating, and their work was tremendous. I would also like to mention and thank my old friend and colleague Mr Jim Wilson for his input — I think we all realise just how fishy a character Jim really is.

As someone who is not interested in angling — it would not be my sport — I was fascinated by some of the things we learned. When we looked at some of the evidence all of the ingredients for a James Bond movie were there. There were threats and intimidation; we had reports of people diving into other people’s filing cabinets to nick files. All of this was going on, and it made the Committee sessions absolutely fascinating and interesting. It was worthwhile, but it was good fun too.

The serious side is that there are many things wrong with the angling industry, and they need to be addressed. This is a positive attempt to resolve many of those difficulties. As someone who is anti-Belfast Agreement I have to say that the work of this Committee embraced all the good aspects of those who are pro-devolution. If all things were equal and working well within the Assembly, that is the sort of thing we would expect. This is an excellent report; the Committee worked well and produced a report that needs to be acted upon.

I know that others will discuss things such as the hydro-electric schemes. That fascinated me, but I do not want to steal someone else’s thunder. That is where much of the corruption seemed to exist, and I was interested in some of the names mentioned, because I knew them from the construction industry. When I heard a particular person being mentioned as someone who was corrupt and taking the wee brown envelopes — I have not mentioned his name, Madam Deputy Speaker — I said that I knew him from another era and could believe it.

In the time I have left I would like to raise the issue of pollution. We are told that pollution comes from many sources, those quoted being agriculture and sewage. One of the new words we learned in the Committee — and I have to keep saying it to remember it — is eutrophication. That is a new word for Members, and I am still not too sure what it means, but it is a sort of a scum that appears on places like the Six Mile Water after Jim Wilson fishes it. We have all these problems with pollution, and I hope that the recommendations deal with them.

One of the simple things that could be implemented would be for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to offer free soil testing to farmers with free advice following the sample results. A farming colleague of mine here in the Province advised me of this. Other schemes would be useful, but this measure would be simple and easy to administer. I am told that it would be cost effective in the long run. There would also be a place for a voluntary management and enhancement scheme in high-risk areas with proper levels of subsidy being paid. In the long term everyone would benefit. Phosphate fertiliser is an expensive commodity, but if farmers could cut their usage without yield penalties, they would gain financially. This is a win-win situation that will be achieved only by an approach that offers incentives and does not impose penalties. Finally, I welcome the recommendation that the Department should carry out a study into the removal of crown immunity when other Government Departments cause pollution.

My time is up, but I want to make a couple of points on physical habitat. Before new training schemes commence, an environmental impact study should be carried out so that cognisance can be taken of fishery requirements. It has long been recognised that many drainage schemes have created poor physical habitat. There is a need to embrace and promote the concept of river corridors by ensuring that fishery interests are consulted in the planning process. In this way, physical obstacles to fish migration, such as weirs and artificial sluice gates, will be properly assessed.

This is a comprehensive report and one that I am pleased and proud to have been associated with. I commend it to the Assembly.

Ivan Davis (UUP, Lagan Valley)

In supporting the motion, I register my satisfaction that we in this locally elected Assembly are dealing with an issue of importance to local people, the local environment and the local economy. It has been often said that the measure of the Assembly’s ability will be in how we address the so-called bread-and-butter issues. I am pleased that this afternoon we are addressing one of those bread-and-butter issues in a positive manner. The level of cross-party agreement shows that consensus politics can work in Northern Ireland. The primary benefit of devolution — of accountable democracy — is that we can effect change in Northern Ireland. The Committee system, which allows the views of experts and other interested parties to be fed into our considerations, will help that change to be informed.

As with all other members of the Committee, I have an interest in the report as a whole. However, given the time limitations, I will concentrate primarily on the area which has interested me most in our deliberations — biodiversity. Anyone with an interest in the environment has an interest in biodiversity, and more than one third of the groups and individuals who made submissions to us specifically addressed the topic. In writing our report, we distilled 34 issues into seven broad themes. "Biodiversity and fish predators" is one of those seven themes and accounts for 11 of our 67 recommendations.

The term "biodiversity" is often misunderstood. Simply because it includes the word "diversity" it is often taken to mean a process whereby the countryside is opened up to every possible pursuit and our rivers filled with every kind of fish and aquatic biota. Nothing could be further from the truth. Biodiversity is not about turning the countryside into a Garden of Eden theme park. Rather, it is about conserving what we already have. It is about ensuring that our natural habitat and our long-introduced species, whether flora or fauna, survive in abundance for the enjoyment of future generations.

There is nothing more alien to biodiversity than filling our loughs with bucketloads of zebra mussels. Indeed, one of our recommendations is that full support be given to current initiatives to limit their spread. My Colleague, Jim Wilson, has been assiduous in tackling the problems caused by zebra mussels, which upset the natural balance of our inland waters. The knock-on effect on long-established species has the potential to be devastating. I trust that if current initiatives to limit their spread prove unsatisfactory the Minister will consider other initiatives. It should always be remembered that once a species has been introduced, it is more or less impossible to remove.

