Northern Ireland Assembly, 2 April 2001

144 contributions from 46 members. The official report.

Clerk to the Assembly

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members will have noted that the new Clerk to the Northern Ireland Assembly has taken up his post today. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing Mr Arthur Moir every success in his new position.

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 on foot-and- mouth disease and the implications for Northern Ireland.

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

As always, I am grateful for the opportunity to update the Assembly on the situation with the foot-and- mouth disease in Northern Ireland since I last did so on 26 March. As Members will doubtless know and be thankful for, the situation has remained static, and we have had just one confirmed outbreak.

However, my major concern now relates to the Republic, where there has been a very recent outbreak and where the risk of further cases must be correspondingly high. Members will be aware of the suspect case which was reported in County Louth last Thursday. I am glad to say that the preliminary test results for that case were negative.

I am also concerned about the position in Great Britain, where the number of cases continues to rise daily. Both of these situations present the very real risk that we will import the virus again. Although I and my Executive Colleagues will do what we can to counter that threat, I make no apology for stressing again the need for farmers to adopt a fortress mentality as a last line of defence.

With regard to other aspects of the present situation, the major development over the past week was the EU decision to regionalise the foot-and-mouth disease controls on Northern Ireland. That decision represents a very considerable achievement for us and allows most of Northern Ireland to resume something like normal trade in the relevant products with effect from next week.

Although this is an excellent result, it does bring problems with it. As the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee is aware, tomorrow the Newry and Mourne District Council area will become subject to several controls aimed at ensuring that products from there do not get into the rest of Northern Ireland. This is because the European Commission required that we identify a discrete administrative area within which the site of the outbreak was located and where the necessary controls could apply. The smallest such area round south Armagh is this district council area.

I recognise that this will cause problems for farmers and processers in the area, but my officials are working to minimise the impact of these controls as far as possible. Disease permitting, our next move will be to have the controls on the Newry and Mourne District Council area lifted so that the whole of Northern Ireland is removed from the relevant export controls. We will be making that bid once 30 days have elapsed and cleansing and disinfection have been undertaken at the scene of the Meigh outbreak — that is as soon as possible after next Thursday, 5 April. However, that will not be an easy case to win.

In the meantime it is essential that we be able to demonstrate to the Commission that the district has been sealed off in so far as the movement of susceptible animals and their product is concerned. My officials are assessing precisely what needs to be done to achieve that. Where further help is needed from other Departments, I will address that through the interdepartmental group which I chair and which is working very effectively. We will also liaise with the RUC to agree what contribution is necessary from it.

The second major development during the past week was my joint announcement with Joe Walsh of our intention to carry out a precautionary cull of sheep in the area around and between the locations of the two outbreaks, North and South of the border. Our rationale was the creation of a firebreak round both outbreaks to prevent the spread of any further infection in that area. Unfortunately, that idea quickly ran into difficulty due to concerns among the local community over several aspects of our proposals. Initially those concerns revolved around the disposal of the sheep carcasses, but, recognising the urgency, I was able to agree to have the carcasses rendered instead of buried. Subsequently, it became clear that some people had concerns over the financial impact of the cull. That was not helped by the circulation of misleading rumours that the authorities in the Republic were offering higher rates of compensation than normal for sheep to be culled within their jurisdiction. I had those reports investigated with the authorities in the Republic, and they were incorrect.

Last Thursday I was able to reassure the people concerned that they would receive compensation in the normal way, and at the normal rates. The value of the animals will, as always, be assessed by valuers from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and in the event of any dispute, independent valuers will be brought in to arbitrate.

There have been reports in the press since last Thursday of an amnesty for some of the farmers involved. I will take this opportunity to set the record straight. No amnesty was granted; nor, indeed, would I have considered granting one. This was potentially a very difficult situation, and I would like at this point to pay tribute to the contribution by John Gilliland of the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) and Nigel McLaughlin of the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association (NIAPA). The fact that the farming unions were seen to be being so supportive of the Department’s attitude was crucial to a resolution of the problem.

At least one MLA has expressed concerns about the fact that we are taking the carcasses out of the area for disposal. However, I am satisfied with the Chief Veterinary Officer’s advice that, with the appropriate disease precautions, of the options available to me this disposal route represents the one with the lowest risk. Members will note that an independent vet has since confirmed that view.

There were several other significant events this week. The Executive were able to agree and announce a relaxation of the restrictions on movements by the general public. That has gone down well, and I hope that it will now provide the springboard for a recovery for tourism. Coupled to that, I announced last Friday some easement in the controls on the movement of animals under licence to take account of general welfare issues that have been raised with the Department. Those come into effect today.

