Northern Ireland Assembly, 26 March 2001

109 contributions from 38 members. The official report.

Royal Assent

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to inform Members that Royal Assent has been signified to the Planning (Compensation, etc.) Act, the Health and Personal Social Services Act, the Fisheries (Amendment) Act and the Ground Rents Act, which became law on 20 March 2001.

Royal Assent has also been received for the Government Resources and Accounts Act and the Budget Act. These became law on 22 March 2001.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the current position in relation to foot-and-mouth disease and the implications for Northern Ireland.

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

I have had to make some adjustment to the statement that was put into Members’ pigeonholes early this morning. We are dealing with a moving target, and I have to take account of new developments.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

As always, I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the Assembly up to date with the foot-and-mouth disease situation in Northern Ireland, which I last did on 12 March. Since then I have had a number of sessions with the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, and have been in regular and frequent contact with the industry and with other Departments. As Members will doubtless be aware, the foot-and-mouth disease situation in Northern Ireland has remained static, with only one confirmed outbreak. Despite that, the situation has become potentially more serious, with the confirmation on 22 March 2001 that the disease had been found in sheep just across the border in Ravensdale, County Louth. That location falls within the 10 km surveillance zone that we imposed following the outbreak in Meigh. Unfortunately, the time that has elapsed between the two outbreaks — about 21 days — indicates that there may be an intermediate source, or sources, of infection as yet unidentified.

On foot of continued liaison between the two Departments, the Department of Agriculture in Dublin has now advised us that it has located a number of sheep which, in its view, are the missing animals to which I referred in my last statement to the Assembly.

My staff are working closely with the authorities in the Republic to try to establish the position and to prevent the further spread of the virus. I have had discussions with the Republic’s Agriculture Minister, Joe Walsh, over the weekend and will be meeting him to discuss the situation later in the week. In the meantime the authorities in the Republic have established 3 km protection and 10 km surveillance zones around their outbreak in County Louth. While the new surveillance zone extends into our jurisdiction, almost the entire Northern Ireland portion falls into the already existing Meigh surveillance zone.

Because of these developments, the retention of movement controls in parts of Northern Ireland where the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland zones overlap will be necessary. The further slaughter and destruction of dangerous in-contact animals in Northern Ireland cannot be ruled out. I have also put border controls in place to monitor crossings from the Republic within the 10 km surveillance zone.

The Department for Regional Development has assisted us in arranging disinfection procedures on the A1 road entering Northern Ireland, for which I am indebted to Mr Campbell. My officials have been in touch with the police to enlist their further support in controlling movements of livestock and products across the border. I have spoken to the Secretary of State and to the Security Minister, Adam Ingram, and I will speak again with the Secretary of State later today to discuss the latest developments.

Although we, and the authorities in the Republic of Ireland, will be doing our utmost to deal with this latest development, it is vital that farmers reinforce the "fortress farming" measures which many farmers, but not all, have in place. I have been advocating "fortress farming" since the disease first appeared. Farmers must assume that such measures are all that stands between them and foot-and-mouth disease. It may be stating the obvious to say that foot-and-mouth disease is highly unlikely to reappear in a Northern Ireland farm if "fortress farming" is fully implemented by every farmer.

Looking ahead, the EU’s response to the outbreaks in other member states, culminating in its decision to regionalise the County Louth outbreak, stands in stark contrast to what has happened in relation to the outbreak here. It is indefensible that we are still caught up in EU-imposed export restrictions when every outbreak in other member states has been treated as a regional phenomenon. Members will recall that on 28 February I secured a commitment from the Prime Minister that the UK Government would support a case for regionalisation for Northern Ireland as soon as practical and possible. On the following day we confirmed our first and only outbreak. Following my meeting with the Prime Minister and the UK Agriculture Minister, Nick Brown, on Thursday last, I wrote to Mr Brown to raise this matter. He arranged for the UK delegate at Friday’s standing veterinary committee (SVC) to register the fact that Northern Ireland would be pressing forcefully for a regional approach to be adopted at the next SVC meeting tomorrow.

I also spoke personally yesterday to Commissioner Byrne to press our case, and I am confident of his support. Senior Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials, including our Chief Veterinary Officer, are currently in Brussels discussing our case for regionalisation. The Chief Veterinary Officer is a member of the SVC and will present our case to that committee tomorrow. I cannot predict the outcome of that meeting, but my view is that the Northern Ireland case for regionalisation, leading to an immediate lifting of the generalised controls on exports and an early lifting of most of the rest, is irresistible. In the meantime the Executive Committee will meet later today to discuss the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. We will, as always, keep our efforts to eradicate this disease under constant review.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Does she not think that it is now a bit late in the day for the Southern Government to say that they have located the missing sheep? Surely this should have been a matter for immediate attention, and it is very disconcerting to have this statement come out weeks afterwards.

I welcome the statement which the Minister has made about regionalisation, but I wonder why we did not press for it immediately. The Southern Government were able to press for it immediately and get it. Can she tell me whether veterinary inspectors from Europe are over here at the moment? Has she any information on whether they have already been to the South of Ireland and looked at its position? I am sure that she has heard the comments of the president of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, whose members are saying to him that they are treated as second-class citizens by Europe. It seems to me that the South of Ireland has got all the advantages of Europe by getting regionalisation promised immediately, while we still have to queue up to get it. It is a strange thing that the Commissioner can tell the South and the world that it will get it and then just say that he will give his support to our case. Why does he not say that we can get it? He was able to say "Yes, you can get it" to the Government that appointed him, but he evidently cannot say that to us.

Northern Ireland is in the most favourable position in the whole of Europe with regard to regionalisation. If ever there were a watertight case to get it, then surely we have that case, as the Minister herself said. We ought to be pressing in every way for the lifting of the ban so that Northern Ireland can benefit from regionalisation. If France, the Netherlands and the South of Ireland can get it, so can we. We should have been first on the list.

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

I thank Dr Paisley for his comments and questions. As I have already explained on a number of occasions in the House, the missing sheep were illegally traded and, because of that, it was extremely difficult to trace them. We worked very closely with the authorities in the South in order to have them traced. I do not want to apportion any blame whatsoever to anyone. The fact that they have now been traced is a result of very good investigative work by both authorities working together. We gave any information that we were able to get here to the authorities in the South and they reciprocated. As a result, the gardaí have now been able to trace the sheep. My information from the authorities in the South is that some of them were slaughtered immediately, which is good news. The rest of them have now been slaughtered, which is also good news. It is extremely good news that we have managed to have them traced — that was a very clear worry.

The second issue that Dr Paisley raised was why we did not get regionalisation immediately. Dr Paisley, more than anyone else in this House, will recognise that we are part of the UK. I agree that until there is the consent of the Northern Ireland people under the Good Friday Agreement for a change, that should remain the case. Since we are, therefore, not in the same position as the Republic, which is a full member state and is in a position to make its case immediately, we have to make our case via the UK. When the ban was placed on exports from the UK we, as part of the UK, were included in that ban. I immediately — I stress "immediately" — made the case to the UK Government that I felt that Northern Ireland, separated by the sea, should be regionalised. I got a commitment from the Prime Minister that, within a week of the ban being placed, he would back the seeking of regionalisation. Unfortunately, the very next day we had the first case in Northern Ireland.

The European Commission is now taking a slightly different view in the light of changing circumstances in Europe. When it was announced that there would be regionalisation for France, at least one Member here complained that I had not criticised the Commission’s decision. Rather than complain about the decision, I welcomed it because it opens the door for us to seek regionalisation in Northern Ireland, which is precisely what I have been doing. [Interruption].

Mr Deputy Speaker, if people want to make points of order —

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

Order. We want to hear the Minister’s response.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I have been working with might and main since that first week to get regionalisation for Northern Ireland. I repeat that I am not in the same position as the Minister of a full member state to do that, and unless Dr Paisley is suggesting that I seek a more radical solution to our problems, I cannot see that there is anything else that I could have done, or should have done.

I assure the House that, as I speak, my officials in Europe are following up the conversation I had yesterday with Commissioner Byrne. I am confident of his support, and I look forward to getting the regionalisation that I have been working for since the beginning.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, but I am concerned by her reference to what are seen as the missing sheep. At the outset, nobody, north or south of the border, knew how many sheep were missing. In order to achieve regionalisation, I would seek to confirm that the matter has been cleared up. I hope that this is the case.

Comments were made in a newspaper yesterday about the origins of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. The public and the two Governments want cheap food. It was revealed by the press that leftover food was being dumped at an identified location, which I do not want to name at the moment. There is certainty that food from this dump was being fed to animals as swill and that this was the source of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. This cheap swill food was being imported from outside Great Britain — perhaps from outside Europe.

The British and Irish Governments have a big responsibility on their shoulders — all they want is cheap food, and they do not care where it comes from. Stringent regulations are placed on factories in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, so importing cheap food from elsewhere constitutes unfair competition. The Minister may think that I am deviating from the current crisis, but a firm line needs to be taken on this.

From the dump I referred to, which is in the north of England, there is free access into this country —

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

Mr Savage, please come to the question.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I will come to the question now, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Insufficient action is being taken to eradicate the disease in Northern Ireland. I am fed up telling officials that not enough disinfectant precautions are being taken at the ports. In addition, when travelling to the South, there are disinfectant mats across the roads at the border, but no such precautions are being taken with cars travelling into Northern Ireland. We are so close to being granted regionalisation, so surely we should make an extra effort and use disinfectant to try to alleviate this serious problem.

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

A good deal of Mr Savage’s speech was actually a discussion about sheep food, which I am not going to deal with today. I hope that we will be dealing with the aftermath of this issue when we get the disease under control, and my focus must be on that.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take the liberty of responding to Dr Paisley’s other question: the veterinary inspection here has been postponed, and I cannot answer for the Republic of Ireland.

Mr Savage talked about pigswill. We are keeping that under review and will be looking at it very carefully. At the moment only 10 people have a licence for swill in Northern Ireland, and that is being kept under very strict surveillance. We are not 100% sure what the source of the epidemic was. It may well have been illegally imported meat, but the source is not clear. In relation to the missing sheep, I have to thank my staff for the very effective tracing which they did in very difficult circumstances and without full co-operation. They managed to locate the lost sheep, so that a reported figure of 271 animals became 60 and then fell to 30-odd. The authorities in the South have now informed me that those 30-odd sheep have been accounted for in the South. Again, that is good news.

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

Like my Colleagues, I welcome the Minister’s statement very much. I would like to place on record my knowledge of the enormous gratitude and support that the Minister has throughout the community. This is not always reflected in the House, however.

The Minister is earnestly seeking regionalisation. As EU regulations place this Government in a subsidiary to that at Westminster, we are forced to make a second-hand input. Is the Minister, therefore, confident that the undertakings given by the Prime Minister and the Ministers there are sufficiently strong for Northern Ireland? She will recall our experience of the same Ministers — or Ministers of that ilk — who made noises of support in the fishing round and then welshed on that deal last December. I hope that the support promised will be translated into very, very strong action. I would like to think that if that does not happen, the reneging on the commitment given will be properly exposed for what it is.

I know we are constrained by UK budgetary rules and regulations, et cetera. However, to address the downfall in income in sectors outside farming, is there any chance of relief being given to businesses such as tourism, as announced for the Cooley peninsula by the Minister there? I hope sincerely that no one will attempt to make this a party political issue, as the DUP has a tendency to do. This matter needs the concern and support of the entire community.

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

The full commitment of the Prime Minister that the UK will back our lobby for regionalisation was reiterated to me recently at Downing Street. I have written to Nick Brown. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) will be in Brussels today, as will the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the EU (UKRep); they are already working with my officials to ensure that we get regionalisation, and I have no reason to think that they will change their view and go back on that. I am confident of the full support of the UK Government in seeking regionalisation for Northern Ireland at tomorrow’s standing veterinary committee (SVC) meeting.

I will now turn to the rates relief which has been announced in Dublin and also across the water. Owing to the restrictions and guidelines, many industries other than agriculture are suffering severe difficulties — tourism in particular.

The position on rates in Northern Ireland is different from the situations in Great Britain and the South because we do not have the powers to grant discretionary relief from rates in response to the present circumstances. This issue has been raised previously in the House, and I have addressed it. I have also brought it to the attention of interdepartmental meetings and of the Executive. The issue is not specifically a matter for my Department. It is one for the Department of Finance and Personnel which would eventually call for a collective decision by the Executive because it would require legislation in the House. If we come to a position where we have legislation and the Department of Finance and Personnel is prepared to make rates relief available, other parts of the Budget will have to be adjusted. The Executive will discuss this issue this afternoon.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A Cheann Comhairle. I also welcome the Minister’s statement and in particular her comment that it is unlikely that foot-and-mouth disease will reappear in the North if we adhere to "fortress farming". Given that the Chief Veterinary Officer in Britain has said in the past week that foot-and-mouth disease is out of control in Britain and that, at the weekend, Bertie Ahern criticised the controls in place at the ports, will the Minister adopt an all-Ireland task force and a "fortress island" approach? Given that the South has received regional status, will the Minister accept that we must adopt a radically different approach from that of the British to foot-and-mouth disease so that we can get regionalisation for ourselves?

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

Mr McHugh has raised several issues. In relation to the Taoiseach’s comments on the ports, we have strict controls at all points of entry. We have kept them under constant review and we will continue to do so. The Agriculture Departments in the North and South have liaised closely throughout this crisis, and there have been discussions at official and ministerial levels about port controls. At no time have any concerns about those controls been raised with me.

I reiterate that we have rigorous controls at ports and airports. All passengers are required to walk over disinfection mats, and all vehicles have to cross similar mats. On ferries, foot passengers and vehicular passengers must also cross mats soaked in disinfectant. All commercial vehicles must have a disinfection certificate, and those that do not have such a certificate are not admitted. The wheels of all vehicular traffic passing through the ports are disinfected, and all this is conducted under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Announcements are made on ferries and aircraft. All passengers are handed leaflets on footand-mouth disease and asked if they have been on farms or in contact with animals in Great Britain. If they have been, they are offered disinfectant spray. However, having put all those measures in place, we also require the co-operation of the public. If people insist on going across the water unnecessarily to areas where the infection is rampant, I cannot stop them. It is a free country, and I cannot stop individual movement. I can only appeal to people’s good sense, common sense and sense of responsibility towards our industry. The vast majority of people are co-operating.