We make a number of recommendations with regard to fish populations and the need to protect, or enhance, their habitats. In terms of biodiversity, the most important fish to Northern Ireland are undoubtedly the Lough Melvin brown trout and the Lough Neagh and Lough Erne pollan.

It is essential that action be taken to improve the habitats of these populations. Atlantic salmon is also considered to be of biodiversity interest. Northern Ireland is a renowned destination for overseas anglers. We have good fishing and a good reputation for unspoilt waters. However, we should remember that, compared with the inland fisheries of continental Europe and Great Britain, we are relatively species poor. This means, of course, that the introduction of new species can have a relatively larger negative impact on habitats.

This was highlighted by the argument surrounding the Minister’s decision to allow the introduction of carp for angling. Understandably, there was a considerable level of concern among the local angling community about this decision. Anglers were worried that the carp would have a damaging impact on those species that we think of as indigenous. I was one of a number of members who tabled questions on that issue.

In endorsing the recommendations of our report on the introduction of new fish species, I commend the Minister for weighing his decision with safeguards in line with the recommendations — for example, only allowing carp into lakes which have no fishery value or a very low fishery value; adequate screening to prevent escapes; and each new request for introduction to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I am pleased by the Minister’s assurance that all fish will be checked to ensure that they come from disease-free stock.

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

May I start by saying that prior to the inland fisheries inquiry my knowledge of fishing was limited, but I can put my hand on my heart and say that that is certainly not the case now. For several months the Committee has assessed written submissions and has listened to oral presentations from a variety of organisations across Northern Ireland. I can now say that I have an extensive knowledge of the concerns and issues faced by our anglers throughout the island of Ireland.

I would like to comment on hydroelectric schemes. I will explain briefly how a typical hydroelectric scheme works. First, the natural river flows into a weir, where the water is extracted. The water goes through a turbine at which a volume of water falls approximately 12 feet. It then turns a rotor that makes the turbines drive a generator or an alternator to provide power.

Submissions from angling groups expressed fears that extracting too much water from our rivers to power these turbines would prevent fish from moving upstream and downstream. It would also prevent them from spawning. If the fish did make it upstream, on their return the turbine blades would kill juvenile and spent fish. A turbine operator who gave a presentation to the Committee argued that the installation of smolt screens would deter smolts from entering the turbine blades. He also maintained that returning salmon were denied access to the turbines, running rotors, by the use of electric fish barriers.

The Committee found that while hydroelectric schemes are to be welcomed on renewable energy grounds, they can have a serious negative effect on migratory fish and they can lead to direct mortality because fish pass through the turbine blades. Operators could extract up to 80% of the water of a river, and this would have a clear impact on the ecosystem and fish life. In dry periods there is evidence of up to 100% abstraction, which does not bear thinking about.

Our report highlighted several recommendations. Legislation must be introduced to ensure that abstraction is controlled so that the main river always has a residual flow sufficient to ensure the unimpeded movement of migratory fish both upstream and downstream. Abstraction based on agreed rates of flow should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Every abstraction point should have a flow meter controlling the amount of water abstracted. Levels should be set at a minimum of 50% of the river flow over weirs and at all water heights. Amendments to legislation aimed at preventing fish from getting into abstraction systems whether for potable water, hydroelectric or fish farm purposes, should follow the best aspects of equivalent legislation elsewhere.

Where damage to fish occurs, hydroelectric operators must be required by law to contribute to restoration programmes. Recommendation 37 in the report states

"The impact of existing hydro-electric schemes on fish passage and mortality should be determined by the collection of appropriate quantitative, objective data and the appropriate action taken to ensure safe fish passage and decrease mortality if required."

Moreover, the issue of exemptions to hydroelectric operators and fish farms must be carefully monitored and exemptions should be issued through any new fish bodies established.

Any identified significant impacts of existing hydroelectric schemes on fish passage and mortality should be addressed and mitigated as a matter of high priority. Random inspections should be carried out, with severe penalties for non-compliance. Any proposals for new electric schemes should be required to undergo a thorough and independent environmental impact assessment, prior to any approvals being granted. It is imperative that the impact of schemes on fish populations be assessed as a matter of urgency.

I compliment the Chairman of the Committee and the staff who worked tirelessly to help the Committee compile the report. As a Member for West Tyrone, and a native of Strabane, I will quote from a submission of June 2000 that referred to angling tourism:

"If we are ever going to develop angling tourism, we need to look at areas like Strabane. Strabane could be another Ballina if we could get this right. There is great potential there to attract tourist anglers because they probably have some of the greatest fishing in Northern Ireland or, indeed, Ireland. Thousands of tourists go to Ballina, and they are spending millions of pounds."

We need to look at that and develop it here.

I support the motion.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I also support the motion.

At the outset, I join others in paying tribute to the efforts of the Committee and support staff for their outstanding and sterling endeavours in getting the report to this stage.

It is just over a year since the inquiry was announced, and I never thought that the issue would generate the level of interest shown. With 76 written and 32 oral submissions, I assure the House that every aspect of inland fishing has been fully explored and scrutinised. Once we scratched below the surface, it was plain that, from an early stage, we were dealing with an issue of immense passion. That was clearly conveyed time and time again during evidence sessions.