Finally, I shall announce soon the establishment of a group to examine the changes that might be needed to protect us better from animal disease in the future. I need to stress, however, that such a group will have to work within the parameters set by the European Union to protect the free market. Nevertheless, there are various practices that have clearly contributed to the outbreak of the disease and its subsequent spread, and those must be reconsidered.

Although we should not be satisfied with a situation in which we have had a case of foot-and-mouth disease, we can take comfort from the fact that, as each day passes, we can be surer that the outbreak has been controlled. I call on everyone in the community to continue to observe the controls that are still in place, particularly those aimed at preventing further importation of the virus from elsewhere. In particular, I appeal to the people of Newry and Mourne to bear with us, to co-operate with my staff and to observe the controls that will come into effect over the next few days. I will do all that I can to get the controls lifted as soon as possible, but, in the meantime, it is vital that they be complied with — to the letter.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am glad that the Minister made it clear in her statement that the decision on the cull of sheep came from her and Joe Walsh and not from the EC. There seemed to be some idea that the EC had initiated it and said "If you do not do this, you can have what you want."

The Minister stated that she wanted to put the record straight about the negotiations. Conveniently, however, she did not deal with the fact that the question of amnesty was discussed at that meeting. That was entirely out of order, because neither the Minister nor her officials have authority in that matter. There was a long and heated discussion at that meeting about the granting of amnesty.

Why did the Minister not do for the people of north Belfast what she did for the people of south Armagh? Why were the people in Belfast not informed about what was going to happen? Why were they not told about all the supposed safeguards? We were told that the animals were coming in sealed lorries; in many cases, that sealing was done with tarpaulin. Many of the tarpaulins did not fit properly, and the lorries were not fully sealed. That was confirmed by the independent vet. Is the Minister aware that there is no effluent plant at that place? All the fluid there flows into the Belfast sewerage system. Do the people of north Belfast not have the right to an explanation, if their health is being put at risk or if there is a risk that the disease might spread? Those are important questions that the Minister must answer clearly.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I cannot take a point of order during questions to the Minister. I will gladly hear it at the end.

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

The decision on the cull was not taken by Joe Walsh; it was taken jointly by Joe Walsh and me in the interest of the island of Ireland and of the two areas in which there was infection. Joe Walsh had to organise the cull on his side of the border, and I had to organise the cull on my side. It was done following dialogue, as with everything that we have done on this matter. We have acknowledged that the disease does not recognise the border between Louth and south Armagh — unfortunately.

The EU Commission made it clear to us, and showed the wisdom of our decision that whether the virus was clearly present in that area would be a crucial issue in regionalisation. The fact that we were carrying out a cull would, therefore, be an essential part of that decision. It was a case of great minds thinking alike and coming to the right decision.

I am surprised that Dr Paisley seems to have the idea that he was privy to all the discussions that took place at the meeting with the farmers in south Armagh on Thursday. The long and heated discussion on amnesty is news to me. The important thing about that meeting was the outcome. To my mind, the outcome has been for the benefit of the agriculture industry and the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. The outcome was also important for what we are trying to achieve — to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of Northern Ireland.

I am the Minister of Agriculture, and I am not aware of any sheep in north Belfast. There are no issues of human health with this. Rendering is happening every day in that area — it is not something that started last Thursday or Friday. The same sewerage system has been there for a while; there is nothing different. However, anything of that nature is a matter for the Department of the Environment, not for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

In relation to my not alerting the people of north Belfast, my view is that if public representatives had been concerned about what was happening, they should have made their concerns known; that would have been very useful. They could have contacted the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, me or my private office, which is open daily, to find out if there really was a human health or a health problem.

Those representatives could then have told the true story, which is that there is no risk to human health; neither is there a problem in spreading the disease. I based everything I did on the advice I received from the Chief Veterinary Officer, who is the expert in these matters.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Does the Minister agree that the fact that relaxation measures could be announced this morning is due entirely to the rigorousness with which restrictions have been applied in Northern Ireland? Does she agree that it is at exactly this time, when our guard is slightly relaxed, that there is the real danger?

This virus is of a particularly virulent strain. Japan is an island, and the disease has been kept out of there since 1908, but this virus has still managed to get in. Will the Minister please reinforce the message of continuing vigilance? Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister was very wise in postponing the elections?

I think that the Minister might have been referring to me while she was speaking. May I remind her that I have been involved in farming all my life. I have sat on the Agriculture Committee over the past few weeks listening to veterinary officials saying that this virus is carried in the noses of human beings for at least five to seven days. If it is carried in human beings’ noses, it must surely be able to be carried in animals’ noses.

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

I assure Mr Savage that at no stage in my remarks was I referring to him. I also reassure him that whereas the virus is carried in the noses of living people, it is not carried in the noses of dead animals.