As for our taking a radically different approach to that in Great Britain, we are taking our own approach and have been doing so from the outset because we have a devolved Administration. I must pay tribute to my Executive Colleagues, who at all times have worked closely with me and have given me whatever support has been necessary. The Executive have worked together as a team in fighting this disease.

The Member raised the issue of an all-Ireland task force. Under the present arrangements — the Good Friday Agreement and our new institutions — we have an all-Ireland task force. Before this outbreak happened I was working with Joe Walsh on joint animal disease strategies for the island of Ireland, and we are proceeding to bring forward a strategy for that. Since the outbreak of the disease we have met at regular intervals and have spoken almost on a daily basis. Both Departments are working closely together. Therefore, it could be said that there is a task force in all but name, in the sense that the North/South institutions are working effectively in this crucial time.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I would like to put three points to the Minister. First, she talked about regionalisation and the support being given by UkRep to the regionalisation of Northern Ireland. Will the Minister assure us, if there is a difficulty at the SVC meeting tomorrow because of the Ravensdale outbreak, that she will seek regionalisation for as much of Northern Ireland as possible, even if Newry and Mourne district has to be excluded so that the rest of Northern Ireland can benefit — as has happened in the Republic?

Secondly, on the issue of border control, she talked about the disinfection point on the A1 and the checks currently going on in south Armagh. Is that adequate? I am not talking about border controls in the same way as the DUP. Farmers’ representatives have raised a serious issue that while the South currently has an outbreak — and we are almost four weeks on from the start of ours — there may be further difficulties if we are not seen to be doing more than we are at present by way of border controls outside the south Armagh area.

Thirdly, the Minister talked about the issue of aid — specifically rates relief — being granted in England and Wales. Will she assure the House that she is taking that matter to the Executive urgently this afternoon to seek emergency legislation if necessary? Will she assure the House that she will urge the Minister of Finance and Personnel to seek appropriate aid from the Treasury, as is being given to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions in England and Wales?

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

I thank Mr Ford for his questions. First, as regards regionalisation, I do not want to get into specific details at the moment because negotiations are ongoing with the Commission as I speak. The results of those negotiations will be discussed tomorrow. It is my aim to get regionalisation for Northern Ireland as soon as possible. I take the Member’s point that, given that there is an outbreak in one area, we could find ourselves in a difficult position regarding that area. However, I do not want to comment any further on that at this stage.

Secondly, the Member referred to border controls. As I said in my statement, my officials have been having ongoing discussions with the RUC. I have spoken to the Secretary of State and Adam Ingram. I will be meeting the Secretary of State again at lunchtime today.

I have been informed that border patrols are taking place, but it is not a static situation. Over the weekend, quite a large number of vehicles — I cannot state the exact number — have been stopped, inspected, and then allowed to go on. I am not aware of any illegal movements of animals. Nevertheless, those inspections are happening across the border area, not just in the specific area of the outbreak. However, in that specific area the measures are more stringent — and perhaps more numerous — as one would expect. I think it is acceptable that there will be patrols operating throughout the border area.

I have made my position clear on the issue of rates relief. I will be discussing this with the Executive Committee and it will be a matter for decision by the Executive Committee — specifically for the Department of Finance and Personnel. I will be discussing the issue and putting my views forward, but it will be a matter for collective decision.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

The Minister has been encouraging "fortress farming", which I support very much. At the same time I am a little concerned about the reports I have been hearing from people who have been coming in and out of Northern Ireland through the ports.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s statement that those things are in place. However, they have not been in place in the way that people would have liked them, until now. That is one of the most serious aspects of this whole episode. We need to make sure that we have good precautions in place. That will be the case for the next two months, even if we do not have any more footand-mouth cases.

Like other Members, I hope that the Minister will keep the pressure on and that she will be able to tell this House that those precautions are in place. They have not been in the past, but I am glad that she has said that they are. People that have been coming to and fro have been very concerned, and I hope that the Minster will assure us that those precautions will be kept in place in the months ahead to protect Northern Ireland, and make it "fortress Northern Ireland" as well as individual "fortress farms".

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

I share Mr Douglas’s concerns about the ports. Obviously, it was not possible to have everything in place immediately within ten minutes, half an hour or even ten hours of the outbreak. However, as soon as it was humanly possible, everything was put in place, and it is being constantly reviewed.

When I have received specific complaints that something is not right, my staff and I have dealt with them immediately. We all depend on one another in these circumstances to make sure that we have a watertight situation. However, if a specific problem is brought to my attention then I will have it dealt with.

Many of the issues that have been raised have been based on, as I said previously in the House, "Dúirt bean liom gur dhúirt bean léi gur chuala sí bean a rá", which means "A woman told me that another woman told her that she heard another woman saying". I cannot deal with that sort of thing, but I will deal with specifics. If people bring specific issues to my attention, they will be dealt with, because it is important that we keep up the "fortress Northern Ireland".

As I have already said, and as the question seems to recognise, the ports of entry are important, but the front line of defence remains the farm gate. We cannot keep the virus entirely out. People can carry it on their clothing and in their nostrils. People who have been in infected areas should not go near live animals at all until they are sure that they are free from the disease. You can disinfect your clothes, but you cannot disinfect your nostrils. Therefore, if farmers have been across the water — why they should go across the water is beyond me, but if they feel that they must — then those farmers should keep away from their animals when they come back, because they are in danger of carrying the disease back.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

As we are dealing with specifics, and the Minister likes to deal with specifics rather than what some wee woman said, I will ask a specific question. Can she tell us whether the Department of Agriculture in the Republic of Ireland has told her how many sheep have been located, where those sheep have been located, and how long ago those sheep were located?

Depending on the Minister’s answers, does she think that a ten-kilometre surveillance zone around the border is enough? Are we correct in assuming that those missing sheep that Little Bo Peep has not been able to find have been in contact with a contaminated animal?

There are those of us who have believed, for a long time, that in European affairs the United Kingdom Government plays cricket when many other Governments do not. It has been suggested that there is a thought process in Northern Irish people’s minds that perhaps the Irish Republic is not being as absolutely open about this as it might. Of course, we can dispel that notion depending on the Minister’s answers.

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

I remind Members, particularly on the Front Bench, that it is discourteous to read newspapers or magazines at this point in time.

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

I was referring to being specific so that I could deal with specific complaints.

Mr Ervine referred to specific numbers of sheep. I have made it clear in the House over recent weeks that my problem was that I was unable to be specific because of the very nature of illegal trading and the fact that some of the people involved were not co-operating with the authorities. In such a situation it is very difficult to give an exact figure.

Last week we narrowed it down to 30-odd missing sheep. We have worked with the Republic of Ireland authorities on this matter and it is their view that the 30 missing sheep have been accounted for. Some of the sheep had been immediately slaughtered in an abattoir in the Republic and the rest have now been slaughtered. That is as specific as I can be. The Republic of Ireland moved immediately to deal with the situation once the position had been established.

In relation to the 10 km exclusion zone, I am not sure what Mr Ervine meant by the question. I hope he will forgive me if I am not dealing exactly with what he said. There is a statutory 30-day restriction on the 10 km zone around Meigh as a result of European regulations. That restriction is put in place from the disinfection period, which was a few days after the slaughtering. The 30-day restriction around Meigh comes to an end on 6 April. If there have been no further cases by that time, we will be able to say that Northern Ireland is completely clear of foot-and-mouth.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I would like to raise a matter of extreme concern with the Minister. Some of my constituents who returned to Northern Ireland at the port of Larne from the mainland of the UK last week had to insist that their vehicles were sprayed. Will the Minister confirm that adequate measures are in place and ensure that they remain in place at all points of entry to Northern Ireland?

Is everything being done at local, national and European levels to make sure that Northern Ireland’s agriculture industry will receive regional status? Will the Minister update the Assembly on any proposals she has to extend any of the current compensation schemes?

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

I would like to ask Mr Peter Robinson whether his magazine is directly related to foot-and-mouth disease. Does he not think that it is inappropriate to be reading unrelated material, considering the serious nature of the debate?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Deputy Speaker, if you had had the courtesy to find out what I was reading, you would know that it is not a magazine. There are several people in the Chamber with papers that do not directly relate to the debate, but I have not heard you tell them that they should not be reading such material.

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

It is not the duty of the Speaker to ask which magazines Members are reading. I said earlier that it was inappropriate for Members to be reading newspapers or magazines. It is even more inappropriate that that should be happening on the Front Bench, and still more inappropriate that Members do not give their full attention to the debate when we are discussing one of the most important issues that Northern Ireland faces.

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

Mr Kennedy says that people have had to insist that their vehicles were sprayed. I regret that the people concerned did not bring the matter to the attention of my Department. If they had done so, I would have looked into the situation. I cannot comment on the matter any further because I do not have the details. I do not know how many vehicles were involved, what kind of vehicles they were or where they had been. We do have a helpline in the Department. If such an incident happens again, I will expect people to immediately make me aware of that through the helpline.

I can assure Mr Kennedy that I will do everything, and have been doing everything, in my power to achieve regional status. The case is being proceeded with today. My officials are in Brussels, and the Chief Veterinary Officer will put the case to the standing veterinary committee tomorrow.

As I have already said, I spoke to Commissioner Byrne at some length over the weekend, and he is sympathetic. At the moment the only compensation that is agreed is full compensation for slaughtered animals at market value, with the addition of the slaughter subsidy that would be missed because of the fact that the animals are not going for normal slaughter. Consequential compensation is a matter to be dealt with on a UK-wide basis, and I have no indication as yet that the United Kingdom Government is in any way disposed to grant consequential compensation. There would be absolutely enormous resource implications, but I have mentioned it to the United Kingdom Government. It has been raised at a ministerial meeting, but I have not met with any enthusiasm for it as yet.

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

It is unfortunate — but welcome — that the Minister is again here to deal with this matter personally on the Floor. I do not want to go over old ground. I welcome the commitment to full compensation, to the slaughter subsidy and to the review of the rating liability, and I look forward to seeing the result of the consideration of consequential losses. However, these are global responses to the problem, and we have very specific problems in the south of County Armagh and in County Louth.

Will the Minister and her Colleagues consider, in the longer term, not just the problems for the agricultural community, but the impact on local shops, restaurants, bed-and-breakfasts, hotels and businesses that have been badly affected? Will they also consider the houses in that vicinity that were badly affected by the stench and smoke from the livestock pyres? Will the Minister consider putting together the equivalent of a mini Marshall plan for south Armagh?

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

The impact of the present situation in all areas will, as Mr Fee will understand, and as I think he has accepted, be a matter for wider discussion in the Executive and on a collective basis. It will be dealt with on another day, and it is not a matter for me alone.

Regarding the issue of the stench and smoke from the pyres, we are currently taking legal advice to see what our obligations may or may not be. I cannot, therefore, give a direct answer.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

May I bring the Minister back to a question that was asked and not answered? Where precisely were these sheep found — those that have now been found in the Irish Republic? Were they outside the County Louth area? That may have implications as regards regionalisation for the Irish Republic.

Is the Agriculture Minister, as the Minister with overall responsibility for dealing with this crisis, not permitted to speak personally to the RUC? She has ultimate control. Is she not permitted to speak personally to the Army? She said that she has spoken to the Security Minister, Adam Ingram, and to the Secretary of State. Surely she should be able to deal hands-on with our Chief Constable to take the measures that are essential for the control of this disease?

When it comes to rushing through the legislation, I assure the Minister that my Colleagues will help to ensure that the alleviation of the rates for businesses in general is given a welcome response.

When it comes to setting an example — and political points were mentioned here this morning — I want to say this: when I arrived here on Thursday morning the Minister of Finance and Personnel and some of his colleagues were holding a photocall at the Members’ entrance. Why this was being held at the Members’ entrance when these were European Commissioners, I believe, I do not know, but I asked where the disinfectant mat was.

I looked for the mat; there was none. I asked for it; I received no answer. I found out that it had been removed for the photograph. The Minister and his SDLP colleagues were standing for a photocall at the Members’ entrance. There are other entrances to this Building, and it is disgraceful that when I looked for the mat it could not be found. When I had entered the Building, I found out from an official that the mat had been thrown aside for the photocall. Surely, that is not acting responsibly. What action will the Minister, or the Executive, take in relation to the Minister of Finance and Personnel?

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

As regards the Member’s first question, the sheep were found in Meath. Some had gone immediately to slaughter; others were slaughtered as soon as the facts were established.

As regards speaking personally to the RUC, I inform Mr McCrea that if I had to speak personally to everyone who is involved in dealing with this situation, I would not even get my six hours’ sleep at night.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I did not ask you —

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

I am going to answer the question if the Member will wait and listen.

With regard to my speaking personally to the RUC, Mr McCrea may or may not be aware that security is a reserved matter and that I have no function in relation to it. My senior officials have had meetings on a daily basis with the RUC and have been liaising with them.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thought it was a reserved matter.

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

Security is a reserved matter, as the Member will be aware. My officials have been in daily contact with the RUC, and I get daily reports on everything that is happening. I have spoken to the Minister responsible for security, Mr Adam Ingram, and to the Secretary of State — and I will be meeting the Secretary of State today — because they are the people in charge of the security forces.

I do not have a personal problem with speaking to the Chief Constable. I have often spoken to him on constituency and other issues, as Mr McCrea may well be aware, and he may also be aware of the constituency issues that I have spoken to the Chief Constable about. [Interruption].

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

Order. May we hear the Minister’s response?

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

In relation to the present crisis, I am dealing as effectively as I can with everything that needs to be done. It would be a pure waste of my time to start having discussions with the Chief Constable. I have full confidence in my staff, who are liaising with him. I have confidence in the Secretary of State, who has assured me that everything possible will be done. Security is a matter for the Secretary of State and the Minister in charge of security. I am dealing with the other agriculture issues, the Commission, regionalisation, and all of the other issues that have been raised in the House today.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

What about last Thursday, and the removal of the mat?