However, that is all in the past. We have identified a section of the Northern Irish economy that includes leisure and tourism that is in serious decline, a decline that must be arrested immediately. To that end, the inquiry has come up with 67 key recommendations. I appeal to the various Departments with responsibility for work to begin immediately in preparation for the implementation of those recommendations if we are serious about reclaiming lost ground.

During the inquiry, seven themes cropped up time and again as the evidence was gathered. I want to comment on biodiversity and its associated problems with inland fishing. I draw Members’ attention to a couple of recommendations.

First, the potential impact of salmon farming on natural wild salmon and sea trout populations, with regard to escapees and the spread of parasites — notably sea lice — is a matter of serious concern. The maintenance and enhancement of wild salmon and sea trout populations should take preference over the expansion of salmon farming operations. It is interesting to note that 34% of written submissions specifically wanted to see that matter addressed.

One example, recently highlighted in the press, was a report on the effect of sea lice on sea trout stocks that linked infestations with salmon aquaculture and farming. That particular report revealed that sea trout stocks have continued to decline with the development of aquaculture in all the major bays in the western seaboard.

Between 1974 and 1999, while tonnage of farmed salmon appeared to have rocketed, the number of trout caught by anglers at one location had dropped from 12,000 to fewer than 2,000.

The most important fish population in Northern Ireland for biodiversity has already been mentioned — the brown trout. Brown trout populate Lough Melvin, as do the sonaghan and gillaroo trout. Pollan inhabit Lough Neagh and Lough Erne.

Having studied the report and the detail of the submissions I share the view that there are concerns about the water quality status at all three locations. In addition to the concerns about the Arctic charr at Lough Melvin and Ballyarton, it is imperative that consideration be given to recommendations three to eight immediately in order to protect the natural stocks of our native species as well as the salmon and sea trout.

Attention should be paid in particular to recommendation seven that deals with the introduction of new species. There is no doubt that requests to introduce new species to Northern Ireland should continue to be examined on a case-by-case basis, and movement restrictions should be strictly adhered to. New fish species should never be permitted in open or closed waters where there is a significant risk of escape. The introduction of new species in fish farming should be resisted.

The other recommendations deal with two areas of biodiversity that are dealt with extensively in the submissions. The problem with zebra mussels is unpredictable. They can cause damage when they are introduced as they have an impact on native species and other aspects of the freshwater environment. Full support should be given to the current initiatives to limit the spread of zebra mussels and aqua-biota that might impact on the freshwater habitat or biodiversity of inland waters.

Cormorants are still a problem. Not surprisingly, this complex issue was raised in 28% of submissions, so there is a fair level of concern about it. Various reports and studies over a period of years have looked at different ways of managing and controlling the damage these birds do to inland fisheries. However, none of the management issues listed in the report are feasible for fisheries that operate by naturally reproducing fish populations in natural habitats.

Studies of similar problems in other northern European countries should be researched, and, in line with recommendations 10 and 11, where best practice can be identified elsewhere it should be implemented in consultation with the Environment and Heritage Service as a matter of priority to reduce the problem.

The inquiry has adhered to its terms of reference well and has taken into account the need to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance biodiversity. The inquiry also considered the need to maximise the economic, social and recreational benefits derived from salmon and freshwater fisheries and the need for the management of fisheries to be on a fully sustainable basis.

I support the motion.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion, and I welcome the report. I congratulate the Committee on producing a comprehensive report, comprising five volumes and containing 67 recommendations. The recommendations were based on the evidence given by the fishing fraternity, angling clubs, individuals, farmers, business people, the Government and statutory agencies.

If we did not already know how serious the situation had become for inland fisheries then this report should alert us to the state of the rivers and lakes, the quality of the water, the decline in fishing stock and the diminishing angling-tourism industry. The evidence given during the enquiry is alarming. Our rivers have been destroyed and, as the report states, the destruction can be attributed to man’s abuse and neglect of the environment.

Those of us who watched the recent BBC television programme, by Julian Pettifer, were shocked about the effect fish farming is having on wild salmon stocks. The programme painted a picture of collusion, greed, vested interests and attempts to prevent the public from receiving information on the depletion of stock and other serious environmental concerns. The practices of some inland trout farms have implications for public health. We need to know the precise nature of such concerns.

Fish farming was an issue that occurred in 34% of submissions, and, according to the report, some strong views were expressed about the impact of discharges on water quality.

Most concerns ranged around the process of water abstraction and the potential for the entrapment of young salmonids. The current legislation to prevent such entrapment is inefficient, and recommendation 35 of the report highlighted a number of ways of addressing that serious problem. The suggestions included flow meters to control the amount of water abstracted and the setting of levels at a minimum of 50% of the river flow over weirs and at all water heights. It is particularly important that the Minister should take steps to introduce legislative amendments on these issues to ensure that we follow the best aspects of legislation elsewhere.

I pay tribute to all those involved in the inquiry: the Clerks to the Committee, the Chairperson and the other members. I include the Deputy Chairperson, my party colleague, who I know worked hard on the report, even if others refuse to acknowledge it. I support the motion.