I totally agree with the Member about relaxation and confirm his view that because of the measures that we have taken, we have, so far, been successful in our efforts. That is due in particular to the co-operation that we have received from the community — and the farming community especially. I agree with the Member when he says that because things seem to be going reasonably well, it would be dangerous to relax our guard. The danger is really at the farm gate and at the ports of entry, particularly from Great Britain, where, unfortunately, the disease is still raging.

The farm gate is the real point of defence against the disease, and I urge farmers to maintain the fortress farming approach. I also urge people coming into Northern Ireland from Great Britain and the Republic to take all the necessary precautions.

I do not want to comment on the postponement of the elections — that matter is outside my ken.

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

I congratulate the Minister and her departmental officials on enabling Northern Ireland to be regarded as a designated area — excluding, unfortunately, the Newry and Mourne area, which is part of my constituency. This is no mean achievement in the context of recent events in the rest of United Kingdom, and the House should congratulate the Minister and her Department on a tremendous achievement.

The people, the farmers and the industries of Newry and Mourne are suffering the pain for the rest of Northern Ireland. It is important that we recognise that. Some of the residents and businesses are 20 to 25 miles away from the main focus of the disease. Will the Minister ensure that relaxation is introduced as soon as possible? I realise that we cannot be complacent, but can she give further details of the relaxations that she hopes to introduce today, and what they will mean?

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

I appreciate the Member’s remarks about Newry and Mourne, because it is very hard on the people there who have been affected by the problem for some time. It is especially hard on the people who are not in the Meigh area but who are bound by the restrictions on the Newry and Mourne District Council area. They are not able to get their products out of the area because they are in the smallest discrete administrative area that we could identify for the EU. I sympathise with those people.

I assure Mr McGrady that as soon as we reach the thirtieth day after the Meigh outbreak I will vigorously pursue regionalisation for the whole of Northern Ireland, including Newry and Mourne. I understand that, following the further outbreak in County Louth and the announcement that antibodies have been found in a sheep in the Cooley Mountains, that will not be an easy task. However, I still intend to pursue the matter vigorously with the support of the UK Government and Joe Walsh.

On the question of the relaxation of measures, I was very pleased to be able to announce the relaxation on the movement of animals which comes into place today. There were difficulties for farmers in relation to welfare and animal husbandry issues, such as not being able to move sheep for lambing or to move cattle out to grass. Those activities will now be possible. The details will be publicised, and they are now available in the local veterinary offices. The restrictions had previously been relaxed to allow movement up to 5km and this will be now extended to 10km, which will help many farmers. The details will be available for those who need them.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

A Cheann Comhairle, the Minister said that the case for the removal of the restrictions around Newry and Mourne could be a difficult one for her to win. Will she assure us that if the relaxations are not granted at the end of the 30 days, they will be removed in a matter of days or weeks, and not months, as some people in the locality have suggested? Will she acknowledge the contribution made by the farmers in the south Armagh area in sacrificing their healthy animals to secure the future of the agriculture industry in the rest of the island? Will she continue to press the case for consequential compensation payments? She has had wide- ranging discussions with farmers in that area and the farmers’ unions, and I am sure that there is a huge range of issues that will affect people in the farming community and throughout the island.

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

As I have already stated in response to Mr McGrady, I will be moving immediately, and with the same vigour that I pursued the relaxation for the rest of Northern Ireland, to ensure that the Newry and Mourne area will be made exempt as soon as possible. I acknowledge the contribution of the farmers in south Armagh. I would like to take this opportunity, because of some of the denigration that has gone on, to assure the House that the vast majority of farmers in south Armagh are ordinary decent farmers, as are the farmers in the rest of Northern Ireland who have faced the same problems over the last number of years. They have been anxious to co-operate with me in the past week and are now doing so. I want to place that on record.

Mr Conor Murphy referred to the consequences for the farming community; I realise that there will be consequences. They are, of course, getting full market value for their animals. Also there will be consequences for sectors other than farming. There will be consequences for tourism; there will be consequences, I understand, even for photographers who cannot go to events owing to cancellations. The consequences are endless. I have said in the House that, although I sympathise with the plight in which people find themselves, it would be virtually impossible to pay for the infinite amount of consequential payments out of the Northern Ireland block. I made that point at the Cabinet meeting that I attended some weeks ago with the Prime Minister. Consequential payments will be a matter for the Treasury, and if the British Government were to take the view that consequential payments are to be made, I would expect Northern Ireland farmers to get their share.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Does the Minister accept, notwithstanding the personal opinions expressed by Dr Paisley, that many of us — both in the Assembly and in the Agriculture Committee — are grateful to her for the efforts that she and her officials put into solving the difficulties regarding the cull in south Armagh last week? We also wish to add our support to what she said in praising Mr Gilliland and Mr McLaughlin for their efforts. We recognise the genuine sacrifice that people with healthy sheep are making in the same way as farmers in Cumbria, for example, are doing.