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

The mat may have been removed. I have been informed that it was not removed by the Minster of Finance, or on his instructions. I do not know who removed the mat, but I will make enquiries and will let the Member know if I find out.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her report. Is the Minister aware that the current strain of foot-and-mouth disease is of Asian origin; that it is one of the most virulent strains of the disease; and that the British Government have, as usual, been economical with the truth in respect of what they have said about the outbreak? Is the Minister suggesting that the Taoiseach’s comments are not correct? How confident is she in Tony Blair’s statement that the UK Government would support the case for regionalisation of the North as soon as it was practical and possible to make such a case?

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

With regard to the UK Government’s support, I have already replied to that question — twice, I think — and I refer Mrs Nelis to my reply to Mr McGrady’s question.

I was somewhat surprised by the Taoiseach’s comments. I have been in constant contact with the Department of Agriculture in the Republic at both ministerial and official level about all these matters, including our port controls, and at no time have any concerns about those controls been raised by me. That is my position.

I do not want to comment on the suggestion that the British Government has been economical with the truth, except to say that I regret the tone that is being used. I do not think that this is the time for point-scoring against any Government, north or south, east or west. I have the greatest sympathy with the farming community in Great Britain and what they are going through at the moment, and with the politicians who are trying to grapple with a very serious situation.

I can only say that I am not aware that the origin of the disease has yet been discovered. I know that it is being looked in to. I am not aware whether it is the Asian strain or what strain it might be, where it came from, or whether it came from a piece of food that was brought in. So far as I know, that is not yet clear, so I cannot comment on Mrs Nelis’s assumptions.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

We have come to expect a statement from the Minister every morning now, since we are in such dire straits. How confident is she that the Republic of Ireland’s borders with Northern Ireland are manned so that foot-and-mouth does not cross over? I know that there is a problem with policing the borders with RUC officers, as this disease was encouraged by Republicans in the border areas. We all know that Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials do not have the powers to stop and search vehicles, and might need to have RUC officers with them.

Why do we not stop the use of swill? We do not know whether it is the problem or not. We know that it can be a problem. I believe that lorries are being sprayed if they are coming from agricultural areas, but cars are not.

At the time of BSE I asked whether the Minister could assure us whether meat of Northern Ireland or United Kingdom origin was being used by Government bodies. Are not many of our problems due to importing produce that does not come up to the standards that we practice here in the UK? We expect a lot from our farmers, but then the Government’s cheap food policy brings in produce that does not come up to our standards. That is why we have diseases and problems that are not related to Northern Ireland.

I believe that we have valuers coming in who have been valuing foot-and-mouth-infected stock in the UK to value the stock in Northern Ireland. If the disease can be carried in the nose, then they have it. I do not know how long it stays there.

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

I am glad that Mr Armstrong has run out of questions, for I have difficulty in keeping up with him. There are no valuers being brought in from the UK to deal with this outbreak. It is being done by our own valuers.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

They are UK valuers. They are our valuers.

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

I beg the Member’s pardon. It was a slip of the tongue — it is just the way I am made. It depends on where you are coming from. I will rephrase that to keep Mr McCrea happy. There are no valuers coming in from Great Britain.

There have been in-depth interceptions of vehicles along the border, and mobile patrols are there. There have been 140 interceptions over the weekend. That area is being dealt with in relation to the border controls.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) is actively considering banning the use of pigswill. That is being considered for the short term — during the current outbreak — but the long term will also have to be considered. I have already said that we are monitoring that area very closely at the moment.

There are only 10 licensed pigswill dealers in Northern Ireland at present. We are keeping a close eye on it at the moment.

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

Like other Members, I want to congratulate the Minister on the work she and her officials are doing at this trying time. Does she agree that the Ulster Farmers’ Union has been supportive and encouraging of the "fortress farm" policy, which is very welcome? Can she outline the difficulty that the Veterinary Service is having in Northern Ireland and say whether there are any plans to hire private vets to assist with the workload?

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

The Veterinary Service has been working flat out, and the vets have been under a lot of pressure. My Chief Veterinary Officer assures me that we have not yet reached that stage, but if it becomes necessary, we certainly will employ private vets.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Three times in her statement the Minister boasted of her very close and cosy working relationship with the Irish Republic. However, today it is one step ahead of her on regionalisation. With friends like that — well, we know the adage.

The Minister says it is up to the UK to make the bid for regionalisation for Northern Ireland. If that is so, then farmers are asking if it is not about time that the Minister worked even more closely with the UK Minister and the UK Prime Minister to ensure regionalisation? She should do that instead of working as closely as she is with the Irish Republic and achieving nothing.

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

I never mentioned a cosy relationship, but if the Member thinks that it is cosy, fair enough. With regard to working closer with the UK Minister, Mr Paisley should recognise, from everything I have said in the House so far today, that I am working very closely with the UK Minister, the Prime Minister and MAFF officials. The Member should also recognise that we are on the same land mass on the island of Ireland and that it would be absolutely stupid, not to say foolish, for me not to be working equally as closely with my counterpart in the Republic, which I am doing.

Talking about having friends like that, I welcome the fact that the Republic has got regionalisation — on foot of France and Holland — as that strengthens my case. Rather than play dog in the manger, I welcome it. By the way, I have the full support of Joe Walsh. He told me on Friday evening that he would fully support me in Europe, at the Commission and the committee, in seeking regionalisation.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. I appreciate the measures outlined by the Minister and echo the comments of Mr McGrady. He recognised that there are limitations on what the Minister can do as she is subject to restrictions from Westminster. Given that, I am not taking away at all from any of the work that the Minister has done in the last number of weeks.

Nevertheless, a very serious matter has been addressed over the last number of days by the Chief Veterinary Officer in Britain and the Taoiseach. I am not trying to score points and would prefer the question to be dealt with. On the question of an all-Ireland task force, clearly there is a different imperative at work in Britain than there is in the rest of Ireland. There is no doubt in my mind that Tony Blair is as concerned about when he needs to call an election as he is about the foot-and-mouth problems. I have heard some silly descriptions here this morning about "fortress farming", "fortress Northern Ireland", fortress this and fortress that. The other day I even heard Danny Kennedy trying to rationalise how a farmer in north Down or the Ards Peninsula can be treated differently from somebody in Monaghan because of the regionalisation policy.

Returning to the question of an all-Ireland task force, given the serious comments from the Chief Veterinary Officer in Britain and the Taoiseach, can our Minister assure us that there will be immediate discussions with her Irish counterparts with a view to establishing an all-Ireland task force? Such a task force could deal with this matter in the most thorough way possible, making sure that no stone was left unturned.

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

I sometimes think that people believe that the answer to everything is to set up a committee. We are facing an emergency situation on the island of Ireland. The most effective way to deal with it is the way in which we have been dealing with it so far. We have been doing what we need to do as a Government to deal with the immediate problem in Northern Ireland.

The Republic has been doing exactly the same thing. As a result of the very close relationship and, indeed, converging interests and the threat on the island, under the Good Friday Agreement and the new institutions I am working very closely with the Irish Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Mr Joe Walsh. I am in discussion with him on a daily basis. I have met him and will, I hope, be meeting him again early this week. My Department is probably in touch with the Department in the South as we speak.

Thanks to modern means of communications, rather than have to prepare papers for a task force and go through the whole process of setting that up, we are able to deal with it much more effectively than if we had to set up yet another task force, thereby adding to the bureaucracy at a time of emergency.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for coming to the House again to update us on progress. However, I am perturbed that she referred just now to a state of emergency. I had thought and hoped, from the state of things at the moment, that we were still a few dramas short of an emergency on the island of Ireland.

Clearly, the situation is different across the water. It seems to be more a matter of luck than good judgement that we have prevented further importation of footand-mouth, to the best of our knowledge. The Minister said earlier that one can carry the virus on one’s clothes, but we are not spraying the clothes of people coming through the ports. If I understand correctly, she said the other day that that would cause a human rights problem. For example, the spray might adversely affect asthmatics. I am an asthmatic myself, so I have some sympathy with that position. However, I recall clearly that in 1967 everybody coming into Northern Ireland walked through a mist of disinfectant.

If that is unsuitable for certain people, then an exception should be made for those people and some other approach could be adopted. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the majority of people, and as many people as possible, should be subject to a precaution of that kind.

I am also concerned that while efforts are at last being made to spray high-sided vehicles, we must recognise the intensity of the infection in the parts of Scotland through which people perforce travel if they are coming to the ferries to Northern Ireland. Can the Minister assure this House that she is confident that it is sufficient only to spray those vehicles? Should we not be spraying all vehicles coming into Northern Ireland by that route?

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

Again, Minister, I am looking at the time.

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

I will answer as briefly as possible.

In my view, we are still in an emergency situation for as long as we do not have an assurance that we have completely eradicated the disease. Therefore, I am dealing on a daily and hourly basis — and, indeed, over the weekend — with new issues arising. To me, that is an emergency. It is not something that you can sit down coolly and deal with, on the basis that you do not have a moving target.

Perhaps "emergency" was a bit strong. However, I do not want people to get the view that we are over the crisis in Northern Ireland, because we are not. That would be unfortunate. However, I like to think that we are in a better position than we were three weeks ago, since we have not had further cases.

As regards the spraying of clothes, I have been told that on a health basis it would not be possible, and that on a human rights basis it would not be allowable. However, anyone coming from across the water who has been in touch with farm animals or with farms should report to our facilities at the ports or the airports and will be sprayed.

If there are people in the farming community who have been away across the water, they should have their clothes dry-cleaned, and they should not go back to their farms without taking all the necessary precautions. I have to stress again that the farm gate is the first line of defence against this disease.

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

The time is up.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that this is the third statement on the matter. I have noticed that it is often the same Members who are called to ask questions. Will the Speaker’s Office consider adopting the excellent policy of the Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee? Will you look at which Members are being called to ask questions, and perhaps allow others to ask questions on this important subject?

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

That decision is taken by the party Whips. It is the norm to call the Committee Chairperson, followed by the Deputy Chairperson. The Speaker receives a list of Members wishing to speak from each party Whip. If the Member has a problem about not being called by his own party, I suggest that he bring it to the attention of his party’s Whip.

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

I have received notice from the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment that he wishes to make a statement on student support proposals.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Members will recall that 13 months ago, on the eve of suspension, I announced my intention to conduct a review of student financial support. The details of the review’s terms of reference were published approximately 12 months ago. Notwithstanding suspension, we have proceeded expeditiously to complete the review and formulate the set of proposals which are being announced today.

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

Members will acknowledge, I trust, that in formulating this package of new methods of financial and other support for further and higher education students, we are serious about making a difference in student support in both sectors. I also trust that the seriousness of our determination to make a difference for the better will be acknowledged outside the Assembly.

Members will recall that, before Christmas, I announced the broad framework of my proposals to change the arrangements for student support. I indicated then that further work on the detail of the proposals needed to be done by my officials in liaison with the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Economic Policy Unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Thereafter, it would require final clearance by the Executive.

I am pleased to say that the Executive fully endorsed my package of proposals last Thursday, and my purpose today is to inform the Assembly of the content of that package. I thank my Executive Colleagues for their support and, in particular, the officials in my Department, in the Department of Finance and Personnel, and in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister who worked hard to ensure the finalisation of this package.

I will begin by recalling the key aims that underpin my proposals. Those aims are social, economic and educational, and I was encouraged by the support that they received in most quarters. My key aims are to widen access to further and higher education — especially higher education — in Northern Ireland and provide greater equality of opportunity and greater equity of treatment by reducing the barriers to participation and retention that exist for those from lower socioeconomic groups.

I wish to increase the contribution that higher and further education makes to economic development in Northern Ireland, particularly by enhancing the skills base. I wish to promote lifelong learning through increasing participation in higher and further education.

In support of those key aims, my proposals are designed, first, to target resources in higher education to those from lower income groups, thereby widening access to higher education from among the underrepresented and those with specific needs; secondly, to upgrade support to those over 19 years of age wishing to participate full-time in vocational further education to boost the skills base of the economy; thirdly, to increase support for certain categories of students who are under-represented in both higher and further education, including part-time students; fourthly, to provide potential students and parents with a clearer, simpler system of administration for student support, particularly in relation to full-time education.

As Members are aware, my Department, along with other Departments, operates in a world of finite resources and many competing pressures for those resources, not only in higher and further education itself but in other areas such as health, schools, transport, and so on. I have made no secret of the fact that I wished to go even further than I have done. However, I would not have been fulfilling my ministerial responsibilities if I had come forward with proposals which did not have careful regard to affordability and to the need to ensure that any additional resources were indeed targeted on clear and pressing priority areas. That has meant that options such as abolishing the loan-based system or the total abolition of fees in higher education were not real options for me.

I trust that Members will appreciate that we are at the beginning of a new political era and that the changes that are being announced today do not mark the end of a process but rather the beginning of a process of change.

Student loans were first introduced in 1990 in recognition of the growing cost to taxpayers of higher education. The present loan-based system is a response to the crisis in higher education funding, identified by Dearing in his report in 1997, as more and more school-leavers each year move into third-level education. It costs some £90 million each year to fund loans to students in Northern Ireland. It is a simple fact that neither the Northern Ireland Executive nor the Executive in Scotland nor the UK Government in Whitehall could afford to operate a student support system without a strong loan element.

Furthermore, the current loans offer a good deal to students in commercial terms, a situation acknowledged by student representatives and by a departmental Committee. They are not repaid until the graduate is in employment and earning £10,000 per year. They are repaid at a zero rate of real interest, and no more than 9% of income above £10,000 is taken annually in repayment.

Some 75% of students now take out a loan, and the average loan is about £3,200 per year. Let me remind Members that the private rate of return to those with a degree is some 20% above those without a degree. Dearing, Cubie and many other commentators, including the departmental Committee, agree that those who benefit most from higher education should pay something towards their upkeep during their course.