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

I speak on behalf of the North Atlantic salmon. As a Committee, we were gravely concerned to discover that Northern Ireland’s fish population had declined so dramatically in recent years. As the Chairperson and others have said, it was brought home to us that the Atlantic salmon in particular is in danger of becoming extinct unless urgent action is taken.

As a boy I was brought throughout the Highlands and Islands of Scotland by my grandfather, and I was introduced to the Gaelic language that is so much part of the Presbyterian tradition there. There I first heard the beautiful poem ‘Song of Summer’, published by Alexander Macdonald in 1751. In its original form it is one of the most beautiful poems written in Gaelic. In English it reads

"The swift slender salmon on the water is lively, Leaping upside down, brisk, in the scaly white bellied schoals, Finny, red-spotted, big-tailed, silvery lights clothing it, With small freckles, glittering in colours; And with its crooked jaws all ready, It catches flies by stealth."

That is the fish that the ancient Irish thought was the source of knowledge, wisdom and power. Man, however, has changed the very nature of the salmon. Those that are raised in hatcheries have more aggressive feeding habits. They spend most of their time at the water surface looking for food, unlike the wild salmon that spend most of the time under cover in deep water. As a result, escaped hatchery-raised salmon consume most of the food that the wild salmon need to live, and, at the same time, this aggressive feeding makes hatchery salmon more vulnerable to predators because they are near to the surface. Hatchery salmon usually has less genetic diversity than wild salmon. That leads to lower resistance to disease and other environmental hazards, so that they are easily infected with fish lice.

The Atlantic salmon is unique because, unlike the various species of Pacific salmon, it does not die after its first spawning, but returns year after year to its breeding places with a remarkably specific migratory instinct.

I have fished in the Puget Sound in the North Pacific Ocean with one of the finest local fishermen, George McShane, who is of Irish descent, though he does not hold a candle to Jim Wilson. One of the greatest sadnesses of his life, and that of the Indian tribal chief Douglas Luna, is that less than 2% of the wild salmon population of the Columbia river basin — including parts of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and British Columbia — remains. Only one individual sockeye salmon returned to the Snake River in Idaho in 1994. Coho salmon has been declared extinct in the Snake River by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, as have 106 other salmon populations across the West Coast of America.

We must not allow that to happen in Northern Ireland. Our inquiry has identified commercial netting as a major contributor to the decline of the salmon population in Northern Ireland’s rivers. The River Bush salmon project makes an outstanding contribution to research and the management of salmon stocks, and its continuation is a matter of priority. However, it remains important that angling interests are given due consideration when managing and marketing the River Bush.

The recommendations arising from our inquiry into North Atlantic salmon are as follows: salmon net fisheries should be closed by buy-outs, and the Government should accept responsibility for initial capital investment; salmon conservation measures, including catch-and-release rules and bag limits should be considered for implementation, particularly for spring run fish; the salmon carcass tagging scheme should be implemented as a significant tool in the interests of conservation and the fight against poaching. In addition, the River Bush salmon project should be examined in relation to the management of salmon stocks and the impact of the Bush salmon and other indigenous brood stock; stocking programmes should only be implemented with the appropriate habitat assessment; and restoration, when it is necessary, should always use indigenous livestock.

I hope that the decline in the salmon population will unite environmentalists and fishers with industries which extract natural resources to reach a compromise that will save the wild salmon populations and the fishing industries that depend on the species’ continued health. Our inquiry has given us the knowledge that the salmon represents in ancient Irish lore. I hope that we will find the wisdom to implement it.

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

I congratulate the Committee on its report to the Assembly. It has performed a great service to the subject of debate, inland fisheries, and highlighted the appalling state of some of our rivers and the sewage pollution which exists in certain areas. The report makes disturbing reading for anyone, because it relates to problems which affect the quality of life of many people throughout Northern Ireland. The issue also affects the quality of the service and the environment that we can offer tourists. That could have a very disturbing effect on our local economy, and particularly the economy of rural areas.

As Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee, I find the extent of sewage pollution within Northern Ireland most disturbing. I have often highlighted the poor state of Northern Ireland’s water and sewerage infrastructure, as have my Committee colleagues. For at least three decades, the water and sewerage systems have been starved of proper funding. If we had had proper funding of these services, this might not have been such a disturbing report. For that reason I support this report’s proper criticisms of Northern Ireland’s Government Departments and, in particular, the Water Service — I am sure that my Committee colleagues share this opinion.

Whether or not we have proper infrastructure, there needs to be better policing by the Departments involved. They need to be more conscious of the problem of sewage pollution and the effect this has on our waterways and the tourist industry. It is important that Government Departments, particularly the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, do their duty and deal with the problem of pollution.

European measures go some way towards dealing with the problem of treating water and waste water. I hope the Department for Regional Development can fully implement the relevant directive, which should be a top priority. If the Department does not act proactively we will be unable to stem the problem that affects our inland rivers and waterways.

As Chairperson of the Regional Development Committee, I will continue to support the demand for further investment in our water and sewerage infrastructure. The Assembly should press the Executive to accelerate their programme of renewal through the Programme for Government.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the inquiry into inland fisheries in Northern Ireland and congratulate the Committee on this excellent report. Some Members may wonder what relevance an inquiry into fishing has to our situation in Northern Ireland. First, this report clearly shows an urgent need for the people of Northern Ireland to have control over their own environment. Secondly, it shows that Government Departments should be accountable for their actions. Thirdly, it shows that civil servants need local direction, something that has been lacking for the past 30 years, much to the detriment of all our lives here.