What action is the Minister taking from this week to deal with the problem of liquid milk production in the Newry and Mourne area? Can she indicate when she expects to present the case for the abolition of all restrictions in the Newry and Mourne area to the Standing Veterinary Committee in Brussels?

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

I thank Mr Ford for his comments. I completely accept that the Agriculture Committee, in particular, and, indeed, the whole Assembly are appreciative. Indeed, the Agriculture Committee left me in no doubt about that when I met with it last Friday. It is not just the Assembly and the Agriculture Committee that are appreciative, and the huge volume of letters that I am receiving from both the Unionist and Nationalist communities shows that people across Northern Ireland are appreciative of our efforts. I really appreciate that because it is good to know that we have the support of the whole community in this difficult time.

I cannot go into details about the liquid milk situation. I know that it is a problem; I know precisely what the Member is referring to. My officials are in discussion with people in that area. We are operating under EU Regulations, and my officials are trying to establish how problems can be dealt with in many sectors, such as the processing industry, as well as in the liquid milk sector. Those discussions are ongoing, so I cannot give a definitive answer on how that issue will be resolved — but it is being dealt with. I may be able to give the Member further information if he contacts my private office.

I have discussed the issue of the Standing Veterinary Committee with my Chief Veterinary Officer — who will be at the next Standing Committee meeting — and with my head of policy; we will be preparing a case. I will also be talking to Joe Walsh — I hope — next Friday, and clearly the South will be preparing a case because it will be looking for relaxation in due course. All of that is being put together, and I hope to mount as effective a case as we did in managing to achieve regionalisation thus far.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

Before putting my question, I want to respond to something the Minister said about MLAs. As an MLA for North Belfast, I heard about the movement of sheep to north Belfast through the media, not through the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Perhaps the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development could have informed the six MLAs for the area before making the decision public. We might then have been able to influence the decision. That may not be the Minister’s problem; perhaps it highlights the problem that some MLAs find out about what Departments are doing after the event, rather than before it.

With regard to the processing plant in north Belfast, did the Minister take any advice from the Department of the Environment about the environmental implications? I understand, having spoken to Belfast City Council’s environmental officers, that there was a problem with the wall in what is known as the "chemical scrubbing plant", where these animals would have been — for the want of a better term — power-boiled. The emissions from that site were quite high over recent weeks. Did the Minister ask the Department of the Environment whether this wall had been fixed and whether it stopped the public nuisance? On Friday, when I checked the wind direction with the weather station at Belfast International Airport, I was told that there was a south-easterly wind. That means that any stench coming from those sheep would have gone directly over the houses in north Belfast.

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

Billy Hutchinson raised a point concerning the Department of the Environment. Drumcrue — I am sorry: that was a slip of the tongue. I nearly said Drumcree. [Laughter] Duncrue is working full-time as a rendering plant. There are no extra environmental impacts in relation to the plant’s handling sheep, nor am I aware of any additional stench coming from sheep. It is the same process that continually takes place in north Belfast — in this case it just happens to involve foot-and-mouth-disease sheep.

I am sorry that Mr Hutchinson feels that perhaps I should have warned him in advance, but this is ongoing every day of the week and every week of the year. Perhaps, with hindsight, it would have been better if I had contacted the North Belfast MLAs to reassure them. However, as this is happening daily, it never occurred to me that such action was necessary.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I certainly agree with the Minister that there are many decent farmers in south Armagh. I also remind her — though I am sure that she is aware of this — that some farmers have had their bluff called by the Department in the past few days. Can the Minister confirm that there are so-called farmers in south Armagh who have been claiming subsidies for sheep that have not been physically on the farmyards across the area? They have been called "paper sheep". Can the Minister confirm this, and will she and her Department take action in cases where it is found that there are discrepancies between sheep presented for the cull and the numbers that have been claimed for in recent days?

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

I am pleased to note that Mr Berry agrees with me about the farmers in south Armagh, the vast majority of whom are decent — like farmers in the rest of Northern Ireland — and have been going though a very difficult period in recent years.

With regard to his question about "paper sheep", that matter will become evident only when we come to deal with subsidies. I assure the Member that the payment of subsidies will be dealt with this year in exactly the same way as it has been every other year. Incidentally, where "paper sheep" — "paper whatever" — fraud has been found in the past, it has not been confined to south Armagh. There are rogues everywhere — in every profession, in every walk of life, and in every part of Northern Ireland — unfortunately. Fortunately, however, they are a small minority.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am sure that the Minister was not referring to any hon Members.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I refer to the last section of the Minister’s statement, where she expresses particular concern — and rightly so — about the further importation of this virus. Perhaps I am returning to a question that I placed before the Minister on 12 March. She states that she has concerns about the position in Great Britain. However, she says that her

"major concern now relates to the Republic, where there has been a very recent outbreak and where the risk of further cases must be correspondingly high".