In theory one could change unilaterally the basis on which the loans are repaid, but in practice this would of necessity have to be done on a UK-wide basis since the Inland Revenue is unlikely to accept collection on a different basis in each jurisdiction. The Scottish Executive accepted this position despite the Cubie recommendations.

We have covered the ground on fee contribution before, but it is worth repeating that I did not feel that complete abolition would help the least-well-off members of society who aspire to higher education. Expenditure in that area would not be appropriately targeted, and it would be extremely divisive to make the change, as in Scotland, for locally domiciled students at local universities and colleges. European Union regulations mean that the many Northern Ireland students who have recourse to further and higher education opportunities outside Northern Ireland would be precluded from so benefiting. That would be a divisive and politically unacceptable position to move to.

Having set the context for my proposals, both in terms of aims and objectives and financial constraints, I shall now set out the detail. My proposals are based on a new targeting social needs/skills approach. There are three main elements to the overall package within which my proposals can be grouped.

First, there are measures to promote greater full-time adult participation in further education in order to improve equality of opportunity, to enhance the skills base and to promote lifelong learning. I wish to place much greater emphasis on the further education sector as a significant engine for economic development. Members will be aware that I have taken many opportunities — both inside and outside the Assembly — to express that emphasis. I have begun this process through a range of measures designed to upgrade the sector’s information and communication technology capacity, to restructure its staffing profile, to improve facilities and to identify centres of excellence relevant to regional economic need.

I have been successful in increasing part-time enrolments of over-18-year-olds. However, I wish to secure an increase in adult full-time enrolments. Therefore, I propose to abolish tuition fees on a broad range of vocational courses at levels 2 and 3 for full-time students aged over 19. In so doing I will be pleased to have been able to go further than my pre-Christmas proposal, which was to confine fee abolition to courses in certain key skill areas.

In combination with fee abolition, I propose to introduce around 3,000 discretionary further education access bursaries. Those will be decided on a sliding scale of up £1,500 each for full-time students aged over 19 on incomes below £10,000, up to £1,000 for those whose incomes are between £10,000 and £12,500 and up to £500 for those whose incomes are between £12,500 and £15,000. The bursaries will replace the current further education discretionary awards and will be administered by the education and library boards.

In addition to fee abolition and the introduction of discretionary bursaries, I intend to increase the access funds — the support funds — administered by the further education colleges by a further £0·5 million a year. That will bring the total to approximately £1·7 million and focus them specifically on hardship in order to provide a greater safety net drop-out for those students who find themselves in financial difficulties after starting their courses.

Full-time course provision provides a much better opportunity for adults to reskill completely and to change career direction. This will be an essential element in meeting the needs of the new knowledge-based economy by providing adults with the incentive to make the necessary change. I expect, therefore, that this combination of fee abolition and bursary provision across the broad range of vocational provision, together with the increase of £0·5 million in the access funds of the further education colleges, will provide the necessary incentives and represent a significant step forward in narrowing the gap between further education and higher education student support.

I have not concentrated my attention purely on the full-time aspect of further education. As well as the increase in access (support) funds, to which I have referred and which will be equally accessible to part-time students, I will take action to ensure that a consistent fee remission policy for part-time students operates in every college across the further education sector. This will remove uncertainty about entitlement and eliminate local variations. It will provide for the tuition fees of students on low incomes or benefits, or who become unemployed after starting their courses, to be met by the colleges.

I will also provide individual learning accounts to help pay fees for part-time further education students in certain vocational courses to encourage greater participation in important skill areas and enhance lifelong learning.

The second broad category of the new arrangements is the introduction of access bursaries and other measures in higher education to widen access for the under-represented and provide greater equity of treatment for those in higher education from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Social groups IV and V make up 25% of the overall population, but students from these groups represent only 11% of the student population. There are a number of factors in this under-representation, but finance and debt aversion are included in them. Evidence from the recent student income and expenditure survey, which covered Great Britain and Northern Ireland, demonstrates that students from these groups get less financial support from parents and relatives, have to assume more debt, have to undertake significantly longer part-time hours of paid work and are more likely to drop out for financial reasons than students from better-off families.

I intend, therefore, to address these elements of inequality of opportunity and inequity by introducing means-tested, non-repayable access bursaries on a sliding scale of up to £1,500 per annum for full-time undergraduates whose parental or spouse residual income is £15,000 or less. It is estimated that such bursaries will be taken up by over one third of the full-time student population. The amount of bursaries and the income thresholds at which they are payable will be along the same lines as the discretionary further education bursaries which I have already mentioned. They will interact with loan-based support. For example, someone whose family or spouse has a residual income of less than £10,000 will receive a total support package of £4,320, which is made up of £2,820 in loan and £1,500 in bursary.

To interact with these new bursaries I intend to reduce the loan available by up to £250 for students whose parents or spouses have residual incomes of over £46,000 per annum. This will enable resources to be targeted on assistance for students from lower-income families. The full reduction of £250 will apply to those with earnings of £47,700 per annum and above. Average earnings in Northern Ireland are around £18,700 per annum. It is estimated that reduced loan entitlement will affect only 20% of the student population.

I intend to raise the residual income threshold at which a student contribution towards tuition fees becomes due from £17,805 per annum to £20,000 per annum. Currently the maximum is £1,050. Therefore, more than 50% of students will not pay anything towards the cost of their tuition. It will also mean that many students who are required to pay a contribution which is less than the maximum amount will benefit from a further reduction.

12.00

Residual income is gross income, before tax and National Insurance, reduced by certain allowances, for example, superannuation payments that qualify for tax relief or for adult dependants.

In addition to these measures, I will introduce a childcare grant to assist students on low incomes with dependant children and to help to reduce the disincentive to full-time higher education. The grant will be based on 85% of the actual costs of registered or accredited childcare in term-time and 70% of actual costs during the long vacation, subject to a maximum of £100 per week for one child and £150 per week for two or more children. For those students who, for whatever reason, cannot avail of registered or accredited childcare, assistance is available through the access (support) funds of their institutions.

In addition to these measures for full-time higher education students, part-time students will be assisted by individual learning accounts (ILAs). ILAs were introduced in September 2000 to encourage lifelong learning by helping those aged 18 and over to meet the costs of a wide range of part-time courses. In Northern Ireland, learning eligible for ILA support is extended to vocationally relevant part-time higher education courses including the Higher National Certificates (HNCs) and part-time Higher National Diplomas (HNDs) offered by universities and higher education colleges as well as courses offered by the Open University and vocational courses studied through distance learning. For the initial 20,000 Northern Ireland account holders, up to £150 is available towards the first course costs, provided the learner pays at least £25. For subsequent eligible courses a discount of 20% will be available.

Where a part-time higher education course extends over several years, each complete year is regarded as a separate course for ILA purposes. Employed students may get a contribution from their employer towards fees and other course-related costs. If that is for a course purchased through an ILA, the employer may offset the contribution for tax purposes.

Thirdly, an increase in domestic higher education places, in order to widen access and increase the contribution of higher education to regional economic development, is proposed.

It has been argued by a wide range of commentators, including Lord Dearing, that there is a shortage of higher education places in Northern Ireland. This has the effect of driving up the grades required for entrance to our universities, leading to the phenomenon of "reluctant leavers" — those who must go outside Northern Ireland to take up a higher education course. It is impossible to quantify the exact extent of the problem, but I have been successful in bidding for an additional 1,000 higher education places on top of the 4,400 already announced in the Programme for Government.

In my view this is a reasonable estimate of the need at this time. I have not yet decided how these places will be allocated, but the majority will certainly be targeted at disciplines regarded as important for economic development.

In addition to the proposals I have already covered, I intend to ensure that we do everything possible to make clear and concise information and guidance on the student support system easily available to all those who need it. Therefore, I will be commissioning the education and library boards, assisted by student representatives including the National Union of Students (NUS), the Union of Students in Ireland (USI) and others, to review the nature and distribution of the financial information they provide to students, potential students and parents.

I am also conscious of the special needs of mature students and I intend to ask the Educational Guidance Service for Adults (EGSA) to provide a guidance service, again in co-operation with student representatives, to ensure that such students receive full information about the costs and other aspects of entry into higher education. I am delighted at the positive response of the student representatives to this proposal.

I will also open discussions with the education and library boards and the Student Loans Company with a view to re-engineering the administrative system for higher education loans to make the process simpler and more transparent, and to develop its capacity for the electronic delivery of services.

The cost of implementing my proposals will be some £65 million over the next three years. I trust that Members will agree that this represents a significant investment in the future of our young people. It is an investment that has been secured with considerable difficulty given the competing pressures on the Executive. I hope, therefore, that I can rely on the support of the Assembly as I move towards a public equality consultation as required by my Department’s equality scheme.

In conclusion, I thank the Assembly again for the opportunity to speak today and, more importantly, for the contribution that the Assembly and its Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee have made to this debate. I also extend my thanks to my Colleagues in the Executive, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Office of the First and the Deputy First Ministers. I know that I have not delivered everything that the Committee sought in its report, but I have attempted to give effect to several of its key recommendations. I have tried to seek a conclusion that I believe to be in the best interests of our students and our wider society.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I congratulate the Minister on the completion of this most recent, and lengthy, part of the review process. I note the extra resources that he has secured from both the Department of Finance and the Executive. The Committee welcomes those. I want to ask two brief questions. Will the Minister confirm that, since his previous statement on this matter on 15 December 2000, he has significantly widened the scope of the provisions for further education students in respect of access bursaries and the non-payment of up-front tuition fees? If so, I am interested to know why he has broadened that. The Committee will welcome that change.

Will the Minister provide an assessment of the level and generosity of his bursary scheme? The Committee welcomes it in principle, but I am concerned about how it compares with the situation in another devolved administration — namely Scotland — where, as I understand it, the bursaries are set at £2,000 for family incomes less than £10,000 and do not taper down to zero until the family or spouse income reaches as high as £25,000.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

With respect to the first question, we have widened the scope for the abolition of tuition fees in relation to courses in further education. We did so because, on reflection, it appeared that it would be more appropriate to be as broad as possible rather than to approach the issue on the more restricted basis that I initially thought might have been necessary.

The same answer applies to the question of access bursaries in the further education sector. With respect to the comparisons that the Member has drawn with the situation in Scotland, one of the most important challenges that I met in formulating these proposals was their affordability — there are many competing bids and demands for the funds that are available to the Executive. Furthermore, as a basis for my proposals, targeting social need had to be clearly demonstrated. That was the challenge put to me on behalf of the Executive by both the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Economic Policy Unit. I had to clearly demonstrate that I would be targeting the resources that would be made available to me at those students from the lower income groups in our society, particularly income groups IV and V. As my figures illustrate, these groups are badly under-represented in further and higher education. For that reason, the thresholds are drawn at a lower level and the amounts available are within the limits of affordability. As and when greater resources are available, we can look at the amounts that we make available and the thresholds below which they will apply.

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

I too welcome the additional support for students attending colleges of further education. Can the Minister indicate how much money has been set aside to cover the cost of the bursaries? Also, has a quality impact assessment of his proposals been carried out? If so, when can we see it?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Approximately £3·8 million is being made available with respect to the access bursaries. On the second point, an equality impact assessment has been carried out. I drew that to the attention of the Committee when I met it this morning. The more positive impacts of the proposals should be self-evident in terms of those who are below the different thresholds who will now gain access to fee remission and to bursaries, when the bursaries are introduced. Those in need of childcare and those in further and higher education will be able to benefit from the extension of Individual Learning Accounts to higher education courses.

There are some other possible impacts that must be addressed. These issues will receive the attention of the Equality Commission and all those who will be involved in the consultation process — those listed in my Department’s equality scheme, with whom we are obliged to enter into consultation. The proposals involving a means test may impact more positively on Catholics than on Protestants, given the likely religious balance in the income scales targeted. I am informed that some Muslims may have difficulty with the retention of a loans-based system of support in higher education because of inhibitions or prohibitions in some of their sects on availing of loans.

On a gender basis, and despite the fact that more women than men study full-time in higher education, the targeting of additional higher education provision on skills shortage may impact more positively on men. The areas of science, engineering and technology, where men predominate, are likely to attract many of the additional places, but we may well ask ourselves what we are doing to attract greater participation by women in such courses.

The introduction of a childcare grant may have a more positive impact on women, who are traditionally the primary carers. With respect to age, the childcare grant as currently proposed may have a negative impact on some older students since, due to current regulations, it will not be available to those aged over 55.

The positive and negative impacts will have to be considered. There may well be others which will be identified by those with whom we consult in the process.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Much of what the Minister has said today has been based on what the parents of students earn. Does the Minister not recognise that university students are not dependent on their parents? Has he given any consideration to situations in which, for example, parents may be divorced and the young person may live with either the mother or the father? That parent may not be the main earner and may not have a particularly good relationship with the other parent, who may not want to pay for his or her child’s time at university. In such an instance, a young person can be discriminated against.

Has the Minister also given any consideration to parents in the wealthier band who may have two, or even three, children at university at one time?

Furthermore, the repayment of student loans has been set at £10,000, which is a fairly low point if housing costs, in particular, are taken into consideration. Will that be reviewed on a yearly basis with a view to raising that band? Students would not then have to make any repayments until a higher level of earnings was reached.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I am very sympathetic to students who find that parental support is not available on the scale which might appear possible. Under existing regulations, there is provision for students to be assessed completely on their own means. Account can be taken of circumstances if it can be demonstrated — with respect to whatever means from whatever source — that students are not receiving the full degree of support to which it might initially have appeared that they were entitled. It is not a case of students’ finding themselves disregarded if they are in such circumstances as the Member has indicated.

With respect to the repayment of student loans, I have in the course of my remarks indicated that, for reasons associated with procedures in the Inland Revenue, we have to follow a UK-wide basis for the repayment of loans. I certainly believe that the threshold at which loan repayment becomes obligatory should be kept — and it is being kept — under review.

I think there were three questions. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps the Member would repeat the second of those.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It concerned people in the higher tax band who have more than one child at university.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Residual income is what remains when certain commitments have been taken into account. That will vary, depending on the particular circumstances of the families involved. Families with greater levels of dependency than others will have lower levels of residual income on which their commitments to their student children will be determined.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s announcement as a first step towards implementing the many recommendations of the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee, and accepting students’ demands that maintenance support is required to promote third-level education.