In the report’s executive summary one sentence says it all:

"Much of the deterioration can be attributed to man’s abuse and neglect of the environment."

This excellent report must not languish on a shelf or in somebody’s cupboard, or be relegated to the long finger. It must be given an immediate timetable. The Departments directly concerned must work out a combined strategy, decide priorities and produce a programme that will show results. The summary of recommendations gives the Departments a working framework, and I urge that that work commence as soon as possible.

Of the 11 recommendations in the section dealing with pollution, nine are the direct responsibility of the Department of the Environment. They include the implementation of the European Water Framework and planning permission; I will not expand on those issues. What would we do without our weather? Not many people know that if we did not have a good wind blowing over Lough Neagh to disturb, aerate and oxygenate the water, it would become a polluted pond.

I want to touch on two issues concerning my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone — zebra mussels and the Ballyshannon hydroelectric scheme. I have spoken in this Chamber before about zebra mussels. This is an infestation from outside our jurisdiction which the Department of Agriculture knew about; it knew where the infestation was emanating from. What did the Department do? It put a few leaflets and pamphlets in some guest houses and hotels. Who cared that boats and cruisers sailed in from the Shannon with zebra mussels clinging to the bottom of those boats and to their buoys and ropes? Was even one of the cruisers travelling from the Shannon system inspected? If not, why not?

I can draw a comparison with the present foot-and- mouth disease. The Republic of Ireland took immediate action against the disease on the land frontier. What happened in Northern Ireland? Did the Department of Agriculture take precautions on the roads? No. All traffic entering the Republic is disinfected at checkpoints. When coming back to Northern Ireland, there are no precautions. That is what happens with us — we do not look after ourselves. We must protect our environment.

The hydroelectric scheme at Ballyshannon in Donegal is a monument of folly. It was a memorial to the destruction of game fishing in Lough Erne. That same hydroelectric scheme has probably caused the demise of the common scoter from Lower Lough Erne. The Erne problems caused by the Ballyshannon hydroelectric scheme have been known for years. But what was ever done to address them?

I recommend that these two problems be immediately put on the agenda for a North/South meeting, and I look forward to a speedy implementation of the solution to them in my constituency. I look forward to the Ministers concerned giving their support to the recommendations for actions which fall within their Departments’ remits.

If the recommendations of this report are implemented quickly, I look forward to the return of leaping salmon in Lough Erne; hands not bloodied from zebra-mussel-covered buoy ropes; and islands and shorelines of the lower and upper Loughs Erne not fringed with pea-green algae. I look forward in the knowledge that Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly can ensure that appropriate and immediate actions will produce the desired results.

I support the motion.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

First, let me make it clear that I welcome this report on inland fisheries and thank the members of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee for the work they have done in filtering out the key issues from 76 written submissions and 32 oral presentations.

However, I want to state in the strongest possible terms that I have great disquiet about the credence which the Committee has given, perhaps unwittingly, to the comments of a few individuals during the process of taking evidence. I will return to that.

I will now deal with the substance of the report. Leaving aside the comments I have just made, there can be no doubt that the significant number of organisations and individuals who took the trouble to submit evidence to the Committee reflects a widespread interest in inland fisheries. The number and diversity of issues raised reflect the fact that we are dealing with a dynamic subject with many different facets which pose many challenges for fishery managers and policy makers.

With regard to the Department’s overall response to the report, the key issues raised are largely what we had anticipated. On the substance of the report, the Assembly should be aware that only about half of the recommendations are solely within my area of responsibility. Some will require action by my Department working in conjunction with others, while a substantial number of other actions that are recommended fall completely outside my remit. I have not had an opportunity in the short time available since the report was published to seek the views of ministerial Colleagues on those matters.

Furthermore, action is already being taken on many of those recommendations which are my responsibility. Others relate to problem areas which have been recognised, but the levels of resources available are inadequate to address them.

I will now comment in further detail on some of the key issues and recommendations following the order in which they appear in the report. Paragraph 4 deals with biodiversity and fish predators. This Department actively supports and promotes the concept of biodiversity and sustainability through restrictions on fish movements and through encouraging the propagation and restocking of indigenous genetic strains into their native catchments, as happens under the Salmonid Enhancement Programme.

Another example is the work carried out at the Erne and Melvin hatchery, where the aim is to stock Lough Erne with genetically distinct Lough Erne trout reared at the hatchery.

All fish farms must have a fish culture licence that indicates the species that may be farmed. The Department’s policy is to refuse the cultivation of non-native species. However, applicants do have an independent route of appeal to the Water Appeals Commission in cases where the Department is not minded to grant an application. In fact, the Water Appeals Commission recently overruled the Department and granted a licence for American Brook trout — a non-native species — to a fish farm on the River Faughan.