I applaud the Minister for her change in guidelines and for encouraging the tourist industry to return to normality. I know, and the Minister will know, that in the north-west in particular, many tourists will be coming from the Republic of Ireland. Why do we still not have reciprocal arrangements on the land frontiers?

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

I appreciate Mr Hussey’s concerns. However, I do not know what he means by "reciprocal". I presume he means the same arrangements as in the Republic. We do not have the same situation in Northern Ireland as we have in the Republic, particularly with respect to the security forces, as Mr Hussey will understand.

With regard to ensuring that no animals or products are brought across the border, the policing on the Southern side of the border is not the same as on this side. I reassure Mr Hussey by saying that since we set up the most recent controls, there have been 163 interceptions of the movement of animals by the RUC. Sixty of those interceptions are now being investigated and processed. The fact that you do not see policing does not mean that it is not happening. [Interruption]

I think I heard someone saying "I do not believe it." Clearly, someone does not believe what the RUC is telling me. That is not my problem.

We have put as many officials as possible on border roads, and the RUC is patrolling the area to try to prevent any further infection coming into the Province. However, if farmers in Northern Ireland do not take personal responsibility for their own farms, nothing in this world will keep the virus out. Neither I nor my Department can check every individual in every vehicle that comes into Northern Ireland, nor would I suggest that such policing can be carried out on the other side of the border.

Farmers must not allow people through the farm gate unnecessrarily. People who have been on other farms or who have been in contact with other animals must follow the disinfectant procedures. I hope that farmers are doing that. If these procedures are followed we will not have another case.

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

I thank the Minister once again for her personal attention in this matter. I cannot recall any Minister in any juridisction in these islands who has repeatedly come back to be questioned from the start of a crisis until the end. Her performance has been first-class. I have no doubt that the people of Newry and Mourne and south Armagh will bear with her and give her absolute support so that this problem can be solved.

When will she publish the type of restrictions that we will be asked to abide by in Newry and Mourne? Can she make the information as widely available as possible, and, if appropriate, can it be put in the various community facilities run by Newry and Mourne District Council?

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

I appreciate that Mr Fee is anxious to co-operate with the restrictions in Newry and Mourne. I hope tomorrow morning to have a meeting with the MLAs from the entire Newry and Mourne area — South Down and Newry and Armagh — so that we can have discussions and I can explain the position to the Members. My veterinary officer will also be present to respond to any questions. I think that is the best way of dealing with the situation.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A Cheann Comhairle, Mr Berry’s comments were interesting. Would he prefer that the Minister had the farmers of south Armagh culled, rather than the sheep? The one positive thing about "paper sheep" is that they are easily managed, and they do not contract foot-and-mouth disease. Given that we are likely to have regionalisation in place this week, will the Minister consider the crisis situation building up on farms with regard to day-to-day management?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am having trouble hearing what the Member is asking.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Minister consider the crisis situation building up on farms in relation to farm management and the inability to move livestock? The farm management problem is becoming extremely serious. Will the Minister consider the possibility of farm-to-farm sales, as marts are no longer open and do not appear likely to be opening in the medium term? Something will have to be done to alleviate the management crisis taking place on farms at present, and the Minister seems to be reluctant to tackle it.

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

I hope that Mr McHugh is not condoning "paper sheep".

With regard to the farm management issue, I am not sure whether he is referring to commercial movements, which I presume he may well be, or welfare movements. I have today been able to further relax the restrictions on movement to deal with good health, husbandry and welfare. That will be welcomed by the farming community, as it is a response to the regular discussions that I continue to have with the unions and the industry.

The farm-to-farm movement referred to by Mr McHugh is under review. I regret that Mr McHugh seems to be somewhat critical that I am not responding properly to those concerns, as that is the most dangerous way of spreading the disease. I will do absolutely nothing — repeat: nothing — to take us back to a situation where we might run the risk of bringing foot-and-mouth disease into Northern Ireland. That will be my position at all times. My Chief Veterinary Officer advises me that the adjustments that we are making are meeting the welfare needs that have been put to us by the farming community. Other needs have also been put to us, but the view of my veterinary officials is that that would be a very dangerous move to make now, and I do not intend to move until I feel that it is no longer a risk.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Minister accept that her Department has misled the people of Northern Ireland? The Department claimed that these animals were being moved in sealed trailers. In fact they were moved in articulated tipping lorries with tarpaulins pulled over the top. Those are not sealed units. Those vehicles were driving along the A1, through farms. How were farmers along the A1 supposed to "fortress farm" when the Department was moving sheep from an infected area through their farms?