Given that the Minister is retaining up-front fees, does he share the view that there is still the major problem of the perceived deterrent effect of up-front fees among families and communities that are under-represented in participation in higher education in the North? What plans does the Minister have for challenging this perception?

Does the Minister share the Committee’s view that the abolition of up-front fees and their replacement with an income-contingent graduate endowment with a payback threshold of £25,000, together with the restoration of maintenance, should be the ultimate policy objective for targeting social need?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The package of proposals is a challenge to the perception identified by the Member. In terms of the access bursaries, the package is very clearly targeted at meeting the perception that debt aversion deters. People who might enter third level education are being deterred because they perceive that they will have a burden of debt. The access bursaries go a significant way towards removing that perception. People will now know that, depending on the level of parental income, they will receive degrees of support not previously available. These will be the primary means of addressing that perception.

In theory, there are attractions for a graduate endowment fund. The Committee proposed that such a fund would kick in at an income of £25,000. However, given that the average income in Northern Ireland is approximately £18,500, it would take a long time before there would be any significant return to the public purse. During that lengthy period there would be such pressure for additional finance on the bids from my Department that I doubt it could be met. The graduate endowment fund meets the widely supported proposition that those who benefit most from education should repay to the system for the benefit of future generations. It is a proposal that has received a lot of attention, not just in Scotland, where it originated, but also in our own considerations and in the recent deliberations of UK universities in the form of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors. That proposal has a number of significant problems associated with it.

On the issue of the abolition of tuition fees, when considering the abolition of any charge the key question that we need to ask ourselves, whether in education or elsewhere, is who will benefit most from that abolition. At present, approximately 50% of our students do not make a contribution to their tuition fees, and if we increase that figure to 100% by abolishing the contribution to tuition fees completely we are only going to benefit those in the higher income brackets. That does not seem to me to meet the challenge of targeting social need, which is a fundamental principle on which all our social policies have to be based. I ask the Member to consider the immediate effect of abolition. It would be to benefit those who are better off, at the expense of making more resources available to those who are least well off, which is, in fact, what I have been trying to do with this package.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

First of all, I welcome the Minister’s package. It is comprehensive and far-reaching, and I hope that it will improve access to third-level education. Unfortunately, I got the paper less than an hour ago. It is very specific, and I will need to look at it in more detail before returning to the Minister.

I welcome a number of things: the abolition of tuition fees for full-time students on vocational courses, the increase in access support grants and bursaries, and the childcare grant. However, although the Minister has been very definite in his remarks about the abolition of fees, I ask him not to think that it will be impossible in the future. Perhaps it is difficult in the short term, but I hope that it will not be impossible in the future. For instance, if we get tax-varying powers here as they have in Scotland, we may be able to look at it again.

The Alliance Party has called for the abolition of tuition fees. However, there is a problem from the equality point of view. The Minister is abolishing tuition fees for students on a broad range of vocational courses. However, students on university courses and other vocational courses do have to pay tuition fees. Obviously, the Minister will be looking at this within the Department’s equality scheme.

The Cubie Report suggested that the student loan system should be replaced with a graduate endowment fund. The Minister has also commented on that. However, the Scottish Executive said that that could only be accomplished on a UK-wide basis. In his further deliberations, will the Minister be working with the Scottish Executive to bring about this change in Westminster so that true equity can be achieved?

I welcome the growing number of further education places. The Minister says that he has not yet decided how those places will allocated, but certainly the majority will be targeted at disciplines regarded as important for economic development. As well as looking at the disciplines, the Minister should look at places such as Magee and Coleraine, so that all further education courses and campuses will be adequately served. The Minister will be looking at the full resourcing of all the campuses so that we have not just the students but also the buildings and libraries and so on that go along with them.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for the —

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I was asking questions.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Please sit down.

Dr Farren, please answer the questions rather than deal with the general matters in Mrs Bell’s statement.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, that was included in my question, as the Minister knows.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

There were several questions in the Member’s comments.

I am not opposed in principle to the abolition of tuition fees. Indeed, in my statement I announced that I am proposing the abolition of tuition fees for a broad range of vocational courses in the further education sector at level 3 and below. The question as to whether we should plan for their total abolition right across the whole of the further and higher education sector is one that, in principle, we can say that we will keep under review.

However, we have to bear in mind that any steps taken towards significantly increasing the numbers to whom tuition fees do not apply, or abolishing fees completely, would raise significant affordability questions and questions related to targeting social need.

We certainly want an increase in the number of places in our universities and colleges. Over the 1999 base, we have announced an increase of 4,400 places, to which I am now adding an additional 1,000. We need to address where these additional places should be made available and to which courses they should apply.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I am afraid that I do not welcome many of these proposals — some of them are a step backwards, rather than forwards. I do welcome the proposal relating to childcare, and I am pleased that the Minister took up my recommendation that provision be extended to all those with dependent children, and not just to those over 21. I made this recommendation to the Committee on the grounds that restricted provision might not be in line with the equality impact statements of these proposals.

I also noted this morning that the SDLP states on its web site that it is committed to the abolition of student loans and to the introduction of a proper grant system. I assume that that remains the case. Unfortunately, however, the only evidence of this commitment is the abolition of part of the student loan in a new proposal to step backwards by taking up to £250 from those who are not deemed to need the loan. Therefore, I remain concerned that in the future people will have debts and not degrees. A Select Committee of the House of Commons has already pointed to the fact that there is a serious problem with regard to retaining students, and that one — but just one — of the factors which affect this issue is debt.

Does the Minister not consider that it is extremely difficult to ask parents and education and library boards to administer a system of access to bursaries which range between £500, £1000 and £1,500 and are based on a means test? According to that Select Committee, in any year a student will have debts of between £3,000 and up to £7,000 by the time he leaves. In the light of this, would it not have been better to consider a decent package of access to bursaries which, I assume, could be considered, to some extent, as replacing student grants. We know that the problem will not be resolved by throwing a tiny bit of money into this sector, and we may continue to have serious problems with retention, never mind initial recruitment to universities.

Did the Minister succeed in raising in the British-Irish Council the issue of parity throughout the devolved Administrations? I share Members’ concerns that systems in Scotland, England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are now different from one another. That is a step backwards, particularly when one is trying to work out in simple terms what students are entitled to if they go to different universities. Does the Minister also consider that his proposals to give financial assistance to some further education courses, and not to others, might be discriminatory?

I welcome the extra 1,000 places that have been created. However, does the Minister accept that none of his proposals address the skills shortage crises affecting the Health Service — particularly in such fields as speech therapy and nursing — that have been debated in the Assembly?

Finally, has the Minister set in place any monitoring to assure us that mature students, those with disabilities, and young entrants from disadvantaged backgrounds will be attracted by these proposals? I do not believe that this is the case. Why did the Minister not take up our proposal to have a joint funding council for the further education and higher education sectors, given that many of his proposals now relate to both sectors?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

Mr Deputy Speaker, at some stage a ruling on the number of questions that may be asked at any one time may be necessary. It is very difficult for a Minister to keep track of seven or eight questions, as I have tried to do with Ms McWilliams and others.

I will do my best, and if I miss any of the questions I will be only too willing to have the Member remind me of them.

Approximately 17,000 students will gain access bursaries — 14,000 in higher education and 3,000 in further education — and these numbers could well increase over the next few years. All will find these proposals a very helpful source of support to them in the course of their studies. I do not believe that they will be as disappointed as the Member suggests. In fact, I believe that the introduction of access bursaries will be welcomed in both the higher and further education sectors. It is not the case that we have missed an opportunity to target our scarce resources at those in greatest need, and I have not heard any proposals which would, on the grounds of affordability, indicate how we might better target the resources available to us towards those groups.

As to the level of take-up, quite obviously that remains to be seen; therefore I cannot give a 100% assurance to Ms McWilliams or indeed to any other Member that the take-up will be of level X or level Y. We are addressing the perception of aversion to entering higher education that is claimed to exist among many in the lower income brackets due to a lack of adequate support. I trust that by moving as we have done we will at least dent that perception, and that as more resources become available they too will be targeted. I certainly believe very strongly in targeting social need. As I have already indicated, I am not in principle opposed to the complete abolition of tuition fees, and the replacement of a loan system by a generous grant system for all remains an objective that we can certainly work towards. I would indeed welcome that, should the opportunity arise.

However, the Member, who herself holds a wide range of concerns for many social issues, must tell me and other Ministers how resources are to be made available for us to move more rapidly towards that objective than seems possible at present. At whose expense are we to move? At whose expense in the Health Service, the social services, or the rest of the educational services are we to proceed in order to get those resources? I do not hear that solution from Ms McWilliams or indeed from any other Members.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

On the issue of take-up, most academic research studies show that when you increase means-testing and complexity in the system, it is the middle classes rather than the lower socio-economic groups who benefit. Does the Minister agree with that?

I must also point out that the Committee did in fact make proposals to the Minister which did not suggest that all of the money should come out of the block fund. Indeed, we recommended that students repay their access grant money through an endowment fund after graduation.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I have dealt with the issue of a graduate endowment fund and the difficulties associated with the proposals of the departmental Committee, particularly the huge gap with respect to public finance which would exist if we were to adopt its proposal to set a threshold at £25,000.

The Member claims that it is the middle-income groups who benefit most from means-tested benefits. On the contrary, these benefits are deliberately targeted at those in the lower income brackets.

For the purposes of access bursaries, they are below the residual income of £15,000. It will be very difficult for people with incomes much greater than that to demonstrate that they have residual incomes as low as £15,000 in order to avail of such bursaries. In a few years’ time, whether I am Minister or not, we could be open to accusations that if we do not significantly increase participation, we will not have met our key objectives.

How else can we ensure that those who need most receive most? It is likely that lower-income students will benefit from the remission of tuition fees because they will fall within the 50% who do not have to pay those fees. Lower-income students will benefit from the remission of tuition fees and also from maintenance support through access bursaries. However, this would not be the case if tuition fees were totally abolished.

As I indicated some time ago, my Department is actively considering changes to the current further and higher education advisory councils and also to training procedures.

Peter Weir (UUP, North Down)

While sharing some Members’ concerns about whether these proposals go far enough, I welcome the fact that additional resources have been made available and that we have been given more details.

Potential students and parents will be looking for clarity and certainty in these proposals to see how they will affect them individually. The Minister has indicated that in the further education sector, tuition fees will be abolished for full-time students over 19 years of age on a broad range of vocational courses at levels 2 and 3. First, can the Minister confirm that this will take effect from the start of the next academic year? Secondly, among a plethora of points raised by Ms McWilliams, there was a question that was not answered. If fees are to be abolished on a broad range of vocational courses, it follows that fees will still be payable on some courses. Is that not discriminatory, not only within the further education sector but also between the further education sector and the higher education sector? Finally, potential students will want to know for which courses fees have been abolished. When will the Minister’s Department be in a position to publish a list of such courses?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

My Department is working towards a broad interpretation of which vocational courses will qualify, but it is not currently in a position to publish a list. I hope that we will be able to introduce this part of the package from September 2001, when most further education proposals will be introduced. Legislation is necessary for the higher education proposals, and we will not be in a position to introduce those bursaries until September 2002.

A major information campaign will be put in place to help potential students to work out their entitlements and to plan the management of their finances. This will involve the Education Guidance Service for Adults, student representatives and the education and library boards. They will be as well prepared as we can possibly assist them to be at a point prior to entering their courses.

I take the point about the potential for what the Member described as "discrimination" between courses. That is why we are looking very carefully at how we should approach this. We do not want to run into difficulties in this regard.

On the issue of any distinction between further education and higher education because of the abolition of fees, I do not anticipate that an equality assessment will cause difficulties. If it does, we will have to look again at a major part of the scheme. However, the soundings that we have taken indicate that we should not have difficulties. The process of formal consultation is only beginning now.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Five Members have notified me that they want to ask questions. We have 14 minutes, so I ask Members and the Minister to limit their remarks. In particular, I remind the Assembly that it is nugatory to repeat a question that somebody else has asked.

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

I welcome the Minister’s package, particularly its focus on targeting social need. How much will the extra 1,000 higher education places cost, and how many of these new places will there be in each of the next three years? I invite the Minister to make sure that the extra places are spread across Northern Ireland and ask that County Tyrone — where there is actually no full-time higher education — be considered as a location for some of these places. Finally, can the Minister confirm that the 1,000 places are in addition to the 4,400 that were included in the Programme for Government?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The cost of the additional higher education places is estimated at around £7·5 million in a full year. On the question of whether they are included in the 4,400, I trust that I have made it clear in my remarks that they are additional to those which are already being put in place. Where they will be assigned is a matter that is still under consideration. Members will know that a number of initiatives are being undertaken to expand the provision of higher education courses, both full-time and part-time, and the colleges of further education are deeply involved in this expansion with us. The introduction next September of foundation degrees, which will be on an experimental basis for the next two years, will see 100 full-time equivalent places available this year and a further 100 the following year. These courses, which will be delivered exclusively within the further education college sector, will add to the places, and I understand that the college in the area referred to by the Member is one of the colleges in which foundation degree places will be made available.

Obviously, that is an issue that needs to be kept under close review. The places need to be made available in order to meet particular demands. Of course, some of those demands are skill-specific, and some of them are also specific to the needs of different university campuses. We need to bear a number of factors in mind before we will be able to say precisely where all of those additional places will be allocated.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Along with others, I welcome the fact that the Minister has accepted our demand that maintenance support is required to promote participation in third-level education for disadvantaged sections of our community.

We also welcome plans to introduce childcare grants, provide additional student places and simplify administrative arrangements for student support. However, we are disappointed that, despite evidence from many informed sources, including the recent report from the Select Committee on Education at Westminster, the Government will continue to charge many students and their families tuition fees in respect of higher education.