I note that the Committee has some concern about my recent decision to allow the introduction of common carp. This decision was taken following detailed consultations with the Environment and Heritage Service. The Department undertook a technical and environmental analysis of the impact of carp before the decision was taken. Each application will be considered on a case by case basis following rigorous assessment. I do not believe that my decision is in conflict with the Committee’s recommendations.

Predation by cormorants is a problem that must be addressed. Everyone is aware that cormorants are a protected species under EU and national legislation. Fishery owners can apply for a licence to cull cormorants. They also currently have the right to take action to prevent birds from attacking their fisheries providing that they can show that the birds were causing serious damage to the fishery and that the Department of the Environment is notified immediately.

Section five of the report deals with physical habitat, drainage issues and obstacles to migration. The Committee highlighted the need for habitat restoration to compensate for the negative effects of unsympathetic drainage works in the past. I am pleased to note that the Committee has recognised the important contribution that the salmonid enhancement programme has made to the restoration of fisheries habitat. As the Committee stated, this is a long-term approach, and the impact on fish populations will not be immediate. The report recommends that further EU funding should be sought to continue this work. This has already been done. In fact, the Department will launch an angling development programme later this year which is funded by the new EU Peace II programme.

Drainage works are a matter for the Rivers Agency. Procedures on the ground have improved considerably following the major drainage schemes undertaken prior to the mid-1980s. There is now closer liaison between fisheries technical staff and Rivers Agency staff in relation to the requirement to protect fisheries. These procedures have been in place for the previous 14 years. Any review of the operation of sluice gates and flow management regimes is also a matter for the Rivers Agency. However, the agency has a statutory duty to protect fisheries in the execution of its works. There are other legitimate interests to accommodate, for example, farmers who might be at risk from flooding. It is not always possible to regulate flows at the optimum condition for fish migration.

Section six of the report deals with pollution. I note that water quality was the most frequently raised issue in the submissions. The Environment and Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment has overall responsibility for water quality and pollution issues. While none of the 11 recommendations in this section of the report fall under my remit, I, as Minister responsible for inland fisheries, emphasise that I support the Committee’s comments. Again, I have not had an opportunity to discuss the issues with Colleagues. I will be interested to hear what they have to say, but I realise that many of the matters are complex.

Section seven of the report deals with other environmental impacts and is concerned mainly with fishery protection measures at water abstraction sites, including hydroelectric power schemes. The report rightly highlights the fact that current legislation is inadequate in its provision of regulatory controls for water abstraction. This matter concerns more than one Department. The Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 makes provision by way of regulation to control, restrict or prohibit the abstraction of water from underground strata or waterways. The Department of the Environment’s Environment and Heritage Service is currently reviewing the matter of abstraction licensing in Northern Ireland.

The determination of fishery protection measures at water abstraction sites is a matter for my Department. The Department recognises that the fishery protection measures in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 are outdated. In fact, when they were introduced in 1966 they applied mainly to the regulation of linen mills.

The Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 is also deficient in relation to regulatory controls. For example, we have no powers to introduce flow regimes. The Department will review the Fisheries Act as soon as practicable with the objective of providing more comprehensive powers to protect fisheries at water abstraction sites, and the Department will consult with a wide range of interest groups in this process, including anglers.

Amendments to the legislation will take time to pursue, and in the interim the Department is working on the issue of a code of good practice to hydro operators and other river water abstractors. Nevertheless, we have been able to introduce modern fishery protection measures by negotiation and with the co-operation and agreement of operators through conditions contained in exemption permits. This has enabled, for example, the introduction of angled screens and abstraction channels, electric barriers and smolt bypass channels at specific sites.

I agree with the comments in the report that compliance with these conditions needs to be carefully monitored, and I have recently obtained some core funding to enable the Fisheries Conservancy Board (FCB) to devote more resources to this. I also wish the Committee to note that the Department has already made good progress in implementing the sites-specific improvements at hydroelectric plants recommended in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment study report. For example, new fish passes have been constructed at the Blackwater and Randalstown hydros, and alterations have also been made at Harperstown. All these were installed by the FCB, mainly for fish counting purposes under the salmon management plan. They have the added benefit of assisting fish passage. Furthermore, the Department has commissioned consultants to continue trials to monitor and evaluate the operating regime and flow factors at Randalstown hydro.

With regard to the section relating to the questionable legality of fattening ponds, the Department is not aware of any illegal ponds. The Department does not license fattening ponds. The Department is responsible for licensing owners of fish ponds who wish to stock them with fish for their own consumption. It is a condition of such licences that the fish will not be sold or used to develop any business in the production, processing or marketing of fish. If there is anecdotal information that there are people operating outside these requirements, then the details must be furnished to the Department for investigation.

Section eight of the report deals with tourism issues. I share the view that our salmon rivers and coarse fisheries have a significant contribution to make to the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. In developing the tourism potential, there are two distinct aspects: first, having a quality product to sell; secondly, the promotion and marketing of that product. My Department is primarily concerned with the first.

Again, the Committee recognises how the salmonid enhancement programme has helped improve angling facilities and has encouraged private fisheries to be more accessible to visiting anglers. As I mentioned earlier, I will be launching an angling development programme later this year that will release further resources for the development of tourism angling.