There is no trade effluent plant within the Duncrue complex. Can the Minister give us guarantees that sewage sludge from Belfast will not be spread over agricultural land? Is she aware that lorries using the Duncrue plant were drawing specified risk material from Ballymena, Dungannon and Newtownards meat plants, and returning to those plants, having been in contact with lorries from the infected area? That was a ludicrous idea. The sheep should have been buried and disposed of in the infected area. The Minister told the Agriculture Committee that cost was one of the factors — it was cheaper to render the sheep than to bury them. Can she confirm that?

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

I thank Mr Poots for his remarks and questions.

With regard to its being cheaper, that is what I said in response to a question at the Agriculture Committee. I was asked why I was doing this when it would clearly cost more, and I replied simply by saying that actually it is cheaper. I did not for one minute say that we were doing it because it is cheaper. That is slightly twisting what I said.

My officials have assured me that the vehicles carrying sheep carcasses were fluid-proof and safe. I say to Mr Poots that I am somewhat surprised at the number of pseudo- vets in Northern Ireland. I take my advice from the experts, the professional vets, who know what they are about and who are extremely anxious to ensure that this disease does not take hold. They have done an excellent job so far and have worked far beyond the call of duty, particularly in the south Armagh area. I am aware that several vets there, at the early stages of this disease, did not even get home to their beds, so hard were they working. They are the people who know what they are about. When they tell me that it is safe to do something, I take their word for it.

The sheep were in sealed vehicles. They did not move through the farms; they moved along the roads. They did not go through the fields.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There were farms along the side of the roads.

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

I will explain to Mr Poots, for he does not seem to quite understand. Fortress farming is at the farm gate. As my vets tell me, the real danger arises when somebody goes onto a farm and is in contact with farm animals. Lorries moving along the road, with carcasses sealed inside, are not going near farm animals or farm land. They are going along the road.

With regard to the specified risk material, I have to admit that I am not quite sure what Mr Poots is talking about. I will have a written reply for him in due course.

John Taylor (UUP, Strangford)

Foot-and-mouth disease affects all of us in Northern Ireland. It is a major problem, and in no way should any party try to make it a party political issue. I commend the Minister yet again for the way in which she is handling this matter, which is appreciated right across all businesses in Northern Ireland, including the farming industry.

I want to ask the Minister about the antibodies found in sheep in Cooley, County Louth. Does this imply that they had already suffered from foot-and-mouth disease and that the Southern Irish authorities had failed to detect it? I would like to know more about what is behind the emergence of antibodies in sheep in County Louth.

I ask the Minister, although it is not primarily her responsibility, whether, if the good news continues in Northern Ireland and we make progress after Thursday, all Departments, including the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, will be in a position to launch a major publicity campaign to promote Northern Ireland’s agricultural products and its tourist industry?

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

I thank Mr Taylor for his remarks, with which I absolutely agree. I thank him for making the point that this is not a time to be making party political points or trying to take cheap party political advantage. It is far too serious a situation.

The answer to his first question is yes. This clearly indicates the importance of finalising the cull in that area to ensure that where there is any chance of the infection being present, or having been present, in sheep — and that is the most difficult to discover — the animals are culled as a precaution.

The Executive are considering a publicity campaign. There will be wider issues than those that relate to the agriculture industry. On matters related to agriculture, I have asked the vision group, which was set up to examine the future of agriculture in Northern Ireland and to work out a long-term strategy, to appoint a subcommittee which would look at the implications of what has happened and make an addendum to its report. As the Member has stated, it is important that we learn lessons from this and look at what we need to do from now on.

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

I compliment the Minister and her team on their tireless efforts to deal with the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak. The Minister must be the busiest lady in Ireland — she is certainly the busiest politician in the country.

The House will share my hope that we have contained the disease that broke out around Meigh in Armagh and Proleek in Louth. Given the cross-border dimension to the problem, can the Minister say when she will next meet her Southern counterpart at formal North/South Ministerial Council level?

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

A formal meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council has been arranged for next Friday; it will take place in Dublin. The only issue on the agenda will be foot-and-mouth disease. All related issues will be discussed and decisions will, we hope, be made about how we should proceed.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

To what extent has the lorry driver from Banbridge, who brought the sheep to Meigh, co-operated with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development? Is it true, as reported in the media at the weekend, that his lorry stopped at other farms and marts at the time of the Meigh delivery?

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

I have already put it on record that one of our biggest problems was that we did not have full co-operation from the person — indeed, the persons — concerned. The Member will be aware that the matter is now under investigation and that the driver is being questioned. In the circumstances, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment any further.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Members will note the Minister’s comments on the proposed anti-disease group. Can she tell us a little about the group? We need to know the who, what, where and when. We hope that the group will be considerably more successful than the anti-disease measures taken heretofore.