As regards education, no one is suggesting that the rich should be made richer and the poor poorer. However, given that the Minister’s party, the Committee and, indeed, the Assembly are committed to the abolition of tuition fees, can the Minister instigate a defined programme over the next few years that will lead to the abolition of tuition fees for our students?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I am not at all averse to considering proposals for the further extension of the new arrangements that I have announced. Nor, indeed, am I averse to considering the objective that the Member and many others have referred to.

I have a particular responsibility, as Minister, to negotiate proposals with my Executive Colleagues that can be broadly acceptable to them, and that can be broadly endorsed by the Assembly itself.

I understand that targeting social need is one of the fundamental bases as regards social policy that emanates from the Good Friday Agreement. Indeed, even without that agreement, I am a strong proponent of looking at social policies in the context of addressing the needs of those who are less well endowed with resources than others. That is a priority.

When we have addressed that priority, we should then move to address the needs of others. However, in targeting social need we need to be very clear as to what we are asking for, and, indeed, how affordable that is at any one time.

All political parties have aims and objectives. They all recognise that most aims and objectives take time to be achieved. Indeed, some may never be fully achieved. In my area of responsibility, social justice is a key principle that I will argue for, and work to ensure that all my proposals are based on, as a first and essential criterion.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I congratulate the Minister on his statement. Does he agree that a primary move that the Department could make, in the award of enhanced discretionary grants, would be to review grant applications refused by education and library boards in the current round? That would rectify injustices that have occurred, mainly due to artificially early closing dates.

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The Member’s question refers to an issue with which I am frequently confronted — that is the efficacy and efficiency with which loan applications and applications for other forms of support are processed.

Closing dates are necessary for the efficient operation of the system, although, as I understand it, many of them can be treated flexibly. The dates are there for good reasons, and they are announced well in advance. Those who intend to apply for courses should become as aware of the requirements for securing financial support as they are of the academic requirements that they must meet.

It would not be easy to allocate what are limited resources without the closing dates. This is particularly true of discretionary awards. Those are very limited — they are not mandatory — and must be considered within a time frame in order to stop people from being disadvantaged. Such a situation would not be tolerable, and we need to observe the time frame. Whenever administrative difficulties have arisen they have been willingly addressed by those responsible.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the package of measures that the Minister has announced. I particularly welcome the introduction of a childcare grant to assist students on a low income who have dependent children. Does the childcare grant apply only in term time, and how many people will benefit from the grant?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

The terms that were announced show that support is available at a level of 80% of cost in term time and, I think, 70% of cost out of term time. The introduction of such support will be of considerable assistance to those who, because of family commitments, find it difficult to participate in higher and further education. Approximately 1,000 students are thought to be in those circumstances at present. I hope that this will be seen as a significant measure of assistance to those who are already in the system and those who might currently be deterred from entering it.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his announcement and, in particular, for the additional £65 million that will be spent in the higher and further education sector over the next three years. Is he satisfied with the residual level income that will apply to families that have two or more children? Will this area be kept under review, and is he satisfied that the information is easily available to students and their families so that they will know which grants apply to them?

Will the 1,000 extra student places be affected by any subsequent review by the Health Minister, who is investigating the number of nursing and speech therapy students? Will any announcement by her be in addition to what the Minister has announced today? Does the Health budget cover the students in health areas?

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

With regard to the second part of the question, we will have to consult the relevant Minister and, indeed, the universities, because all places are university places, notwithstanding the source of the financial support that they receive. I think that it was Prof McWilliams who raised a question about the supply of professionals to the Health Service. Often when we examine the situation, it is a question of availability rather than supply. The question is whether the people with the professional qualifications are making themselves available in Northern Ireland for the positions that are advertised. I am prepared to look at that issue with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Advice and guidance are given to ensure that parents, and, indeed, the students themselves, whether mature or still at school, are as fully informed as possible, and we are engaged with both the Educational Guidance Service for Adults and student representatives to ensure that that information is available. The whole system is individually related, because the commitments that parents have can vary depending not just on their income but on family circumstances. You cannot say that somebody with an income of £25,000 will be treated in the same way as somebody else with an income of £25,000, because circumstances may vary. Therefore, what is taken into account or disregarded will vary because of those circumstances. It is a complex system because individual circumstances vary.

Department for Learning and Employment Bill: First Stage

Sean Farren (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 12/00] to rename the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment as the Department for Learning and Employment.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Trustee Bill: Second Stage

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Trustee Bill [NIA 11/00] be agreed.

The Trustee Bill reforms the law to make it easier for trustees to administer their trusts efficiently. The fundamental obligation on trustees dealing with trust property is, of course, to act in the best interests of the trust. Sometimes, however, trustees find that their ability to do so is hampered by restrictive rules dating from 1961, 1958 or even earlier. That can happen especially when trustees do not have the benefit of modern, professionally drafted trust deeds that invariably give wider powers to trustees than the statutory regime allows.

The intention is that these proposals will enable all trustees to enjoy the advantages of wider powers on a default basis when the trust documents themselves do not make such provision. At the same time there will be counterbalancing protection for beneficiaries through a new statutory duty of care.

The Bill is the result of a long and detailed process of consultation with interested parties. Public consultation looking at powers of investment was carried out by the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland in May 1996. The scope of investigation was later widened to include other powers and duties of trustees as it became clear that extending powers of investment alone would not remedy the situation for trustees. The Office of Law Reform examined the issues in liaison with the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission.

The subsequent Law Commission report No 260, ‘Trustees’ Powers and Duties’, published in July 1999, contained a comprehensive draft Bill that was passed, with some amendments, as the Trustee Act 2000. In Northern Ireland a consultation paper was produced in September 2000 to investigate whether a similar package of reforms would be welcome here. The response was supportive, hence the Bill before the Assembly today.

The impetus for reform in this area of law began with dissatisfaction as regards trustee powers of investment. Investment of trust funds is central to proper administration of a trust. The conduct of investment business has changed dramatically over the last 10 to 15 years with the introduction of new technology and other developments. Unfortunately, the law has not kept up with these changes. Until now, trustees have not had easy access to the expertise of professional advisers, such as discretionary fund managers, or been able to react quickly to movements in the market. As a result, trustees relying on the default regime have not been able to maximise returns for their beneficiaries. The Bill seeks to remedy that situation.

The Bill contains a comprehensive package of reforms. The core proposal is a wider power of investment. That general power of investment is supplemented by new powers to purchase land, to appoint agents, nominees and custodians, to insure trust property, and to make payment to professional trustees. The new powers will be overseen by a new statutory duty of care in order to protect beneficiaries against abuse.

There will also be powers for beneficiaries to direct the appointment or retirement of trustees. The new trustee powers and duties will apply to all trustees on a default basis; that is to say that the powers will be available to them automatically, unless the trust instrument excludes them. The powers will apply to existing trusts, as well as those to be set up in the future. It is expected that the powers will be of most benefit to older trusts and home-made trusts.

Part I of the Bill introduces a statutory duty of care, to be imposed on trustees carrying out a range of functions described in schedule 1. In summary, those functions relate to investment, acquisition of land, use of agents, nominees and custodians, compounding of liabilities, insurance of trust assets and powers involving reversionary interests, valuations and audit. This duty of care is a safeguard for beneficiaries. It is a counterbalance to the wider powers conferred on trustees by the Bill. However, it will apply not just to the new powers, but also when a trustee is exercising similar powers given by the trust instrument itself. It will not apply where the trust instrument says that it should not. The standard expected of a trustee will be to use such care as is reasonable in the circumstances, bearing in mind any special knowledge or experience the particular trustee may have or claim to have. There is a degree of flexibility built in, as more will be demanded from expert trustees than from others.

Part II of the Bill deals with powers of investment. At present, unless the trust instrument provides otherwise, trustee powers of investment are governed by the Trustee Act (Northern Ireland) 1958, the Trustee Investments Act 1961, and the Trustee (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1962. There are schedules of specified, authorised investments and a network of rules. The regime is complicated and expensive to administer, and severely restricts the investment opportunities open to trustees. Not surprisingly, it is always rejected by advisers drawing up trusts nowadays in favour of wider powers.

The priority of the Bill is to replace this regime with arrangements reflecting modern needs, still on a default basis. Clause 3 is fundamental in this. It gives trustees the general power of investment — that means the power to make any kind of investment that they could make if they were absolutely entitled to the trust assets. Investments in land are excluded from the general power of investment, but not barred to trustees, because they are given the power to invest in land separately, in Part III of the Bill. The reason for separate treatment of land transactions is to facilitate the making of consequential amendments to other legislation.

Clauses 4 and 5 impose specific duties on trustees in making investment decisions. They must review the investments from time to time; they must bear in mind suitability and diversification; and they must obtain and consider proper advice where appropriate. These provisions are valuable safeguards for beneficiaries. They are in addition to the duty of care.

Clauses 6 and 7 define the scope of this new investment power. It is a default provision. Subject to contrary provisions in the trust instrument, it applies to both existing and newly created trusts. However, the wishes of the person setting up a trust should be respected. The Bill allows for that, except in one particular situation. In the case of trust instruments dating from before 3 August 1961, restrictions on the scope of powers of investment are set aside. The significance of that date is that it was when the Trustee Investments Act 1961 came into operation. At that time, all pre-existing restrictions on investment were swept away and replaced by the 1961 Act regime. It would be wrong to reactivate those old restrictions now, forty years later, so clause 7(2) confirms their demise.

More recent expressions of intention, and those to be made in the future, are to be fully taken into account. For example, a settlor may say that there should be no investment in a certain type of shares — perhaps those of tobacco companies or arms manufacturers. In such a case, a trustee’s power of investment will be qualified in line with the wishes of the settlor.

I want to refer to another issue arising out of clause 7. There are some bodies that are not actually trustees as such but which have powers of investment based on trustee powers under a statute. The investment powers of these bodies are to be updated in line with the new approach, giving them the general power of investment too. Some bodies with statutory investment powers have been individually identified and their powers duly amended in schedule 2.

Part III of the Bill is concerned with land transactions. Trustees are given power to acquire land as an investment, for occupation by a beneficiary or for other purposes.

Part IV deals with the use of agents, nominees and custodians. Again, in this area, professional practice has moved ahead of the current law. Under the Trustee Act (Northern Ireland) 1958, an individual trustee can delegate his or her responsibilities, but it is collective delegation by trustees as a group that concerns us. At present, the trustees are not permitted to delegate their fiduciary discretions, such as the choice of investments or the decision to sell or lease trust property, without express authority in the trust instrument. This can be a serious obstacle to good administration.

In line with most modern trust deeds, the Bill now allows trustees to delegate their powers to administer the trust — including investment and management powers — to agents. However, this does not apply to powers to appoint or replace trustees, or to decide on the distribution of the income or capital of the trust.

For charitable trusts, the scope for delegation will be different — to include certain fund-raising activities. Trustees will have to keep any delegation arrangements they make under review. They will also be subject to the statutory duty of care and additional restrictions to protect beneficiaries. Trustees will also be able to employ nominees and custodians, subject to protection for beneficiaries.

Part V of the Bill makes provision for the remuneration of trustees. It deals with two issues in particular. First, it sets down rules for the interpretation and application of express charging clauses, for example, in wills.

Secondly, it allows payment to trustees in some areas where the trust documents expressly cover that. Under the Bill, trust corporations will be entitled to receive reasonable remuneration for services provided to or on behalf of their trust. Other sole trustees will not have that right unless the trust instrument authorises it. Where there are a number of trustees, they will be able to authorise one of their number, acting in a professional capacity, to receive payment — again, at a reasonable rate. As far as charitable trusts are concerned, different considerations apply, and more discussion is needed. The Bill provides for regulations to be made in the future, if appropriate, to allow payment to charity trustees who are trust corporations or act in a professional capacity.

Part VI of the Bill deals with a different kind of problem in the present law. The Trustee Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 makes provision for the appointment and retirement of trustees, but it has become apparent that there are gaps in that provision. In particular, there is the situation where the beneficiaries of a trust are all of adult age, and between them, as a group, they are absolutely entitled to the trust property. It is anomalous that, at present, they have no power to direct the appointment of a new trustee, even where there is no one nominated to do so. They can bring the trust to an end and then set up a new trust, but that is not always the best course of action. The purpose of clause 34 is to give such beneficiaries the power to direct a trustee to retire from the trust or to direct the appointment of a new trustee.

The specific problem addressed by clause 35 is the situation where a trustee has become incapable of acting because of mental incapacity, and there is no one available to appoint a replacement. Again the solution is to enable the beneficiaries to direct the appointment of a replacement.

Among the miscellaneous and supplementary provisions contained in Part VII of the Bill is an updating of the existing power to insure trust property found in section 19 of the 1958 Act. There are also provisions on the application of the proposals to special cases, such as personal representatives and pension schemes.

There is provision in clause 44 for the Department of Finance and Personnel to make Orders, subject to negative resolution, to amend legislation in connection with powers of investment or acquisition of land. On commencement it is provided that the provisions should come into operation on a day to be appointed. I have already referred to the significance of schedule 1, which details the situations where the new statutory duty of care applies. Schedule 2 consists of minor and consequential amendments; schedule 3 contains transitional provisions and savings; and schedule 4 has repeals.

In conclusion, I commend this Bill to the Assembly. It is a substantial and technical piece of legislation, but it tackles problems faced by trustees and beneficiaries in a realistic and pragmatic way. It is the result of detailed consideration in this jurisdiction and elsewhere. It aims to improve the position of trusts struggling without the benefit of modern trust documents drafted by expert advisers. Throughout the consultation process, the proposals have been widely welcomed. Members may have points to raise, and I will try to answer as many of those as I can in winding up at the end of the debate. If there is anything to which I am unable to respond today, I will write to the Member concerned.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his thorough introduction of the Bill, which to me seems to be a very worthwhile piece of legislation. It will contribute significantly to improving the way in which trusts can be run in the future.

I particularly commend the Minister and his Department on the way the build-up to the Bill was handled with the Committee. This is the appropriate model for all legislation, although, as far as I can judge from comments made by members of other Committees, it is not necessarily followed elsewhere.