Promotion and marketing of the angling product is primarily a matter for the Tourist Board. My Department will assist the board in this important task in whatever way it can, although I am aware of the criticisms. I agree with the report’s recommendations that the complexity of the existing licence and permit arrangements are not customer-friendly, and I have already indicated that I will be looking to the FCB to review the licence system as a matter of priority.

Section 9 of the report deals with a range of inland fishery matters, particularly the conservation and protection of fish stocks and the need for scientific research. The Committee will be interested to note that the FCB decided at its last meeting earlier this month to proceed to introduce a salmon carcass-tagging scheme as soon as practicable.

I am pleased that the Committee has recognised the outstanding contribution that the work carried out at the River Bush salmon station has made to the scientific knowledge and management of wild salmon stocks and the international reputation it has achieved. I also note the Committee’s recommendation that research on the eel and other exploitable fish populations in Lough Neagh and Lough Erne should be undertaken as a matter of priority. There is work ongoing in these areas.

The Committee has recommended that the commercial salmonids should be closed by buyout and that the Government should accept primary responsibility for the initial capital investment.

I am actively pursuing this issue. I bid for funding in the 2000 spending review but was not successful. I will continue to bid for funding at every opportunity.

The closure of the nets combined with the implementation of the salmon management plan — which was not mentioned in the report — and salmon tagging and restrictions in angling exploitation represents the best way forward in the management of declining wild salmon stocks. The Committee must understand that there is a serious problem with marine survival, but this is not within the control of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Department.

I was interested to note the Committee’s presentation of the institutional issues in section 10 of the report. The report indicates that many people who made submissions consider that the present arrangements are unnecessarily fragmented and complex. It drew attention to a repeated suggestion that management and development functions should be transferred to a single fisheries body, either as a newly created organisation or as a very much enhanced Fisheries Conservancy Board. I note that the Committee did not recommend a preferred option on the way forward.

The report also states that the funding arrangements for the Fisheries Conservancy Board are far from satisfactory. As the Committee is aware, I said some time last year that I intended to carry out a review of the Fisheries Conservancy Board, but I delayed starting that review until the Committee had completed its inquiry. I now intend to proceed with that review, but I do not wish to prejudice the outcome. However, I will consider whether the terms of reference need to be amended in the light of the Committee’s report. In the interim I have secured some core funding for the board for the next financial year.

I cannot comment on the references to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, as it is not within my area of responsibility. The Executive Committee’s plans to undertake a review of public administration in Northern Ireland are also relevant. That review will look at all Government Departments, their non-departmental public bodies and other statutory bodies and the functions they deliver.

The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure appreciates that the new EU Water Framework Directive will have significant implications for inland fisheries. The Department will liaise with the Department of the Environment and other relevant bodies regarding its implementation.

The Committee has put a great deal of emphasis on the frequency with which issues were raised. I do not object to there being a bias towards angling, but there are very few references to commercial fishing or aquaculture, which also play a major part in inland fisheries and which make an important contribution to the economy.

There could also have been a better understanding and appreciation of what the Department has done and is seeking to do as it works alongside the Fisheries Conservancy Board and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development fishery scientists. The absence of any reference to the salmon management plan is a significant omission in addressing wild salmon conservation. I am disappointed that there is scarcely any reference made to the public angling estate, which provides an excellent range of fisheries for the public at affordable prices and appeals to many who cannot afford to fish in private fisheries.

It is a pity that the Committee did not examine the work carried out by the Culture, Arts and Leisure Department’s inland fisheries branch and the resources deployed. I have only six fisheries technical staff and three policy staff to cover a very wide range of inland fisheries duties. I am trying to address that chronic level of underfunding, so support from the Committee would have helped. I do not think that the report has a single reference to the Culture, Arts and Leisure Department’s Inland Fisheries Branch.

The report points up many of the problems and issues, but it does not come forward with many concrete proposals or solutions.

One issue that is crucial to the successful management of Northern Ireland’s inland rivers for fisheries and other interests is the co-dependence on landowners and the farming community. Access to many fisheries depends on the goodwill of farmers. The concept of integrated management of river corridors and the problems associated with reducing farm-sourced pollution all need the constructive involvement of farmers. Farmers must be consulted about proposals to create river corridors through their property.

We need to think how the farming community, which is already on its knees because of the BSE and foot-and- mouth crises, can be encouraged to engage positively in this process — for example, through financial incentives. I see this as a major challenge, but I do not see it addressed in the report.

I conclude by returning to my concerns about the consequences of the Committee’s evidence process. I have already made it clear that I welcome the thrust of the report and acknowledge the commitment and efforts of those who produced it. I stand over that. However, notwithstanding the need, which I recognise and support, for the Committee to function separately from the Department and to act with a high degree of autonomy, there is an overriding need to act, and to be seen to act, responsibly.

I fear that the Committee has not done itself a service by giving credence to a few individuals who made wild, scurrilous allegations against people in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure during the evidential process. Some of those allegations were of the utmost seriousness and were without a shred of evidence. The provision of a platform for a few individuals to air their grudges and vent their malevolence has resulted in baseless and false allegations appearing in print while the substance of the report, which is worthy, hardly gets a mention. I am sure that that is not what the Committee intended.