Can the Minister tell us what approaches were made to her by people seeking an amnesty, either for themselves or for others? We know what her response was, but we should know who sought the amnesty. There are no cases pending before the courts, no arrests have been made and no prosecutions are ongoing. Can the Minister assure the House that people will be prosecuted to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen to our agriculture industry again?

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

I was talking about the vision group, and my response to the Member is exactly the same as that which I gave to Mr Taylor. I have asked the vision group to set up a subgroup. I do not know what the Member means by saying that the group must be better than it was in the past. There never was a group working on foot-and-mouth disease; there was a group considering the future of the agriculture industry and working out a strategy for the future. The report of that group was due on 6 March, but that has been put on hold because of the foot-and-mouth-disease problem. I have asked the group to set up a subgroup to consider the implications of what has happened in the past five weeks and make recommendations. I considered that wise.

The Member may be aware that the only approach that was made to me on the matter of amnesty was made via an ad-hoc committee that was set up in south Armagh. I was able to address some of their concerns, but I made it clear that I would not be prepared to address others. I said that I would not make promises that I could not or would not keep.

Prosecutions will be a matter for the RUC. Investigations are proceeding and I cannot respond on behalf of the RUC as to whether or not prosecutions will take place. However, I assure the Member that the Department will co-operate fully with the RUC, which may lead to people being brought to task for their wrongdoings.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. She has outlined this morning that she will move to lift the controls on the Newry and Mourne area as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, she has alarmingly said

"However, that will not be an easy case to win."

Can she expand on that? Farmers and people throughout Newry and Mourne will want to see the restrictions lifted as quickly as possible.

I also welcome the Minister’s statement on the issue of the amnesty. However, can she spell out the compensation procedure, which involves an appeal? Who conducts that appeal? Is it genuinely independent? Will it not come under any external pressure to give benefit to those who had been seeking amnesty on other issues?

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

As regards Mr Kennedy’s remarks about Newry and Mourne, I appreciate his concerns as he is an MLA from that area.

When I said that it would not be easy, I was referring to various factors. First, the disease has spread within some European countries already. Secondly, there has been a new case in County Louth subsequent to the one we had in the Meigh area. Finally, there was the discovery of sheep with antibodies. Those issues will make the Commission and the Standing Veterinary Committee nervous when we go to seek a lifting of the ban. Knowing how difficult it was to get regionalisation at this stage, I am not underestimating the difficulties ahead. We may have to wait until the 30-day period following the Proleek outbreak is over. All those things have been conveyed to me as possibilities. I assure Mr Kennedy that I will do everything possible, along with my officials, to ensure that the restriction is lifted on Newry and Mourne as soon as is humanly possible.

With regard to the compensation procedure in the south Armagh area, I will reiterate what I have said publicly. The compensation will be at full market value as assessed by departmental valuers. If farmers are unhappy with that, they have access to one of three named independent valuers. That is the position. It is the same as the position in relation to the original slaughters in the Meigh area and indeed to slaughtering in the UK and the Republic.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. I asked her a question some weeks ago about the spreading of animal blood on agricultural land. To date, I have not received an answer. Is the practice to be outlawed? If not, can she explain why a farmer in Rosslea told me the other day that the price of a kill has gone up by almost £5 in order to pay for the additional cost of landfill for blood and animal waste?

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

As regards the first part of Ms Gildernew’s question, it is not a risk. It seems to me that landfill might be a commercial issue. If prices rise, it is a commercial issue, and one that I cannot deal with.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister tell the House if her discussions with south Armagh farmers were designed to organise the logistics of the extended cull or to avoid a showdown with IRA/Sinn Féin in the run-up to the elections?

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

I thank Mrs Robinson for the question, although I do not entirely understand it. I assure the Member that everything I have done since the beginning of this crisis has been with one view in mind — to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of Northern Ireland. I have not had any other consideration at any time. I am pleased that the outcome in south Armagh was that I could proceed with the necessary cull — bearing in mind what Mr Taylor said about the presence of antibodies and my reply to him. My answer to Mrs Robinson’s question is that at all times my only consideration was to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of Northern Ireland. So far, with the co-operation of the whole community, including farmers, we together have been successful. I hope to continue along those lines.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the Minister’s relaxation of the movement of livestock under licence. This is due to the vigilant actions of farmers who have maintained fortress farms and Department of Agriculture and Rural Development staff who have manned the border. Everyone draws comfort from each passing day that is free from new cases of foot-and-mouth disease. There can be no relaxation on Northern Ireland’s borders with the Republic of Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom.

Will the Minister tell the House how many sheep were disposed of during the previous week in the cull at the border? Is she sure that there are no sheep left in that area, lest there be another case of foot-and-mouth disease?

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

I thank the Member for his question and his obvious concern. With regard to movement under licence, Mr Armstrong was one of the people breaking down my door during the previous week to ensure that that movement was permitted. I am pleased that I have been able to respond to him and others who made those same concerns known to me. I also appreciate his remarks that there can be no relaxation and that we must keep up our guard.