The Finance and Personnel Committee was consulted about this proposed legislation last summer, which is over six months ago. The Office of Law Reform returned to us about a month ago to discuss the outcome of the consultation process. Only then did the Bill come forward. Therefore, there was every opportunity for the Committee to express opinions on the final Bill that came forward. I would like to think that all of our legislation could be handled this way. I commend the Minister for ensuring that that is what happened with this one.

However, this is such a complicated subject that there were not a great deal of precise recommendations coming forward from the Committee on this occasion. Nonetheless, having looked through the Bill, I think that the outcome is good. In particular, it realistically acknowledges that trusteeship is a professional activity for which trustees expect to be remunerated. That is very clearly acknowledged in the Bill and facilitated through it. It is to the benefit of the beneficiaries of trusts that this should be so, and the measure is welcome.

I also note good provisions for the delegation of the functions from trustees to specialists. As far as I can see, these provisions are drawn fairly widely. That is appropriate. This is a changing environment and it would not be sensible to have narrow legislation in this respect. It is appropriate to rely on the duty of care as the overriding arbiter and overriding measure, which places responsibility on the trustee should anything go wrong.

As a former practitioner in the area of investments, I was interested in the way the opportunities to delegate investment management were handled. I noticed a reference to something called "the policy statement" in the Bill. That is a fairly wide term. I imagine that in practice it will include the investment objective and will have to be agreed between the trustees and the delegated investment manager. It will be up to the manager to ensure that what he is being asked to do is reasonable. I imagine that that will normally be dealt with by negotiations before the investment objective is finalised, so that both parties should be in the position to feel comfortable with it.

Furthermore, I note that the Bill did not make any attempt to specify the type of investment manager, trustee, or nominee to whom delegation could be made. There may have been a temptation when the Bill was being drawn up to look towards the Financial Services Act 1986 and, perhaps, restrict appointments to businesses regulated by that legislation.

You could argue that that would be helpful to the trust in that all of the mechanisms for investor protection contained within the legislation would be a burden upon any investment manager and therefore potentially, or theoretically at least, a benefit to the trust.

It is appropriate that it is not being done. Many worthy investment managers do not operate within the United Kingdom under the authority of the Financial Services Act 1986. In relation to custodians, I would opine that the best custodians are found elsewhere, specifically if you wish to invest, as you reasonably might do, in south-east Asia. The type of custodian you might want to use might not be located in the United Kingdom and there is no reason why that should not be entirely appropriate.

I welcome the broad terms in which those parts of the Bill have been drawn up. I also commend the draftsmen for the clarity of their work, and, although it is quite lengthy, I do not think that the Committee will find it difficult to deal with this Bill, unlike some others that have been sent in our direction. It is my pleasure to support the Bill.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

First, I welcome the broad support for the Bill, as expressed today by Mr Leslie, the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. As Mr Leslie has recognised, it is a technical piece of legislation. Nonetheless, it is to be welcomed because it deals with a technical and difficult area, and it is an attempt to remove a number of anomalies that are hampering best practice and the interests of beneficiaries in the operation of trusts.

I appreciate the Member’s commendation of how the Bill has been handled so far. As indicated in Mr Leslie’s remarks, the consultation that was involved for this Bill predated the Assembly, but that does not remove the need for proper consultation with the Assembly. When proposals for legislation concerning trustees were pending we consulted the Committee, and we did so again when we deferred the original legislation in order to take account of wider changes. The Committee’s advice was to delay the legislation to allow a more comprehensive and complete Bill to be drawn up. The Committee’s interest in this matter has always been helpful.

With regard to the observations about more professional requirements in this field, particularly in the light of the pressures and practices of the modern environment, I can only agree with what Mr Leslie said. It is precisely that sort of consideration which underlies the Bill’s proposals. That is why it includes provisions to deal with the remuneration of trustees, the delegation of trustee functions to agents and so on. I note Mr Leslie’s point that it is right that the Bill should not unduly define who might be, or should be, appointed in any given instance.

The policy paper on asset management was also mentioned. Obviously, there will be, and should be, scope for consultation between trustees and investment managers in advance of appointment. The exact requirements described by Mr Leslie are envisaged in the Bill. If the issue needs to be clarified, the matter can be followed up at Committee Stage.

Mr Leslie also emphasised the reliance on the duty of care, the importance of which I emphasised several times in my opening remarks. The protection of beneficiaries here will be based upon that duty. It is important that this be made clear when people are appointed to these positions of responsibility and in relation to any future undertaking. This is appropriate given that the Bill deals with the area of law concerning trustees. While we try to modernise the legislation to take account of modern realities and professional requirements, it is important that we avoid being overly restrictive by trying to tie everything into, for example, the provisions of the financial services regulatory regime. I found Mr Leslie’s insights in that area particularly helpful.

I do not think that there are any other outstanding points. The Committee will be considering this Bill further, and while I appreciate, as Mr Leslie said, that there have not been too many comments by the Committee to date in relation to this, I think that that reflects the fact that the Committee recognises the broad welcome that there has been from all the relevant interested parties for this legislation. Nevertheless, the Committee will want to show due diligence when the Bill comes to it for consideration. Notwithstanding all the other pressures that the Committee has to contend with, I look forward to receiving its considered and positive views on the measures.

I hope I have covered all the points that were made today. If not, we can pick them up later. On that basis, I again commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Trustee Bill [NIA 11/00] be agreed.

The sitting was suspended at 1.31 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Proceeds of Crime Bill: Ad Hoc Committee

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the draft clauses for a Proceeds of Crime Bill referred by the Secretary of State and to submit a report to the Assembly by 28 May 2001.

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

Quorum: The quorum shall be five.

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

This motion stands in my name and that of Dr McDonnell. It is being moved on behalf of the Business Committee representing the parties of the House and is to enable the Assembly to give an opinion on the Proceeds of Crime Bill referred by the Secretary of State. Standing Order 49(7) provides the mechanism whereby the Assembly can deal with this matter on an Ad Hoc Committee basis, which — according to Standing Orders — specifically time-bounds such a Committee.

I draw the Assembly’s attention to the fact that the Committee would have to report by 28 May. That may be possible, but there is an Easter recess intervening. I mention this now, given that we may have to come back to the Assembly to ask for an extension of time. I hope that that will not be the case, but I am sure that the Assembly will bear with us if it becomes necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the draft clauses for a Proceeds of Crime Bill referred by the Secretary of State and to submit a report to the Assembly by 28 May 2001.

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

Quorum: The quorum shall be five.

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

Motion made:

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

Helicopter Rescue Service

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Every time I rise to speak on the Adjournment, it seems to be a signal for the House to clear. I had the dubious distinction of recording the lowest number ever to attend a debate in the House — the debate on the Ballynahinch bypass. However, at least it enabled me to tell my local press that I was speaking to a hushed Assembly.

It looks like that is exactly what is going to happen this afternoon, which is unfortunate as this is an extremely important issue.

On the Order Paper the debate subject is listed as "The future of the helicopter rescue service in South Down." Because of the procedures of the House, the wording had to be specific to a constituency. However, this is a matter of concern not only to the people of South Down but to all who live in coastal areas in Northern Ireland. I am sure that Colleagues from constituencies such as Strangford, North Down and East Antrim will wish to join me in expressing their concern on this issue.

Before going into the substantive part of my contribution on this matter, it is vital that this Assembly establishes who exactly in Government is responsible for the search and rescue helicopter service. Mr Berry, the very hard-working Member for Newry and Armagh, wrote to Mr Adam Ingram about this matter on 13 February 2001, and it is important for me to quote from the reply he received:

"Dear Mr Berry,

Thank you for your letter dated 13 February regarding the removal of search and rescue helicopter facilities from Northern Ireland. As the matter is now the responsibility of the devolved administration, I have transferred your correspondence to Ms Bairbre de Brún, Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety."

Therefore it would appear that the Northern Ireland Office believes that this is a matter for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. However, on 8 March, Miss Melarkey, the private secretary in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, replied to Mr Berry:

"Your letter of 13 February initially addressed to Mr Ingram was forwarded to Ms de Brún for reply. While the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety certainly deal with air ambulance matters, we have investigated the issue of Search and Rescue Helicopter Facilities and find that this service is a reserved matter and falls within the remit of Mr Ingram.

Ms de Brún is therefore unable to respond to your query, and your letter has been returned to Mr Ingram’s office for consideration."

It appears that no one in the Northern Ireland Office or any other Department in the Administration knows who is responsible for helicopter rescue services.

Since the 1970s the Province has had a helicopter search and rescue service provided by 72 Squadron based at Aldergrove, and it used Wessex helicopters. That service has participated in numerous rescues, particularly at sea and in the Mournes. Many injured trawlermen have been winched from the treacherous seas by this service, and I have had first-hand experience of such a rescue by Wessex helicopters in the Mournes.

I was walking in the Mournes in July 1998 when I came across a lady who had been injured. She had fallen and broken her ankle. Using my mobile phone I contacted the rescue service, and in a very short time a helicopter was despatched, and the lady was winched to safety. Had it not been for the presence of that service, the lady would have had to endure a long route through very rough terrain on a stretcher, and that would not have helped her condition. Therefore, many people have come to appreciate how important the helicopter rescue service is in Northern Ireland.

At the start of this year, when it was first mooted by the Ministry of Defence that the service would be withdrawn in 2002 and replaced by a service based in Prestwick, there was, quite rightly, a great deal of concern. The issue has united all the bodies affected. Ards Borough Council, Down District Council, the Mourne rescue team and Newry and Mourne District Council are united in their opposition to the change in the rescue services.

Hon Members may wonder why the helicopter rescue service is such an important issue and why replacing Wessex helicopters at Aldergrove with Sea King helicopters at Prestwick is causing so much concern. That concern can best be encapsulated by recounting an event that took place on the evening of Sunday 7 January 2001, when a Mayday signal was received from a Spanish trawler, FV Itxas, which was in difficult conditions of 25-foot waves in the Irish Sea. One of the crew, who had a heart condition, was experiencing severe chest pain. The Donaghadee lifeboat was launched, and the coastguard requested helicopter assistance. Normally assistance would have been provided by the Wessex helicopter based at Aldergrove, but it is not capable of winching injured people off boats at night. Therefore, the Prestwick service was contacted and asked to send a helicopter, but it refused to do so.

The reasons given for the failure to despatch a helicopter from Prestwick were twofold. First, the service made it clear that it did not wish to land on Northern Ireland soil, and, second, it would have taken Prestwick’s Sea King helicopter up to 2·5 hours to reach the scene — 75 minutes outside the "golden hour". The "golden hour" is a set of targets included in the maritime and coastguard business plan for 2001. Those targets are as follows: if an emergency call is received during the day the helicopter must be capable of being dispatched within 15 minutes of the message being received and of arriving at the incident within one hour. That applies to incidents within 40 nautical miles of Prestwick. Those conditions have to be met during the day. At night the helicopter must be capable of being dispatched within 45 minutes of the message being received and of arriving within two hours at an incident within 100 nautical miles.

The response to the Donaghadee lifeboat’s request was that the Sea King helicopter at Prestwick could not meet those targets, and it did not want to land on Northern Ireland soil. Fortunately, the coastguard was able to lift the sailor from the trawler and get him to hospital. Had that not been possible, a difficult situation would have arisen.

What happened on 7 January has given the coastal communities of south Down — indeed, all of Northern Ireland — an insight into what would happen if the Aldergrove service were withdrawn and replaced with the Prestwick one.

The air-sea rescue unit at Kinloss has denied that there was reluctance to land on Northern Irish soil, even though that was one of the reasons given on the night of 7 January. However, it admitted that it could not meet the standards, as it would have taken it two and a half hours to get to the incident in the Irish Sea. Many maritime communities in South Down, and further afield, are asking whether, if that was the case on 7 January, it will also be the case when the Aldergrove service is permanently withdrawn. Will fishing communities, climbers and those walking in the Mournes be left with no helicopter rescue service in Northern Ireland?

It has been said that if we do not avail of the Prestwick service, there are services based in Donegal and Dublin that can be used. I do not wish to make a political point, but it is important that we have control of our own service. Other incidents might arise in the Irish Republic at a time when the rescue service is required in Northern Ireland, and the Dublin authorities or those in Donegal will, quite rightly, give precedence to their own problems. Even if a Prestwick service could launch a rescue attempt in the "golden hour", priority would be given to incidents on the west coast of Scotland or northern England.

Following the incident on 7 January, Mr Cunningham, who is the leading figure in the coastguard service in Northern Ireland, said that the Prestwick service had refused to come to the assistance of a trawler in Northern Ireland on a previous occasion. He said that we could not consistently rely on Prestwick to respond to our requests. It would appear that we are losing the service in Aldergrove with absolutely no guarantee that the replacement service will meet the needs of the coastal communities of Northern Ireland. In the ‘Mourne Observer’ of 31 January, the Mourne rescue service expressed the fear that people could die if the service were removed. It is unacceptable that, having enjoyed this service for 30 years, people could be left in life-and-death situations without a rescue service.

There are those who argue that the Wessex helicopters are past their sell-by date. To a large extent that is true, but the solution is not to withdraw the service completely. The solution is to upgrade the Aldergrove service with new helicopters that will enable it to continue providing the excellent service that it has given for the past 30 years.

There are those who say that we cannot afford this service. However, I would have thought that the Ministry of Defence’s budget could easily have covered it. With the present situation in Northern Ireland, it could be argued that large-scale savings have been made in the Ministry of Defence’s budget due to the deployment of fewer troops in the Province. Some of that additional windfall could be used to fund this service. We face a difficult and confusing time in the year 2002. We need a commitment from the Ministry of Defence. The coastal communities of Northern Ireland require a proper rescue service. Northern Ireland will be the only part of the United Kingdom without this service, and something must be done before it becomes a fait accompli.

In addition to the admirable campaign that has been launched by the district councils, I propose that a petition be drawn up and signed by the South Down community and sent to whoever is responsible to urge them to maintain this service. We do not yet know who is responsible. This issue unites the entire community in South Down and further afield. I do not want to see a situation arising in a year’s time where a Kilkeel-based trawler is in great difficulty in the Irish Sea and lives are being lost or people being seriously injured due to the lack of this service. It is a vital service to the community and it must be maintained.