If people have allegations to make I recommend that they report them to the police as a matter of urgency. My Department is fully aware of the need for everyone involved in fisheries to act responsibly and within the law.

I welcome the report. I am determined to do all in my power to ensure that the inland fisheries industry in Northern Ireland is developed responsibly, that it will be one of our greatest resources and an asset that we can all take pride in.

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

I am very pleased by the response, particularly from members of the Committee and others who contributed to the debate. It has been a very useful extension of the work that the Committee has been involved in over some months.

I will quickly go through some of the general comments made by Members and will pick up on a few of them. In the time allocated it will be difficult for me to do justice to all the comments. The Committee decided, as this was an extensive report, that we would attempt to cover individual sections between us in some depth. I thank the Committee members for that. My Deputy Chairperson, Mrs Nelis, gave a very good presentation on management. She carried it out with the same competence as she did when helping me in the Committee and when she covered for me on a number of occasions.

Much of the report has to be historical. When we began, very little work had been done by the new Department, because we were all new at the time. We began this process over a year ago.

The Deputy Chairperson said that the report should not be left on the shelf to gather dust. Mrs Carson made a very energetic suggestion that it should not be put on the long finger, that a timetable should be prepared, with a programme set up to produce results.

The Committee is determined, through its relationship with other relevant Departmental Committees, to push the recommendations made in the report and monitor their implementation among all Departments across the areas of responsibility that the report covers, to ensure they are put in place.

The Committee believes that, as many Members have said, there have been many difficulties. It is time to set things right. The Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee must make an impact, so that the environment that we leave to our children is a worthy testament to our work and to that of the Assembly. We will not baulk at the task, and I assure Members that we are committed to ensuring that it is followed through.

Mr Jim Wilson, who can always come up with a good point, said that the outcome of the Black Report was predetermined. Our Committee listened to people who took considerable time and trouble to make substantive representations supported by a wide range of evidence. The Committee listened to their views and ideas. Those people know the difficulties. Many other Members made worthy points, but I cannot do justice to them in the limited time that is available.

It is significant that the Chairman of the Regional Development Committee, Mr Alban Maginness, is present today, as well as the Minister. I thank the Minister for giving us his time today, and I thank Mr Maginness for his support, which is — in fairness to the other Committee Chairpersons — a reflection of their interest. It is critical that the Committees concerned should take a full interest in the issues that fall within the responsibilities of the relevant Department.

I welcome the Minister’s proposal to launch an angling development programme under the Peace II programme later this year. That was one of the more encouraging things that the Committee heard about. We have seen the good work that has been done by similar schemes, particularly in Galway and the Corrib catchment area. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome that announcement. I also welcome the Minister’s intention to consult other Ministers about the report’s recommendations. There are 11 recommendations on pollution in the report, nine of which fall within the Department of Environment’s responsibilities. The Minister has not had time to speak to them yet, but he has said he will support all nine recommendations. That is very hopeful, and it is also good to see that there is a code of practice for water abstractions.

The Committee recognises that the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure has been working hard on many of the issues while the Committee was working hard collecting data. The Committee’s views have been expressed to the Minister and the Department. The Committee was pleased that a review of the complicated licensing system has been given priority.

I am heartened, as the Committee Members will be, to see the nets buy-out. We have placed a lot of emphasis on that as a means of making the single greatest contribution to the preservation of at least the Atlantic salmon stock. It may help encourage some growth in that area. The Minister has continued to make bids. I know that it is in the Executive Programme bid for the full amount. I was pleased to see that. I hope that with the pressure that both the Minister and the Department are applying, combined with the pressure that we are also trying to apply, we will begin to see some progress in that vital area.

The Minister said that, while we made a couple of comments in relation to the Fisheries Conservancy Board — and we were certainly entitled to do that, given the evidence that we looked at — we did not recommend a preferred route. We felt, as he did himself, that we did not want to prejudice the outcome. We felt that it would be a bit restrictive to make any suggestions when the Minister had already launched an inquiry into possible new arrangements for the Fisheries Conservancy Board. There was not much point in our saying something about that and then expecting the review to come up with something. We were conscious of prejudicing the outcome as well, and that is why we did not make any recommendations as to a preferred route. However, the Minister can be assured that when the review is completed, we will have something to say.

There was also criticism about the quality of some of the evidence that we accepted and examined. Perhaps the less said about all of that the better, as there were quite a few things that we looked at that helped us to get a background. We looked at all the evidence. We could not be too censorious in terms of what came up from the public. If people had submissions to make to us, we accepted them. The important issue is what we did with them. The recommendations were made on the basis of the generality of the evidence that we received — evidence that was presented to us in a way that was proven and would stand up. In fairness to the hard work of the Committee, I must make the point that its recommendations and judgements could not be said to be unevenly influenced by uninformed comment. The reality is very much the opposite. I hope that this will not, as the Minister suggested, taint the overall work of the Committee. That would be a serious wrong.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly approves the report of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee on inland fisheries in Northern Ireland and calls on the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to implement the Committee’s recommendations at the earliest opportunity.

Adjourned at 5.59 pm.