Tomorrow we will be debating the plight of the white-fish trawlermen in Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie. The fishing industry is having a dreadful time at present as a result of the cod recovery plan and the ban on fishing in almost all normal fishing waters until the end of April. The last thing the sea fishing industry in Northern Ireland needs is to have grave doubt placed on the entire future of the rescue service on which it has depended for 30 years.

We need to get the matter settled before the final decision is made in 2002. I am certain that I can rely upon Members to join the campaign to ensure that in 5, 10 or 15 years’ time anyone out on the high seas earning a living or climbing or walking in the Mournes can be confident that if the worst happens, there will be a quick and efficient rescue service that can save lives.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Although the debate title refers to South Down, the issue applies equally to my constituency. The sea rescue helicopters play an invaluable role in air-sea rescue and can continue to do so, given the opportunity. We bring the matter to the notice of the Assembly so that Members can register their concerns.

The withdrawal of the helicopter will have a devastating effect upon all search and rescue teams in Northern Ireland. They do a superb job, but, at times, they depend on the helicopter service. The helicopter is an integral part of local air-sea rescue operations. It is prepared for active service 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. During daylight hours, the helicopter can be ready in 15 minutes. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency business plan sets out the following requirements:

"for all helicopters including coastguard and still air by day to be ready within fifteen minutes of notification to scramble to arrive at the scene of an incident up to 40 nautical miles from the United Kingdom coast within one hour of notification and by night to be ready to proceed within 45 minutes of notification to scramble to arrive at the scene of an incident up to 100 miles off the United Kingdom coast within 2 hours of notification."

Can those standards be met if the service is taken away from Aldergrove? We believe that they cannot.

It is certain that lives will be put at risk by the withdrawal of this service. A major concern in my constituency is the safety of fishermen on the County Down coast, specifically those from the Portavogie area. They work in the open sea every day, and the job of the fisherman is one of the most dangerous. Many of us, especially those from the Strangford constituency, will recall with sadness the sinking of the Amber Rose off the Isle of Man three or four years ago. The services of the Wessex helicopter were required on that occasion. It was successful, as on previous occasions, in tracing and rescuing survivors. The helicopter is by far the most effective and efficient way of getting injured people to hospital. Time is critical when life is in danger.

If people get into difficulty out at sea, the services of the Wessex helicopter at Aldergrove can be called upon at very short notice. The response will be immediate. If the service is withdrawn, we will be forced to depend upon helicopters from Prestwick airport in Scotland, if there happen to be any available. Will that helicopter be able to get people to hospital as quickly and as efficiently as our trained team from Aldergrove?

The retention of the service is also important to the tourist trade. The air-sea rescue services are frequently called upon during the summer months, due to the increased number of visitors to the area and on the sea. For example, the Ards Peninsula is the second most popular area for caravanning in the Province. Many visitors to the Ards Peninsula go there because of the variety of water sports and other activities available at Strangford Lough and on the Irish Sea. Many visitors use boats and have an interest in fishing. Unfortunately, every year people find themselves in trouble, and the services of the Wessex helicopter are often required. If the service is withdrawn, the lives of those visitors will be put at risk.

Everyone recognises that the main use of the helicopter is at sea. Another important role that the Wessex helicopter performs is in mountain rescue. What impact will the withdrawal of the Wessex helicopter have on those who find themselves in dire straits in the Mournes? The Wessex team has great experience and knowledge of flying across Northern Ireland, including the Mournes. A helicopter crew from Scotland will not have the same knowledge or be on the scene in the same time; it will have to cater first for problems in Scotland.

Lives will inevitably be put at risk, which is neither advisable nor acceptable. The plan to withdraw the Wessex helicopter represents a worrying development, and I suggest, Mr Speaker, that the Assembly contact the Secretary of State for Defence and urge him to rethink this disastrous move.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Regarding the matter that the Member mentioned at the end of his speech, it is my practice when there are debates in the Assembly which refer to non-devolved matters to send a copy of Hansard to the Minister involved. I propose to do so following this debate.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I want to thank my Colleague Mr Jim Wells for raising this matter. The issue has an impact beyond his own constituency and would have a detrimental effect on a number of coastal areas in Northern Ireland, not least my own constituency of Strangford. I am not an expert on helicopter search and rescue, but I know, even if I never have to use this service, that it provides a necessary and important emergency service function.

What we do not want is to be left with the equivalent of ‘Budgie the Helicopter’ — a great story of fictional deeds, but not to be depended on for anything real. In all the literature that I read on the subject, one line of an article stood out:

"At no stage in the past has any rescue been placed in jeopardy thanks to the dedication and speed of response from the current service at Aldergrove."

That is an important remark about the service that is currently enjoyed. Here is an honourable record provided by members of 72 Squadron. Another comment that is also significant says

"We have come to the conclusion that we can not consistently rely upon Prestwick to respond to our requests."

The key phrase there is "can not consistently rely". This is what happens when it is not possible to utilise our own helicopter service. You find you are at the mercy of others who can decide according to their own priorities and may well not be able to help out. When you put those two statements together you have an overwhelming argument for not only the retention of our own service but also for updating and upgrading that service.

I understand the comment that the helicopter that is currently in use is now somewhat out of date and, in certain circumstances, inadequate. However, that is an argument for upgrading the service, not removing it.

Some may ask if there is much justification for this service. I suggest asking those whose lives have depended on being rescued. Even more so, try asking those who could not get a helicopter from Scotland to help them in a number of rescue missions.

Search and rescue has a number of areas to cover. Take the leisure industry and the increase in sailing around the coast. Is this not a reason for retaining our search and rescue service? There is also mountaineering. How often have we heard about climbers caught out in bad weather having to be rescued? Is this not a reason for retaining our search and rescue service? There are those who have fallen off cliffs, and the only way to get to them was by helicopter. What about the fishing industry? At times, it is a very dangerous activity. Again, how often do we hear of a sick fisherman having to be airlifted to hospital for emergency treatment?

Over the years many lives have been lost, but many have been saved because of the search and rescue services. What we are dealing with here is life. Has it become so unimportant that we can afford to have our helicopter service provision simply removed without any objections?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I congratulate Mr Wells for bringing it forward. This matter was discussed at a Newry and Mourne District Council meeting, where it was unanimously agreed that the helicopter rescue service should be supported and maintained, given our historic links with Mourne.

The air ambulance and helicopter rescue service has been in use for many years, and it would be greatly missed. It would be a huge mistake to have the service withdrawn. In addition to the efforts of the helicopter rescue team, there have been occasions when the Army has been called out in extreme emergency conditions and has rescued, or rendered assistance to, mountaineers or people who have been caught at the top of a mountain without adequate resources. There is clearly a need. The Mourne Mountains are world-famous. They are also extremely dangerous at times, and there is a clear requirement for this service to be retained.

An air ambulance service is also essential for Northern Ireland. I have written to Adam Ingram and the Minister of Health. No one can decide whose responsibility it is. I simply say that it should be sorted out and the provision made as quickly as possible. There is a need for both a helicopter rescue service and an air ambulance to support health provision in the area. We are dealing with a mountainous rural area which is subject to adverse weather conditions. Only a matter of weeks ago, a group was stranded in the Mourne Mountains and had to be rescued. This is a constant and pressing need, and I commend Mr Wells for bringing it to the attention of the Assembly.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I too thank Mr Wells for bringing this important issue to the Floor of the Assembly. The matter was first brought to my attention by Newry and Mourne District Council, which supported a motion to retain the service. I was then aware that it was going to be taken further by my Colleague Mr Wells in the Assembly Chamber. As Mr Wells said, I, along with other Members, raised the issue with the Security Minister, Adam Ingram. The Minister wrote back to me saying that he had passed the letter on to the Health Department. The Health Department then wrote to me stating that it had passed the letter back to Adam Ingram.

Evidently there is confusion as to who is responsible. It is important that we find out exactly who is responsible for this matter. I believe that it is the responsibility of the Security Minister, Mr Adam Ingram — but we will find out. I am sure that your office will find out, Mr Speaker. It is also clear that all those who are involved in this area are fully in support of the Adjournment debate today. The issue is made all the more important by the fact that the service based in Prestwick will not readily be available for work in Northern Ireland should something happen in its area. In an emergency you cannot sit around and wait for a couple of hours to see whether a helicopter is going to be sent from the mainland. By the time help arrives, it will be much too late.

The Minister responsible should take up this serious issue and pursue it until there is a satisfactory outcome and until the requests from this Chamber are carried out. If we cannot rely on provision from the mainland, we will be in a much worse position if we do not have a local provision. Local provision in this area is crucial. We have a local fishing industry, with ports that are in operation along the coast, a thriving leisure industry and a number of marinas. It is therefore only sensible to retain for ourselves an air-sea rescue operation. Until now, that provision has never been in doubt, and it has never been faulted. The service personnel have always been professional in their duties.

We now have the serious and worrying development that there will not be an air-sea back-up in Northern Ireland after 2002. That is not a matter that can be left in limbo. It is imperative that the decision be taken to maintain the service for the good of all the people in Northern Ireland.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

I support what Mr Wells has said. For many years Northern Ireland has watched as public services have been contracted until we have been left with a second-rate service that cannot usually deliver the goods. I think particularly of the Health Service with its long waiting lists for hospitals. Here is another example of the contraction of public Government money, which will leave us with a second-rate air rescue service.

I represent the Strangford constituency. We have a long coastline, with a most important fishing fleet at Portavogie. Mr Shannon will bear witness to the fact that a member of Ards Borough Council is a trawler owner who will quote instances of the treacherous seas in which he has often had to operate. However, he is secure in the knowledge that should something go wrong there is a very good chance of the air-sea rescue service’s coming to his aid. For that to be moved away from Northern Ireland to Prestwick, from where it will not be possible to deliver the service, should worry the Assembly.

Moreover, during the summer many people in the Strangford area use pleasure craft. Sometimes those people are not by any stretch of the imagination experienced sailors, and they can quite often — and very easily — get themselves into difficulty at sea. We hear cases of people putting out to sea who have not even the right lifesaving equipment on board. The air-sea rescue service plays a very valuable role when that happens.

I am disturbed to hear from Mr Wells that the present air-sea rescue facilities have no winch material to enable them to operate at night. That should concern the Assembly, and, as has already been said, we should look for the system to be upgraded rather than for its removal.

Finally, I must draw a contrast between the Ministry of Defence, which has a huge budget and is reducing the service it provides, and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which depends upon voluntary contributions to keep it going. It is continually striving to expand its services, not to reduce them. If a voluntary organisation like that can and does expand its services, based solely on the money it manages to raise, surely to goodness the Ministry of Defence with its huge budget can find the money to keep that very valuable and much-needed service here in Northern Ireland.

I have no hesitation in supporting Mr Wells.

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

I support not only the continuance but the enhancement of an air-sea rescue facility — as the proposal so subtly put it — not only in South Down but in other areas where it is needed, and that means the entire territorial area of Northern Ireland, because we know not where tragedy will strike.

Members have covered all the salient points concerning our fishing industry and the risks that the Irish Sea poses, which have from time to time been very considerable for commercial seagoers as well as for the fishing fleet. Mr Hamilton spoke of the enormous number of visitors to the Strangford Lough area and to the marinas along the Down coast and up to Antrim and beyond where, year on year, pleasure craft get into difficulties and require urgent and immediate rescue. It is hard to conceive of a situation where that facility would not be available.

Other Members have indicated the tourist element of the requirement for such a service. The south-east area of Northern Ireland has the highest number of tourists visiting and engaging in outdoor pursuits — as opposed to lying on a beach, as they are wont to do in other climes. When tourists come to our locality they are more active. Activity, be it in the sea, in the forests or in the mountains, of which we have an abundance, carries physical risk with it. The rescue services, on land, sea, or in the air must be available to us.

There is also the normal requirement of the general community for such a facility. Circumstances, such as the recent snowstorm or the breakdown of electricity services, sometimes dictate the need for the rescue services. I have mentioned the breakdown of electricity services to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. This occurs with monotonous frequency in the area that I represent. Many people are totally dependent on the supply of energy, and when that is suddenly cut off they are at immediate risk. A helicopter rescue service would be much speedier than that provided by road and would be required. For all of these reasons it is necessary that a helicopter service be available in South Down.

Another concept that I have been pursuing for some time, which would fall within the ambit of the devolved Administration, is the provision of an air ambulance service to Northern Ireland. I believe that this is equally necessary for our own community, never mind the visitors to our shores. We do not have a great transport infrastructure, particularly in South Down, where it takes many hours, especially in summertime, to get an emergency case from the Mourne area, or from the east Down area, to a medical centre of excellence. The retention of acute service facilities at our hospitals is continually put into doubt.

All these factors add up to the necessity for the provision of an air ambulance. I must keep to the topic or you will be looking at me, Mr Speaker. However, this is a very necessary broadening of that concept. Several private companies would be quite willing to provide such a service on an economic basis if the Departments involved could take that on board.

For all those reasons I totally support this case, as would my Colleagues from South Down in other parties, some of whom cannot be here today.

I have been corresponding for some months with the Northern Ireland Office as, in my opinion, there is no doubt that this is a reserved matter and their responsibility. There has been great hesitancy in replying. The Northern Ireland Office has not denied its responsibility, as on other occasions. In fact, it is holding up the operation until it can come up with a good reason for saying no. It is our job to ensure that that does not happen.

However ill I may think of other people, I cannot conceive of any Department, be it a Westminster Department or a Department in Northern Ireland, denying the community the services of an air rescue operation of some nature. I am confident that the representations made here today, our concerted efforts and, indeed, the articulation the community has made in many quarters about this matter will win through. We must keep up the pressure. On behalf of myself and my Colleagues who are abroad I am happy to give total and whole-hearted support this case.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr McGrady, with his customary elegance, has highlighted that Adjournment debate subjects are constituency matters and that Members should stick to their terms.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

It is too late.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Indeed.

Adjourned at 4.50 pm.