With regard to the final figures, I must say that those numbers are not yet available, because the cull has not been completed. As soon as I have them, I will make them available to Mr Armstrong in writing. I am pleased to say that as far as I know the cull will be completed today in time for regionalisation tomorrow.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As there are no further requests for questions, that brings an end to questions to the Minister on her statement. We now move to the motion on the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You and the Assembly have agreed to the convention that in subject matter debates or questions the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of the relevant Committees will have speaking preferences with regard to questions and/or comments. This is done on the understanding that the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson is speaking on behalf of the Committee. Will you rule to that effect, and will you predetermine in that ruling whether the said Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson is speaking in a personal, party or Committee capacity? If in a capacity other than the last, will you ensure that he or she does not receive precedence?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

In respect of Committee Chairmen’s and Deputy Chairmen’s speaking opportunities, there is an element of precedence where there is a relevant Committee and the Chairman or Deputy Chairman indicates that he wishes to speak in that capacity. I sometimes have to balance that with the wishes of party Whips, because occasionally they too have a view on the order of contributors from their parties. In general terms, however, the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman will speak first.

If a Chairman or Deputy Chairman chooses to speak in a personal capacity, he or she does not take precedence. In that respect the Member is quite right.

However, it is recognised that there are occasions when a Chairman or Deputy Chairman may speak on behalf of his Committee but also properly make other remarks. In those circumstances he should indicate which remarks are being made in a personal capacity, for he cannot be called a second time.

Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme

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

I beg to move

That the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2001 (Statutory Rule 2001 No 90) be approved.

Members will need no reminding of the difficulties which the pig industry here has had to endure over the past few years, to say nothing of the current added effects of the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak. I hope that Members will also need no reminding of the efforts that I have been making to try to secure the introduction of an aid package for pig producers at the earliest possible date. Members will also be aware that the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme has two elements. The Regulations referred to in the motion relate to the second element for on-goers — that is those people wishing to remain in the industry.

The control provisions needed for on-goers required subordinate legislation, made under two separate pieces of primary legislation. These have different powers and, although the controls are identical, it meant that we had to make two statutory rules — one by negative resolution in the usual way and the other by confirmatory resolution on the part of the Assembly. Both rules are similar in providing for controls on the payment of grant-aid over a two-year period in respect of interest rebates on loans for expenditure incurred in restructuring a pig production business.

Such expenditure can relate to either capital or non- capital, but the primary power to regulate for such payments on capital expenditure requires the rule to be confirmed by the Assembly. It will cease to have effect unless approved by a resolution of the Assembly within 40 days of 30 March, the date on which it came into operation. This rule and the equivalent one for non-capital expenditure provide the necessary legal basis for my Department to approve applications under the on-goers’ part of the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme. This is very important as, although no payment can be made for one year after an application is approved, we must have evidence that interest has been paid to the lending institution, and we wish to be able to make those payments as soon as that anniversary is reached. The confirmation of this rule by the Assembly will ensure that this hurdle does not exist, and I hope that Members can therefore agree to confirm the rule today.

I emphasise that these rules are important, but, essentially, controlled provisions will allow the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme to benefit pig producers here. Accordingly, I decided that it was not necessary to prepare regulatory impact, human rights or equality impact assessments or to undertake any public consultation. I invite the Assembly to confirm its approval of the rule identified in the motion.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I am speaking as Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee, and there will be no gagging of the Chairperson just because minorities in the Committee cannot have their way. Mr McGrady had better get his act together and get the two members from his party in absolute agreement before he comes attacking me in the House.

The great thing about the system here is that nobody can remove the Chairperson of a Committee. The agreement that the Member entered into to keep Nationalists and Republicans in place covers me too. If Members want to remove me they will have great bother doing so. It is ridiculous that petty statements are made because minorities cannot have their way. My Committee, by a majority vote, gives me the right to speak. However, on this matter there is unanimity, so I am speaking for the whole Committee. Of course, sometimes members are not there when decisions are made or they do not even express themselves when decisions are taken.

When the proposal for the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme was brought to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on 2 March members questioned a department official on the details. As a result, the Committee was content for the Department to proceed with making the rule that is now before the House.

In reconstructing their pig production business, many farmers — and this is a concern of the Agriculture Committee — face huge capital expenditure costs which can only be met by taking out loans. The restructuring scheme provides for the payment of grants towards the cost of such loans. The scheme is welcome and it provides a lifeline in these difficult times as long as those farmers who seek it are accepted into the scheme.

Figures have been bandied about concerning how many applications were made to the scheme and how many were accepted. The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has got no confirmation as yet from the Minister on those figures. The Committee is not content with that. It has asked officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to attend its meeting on 6 April so that members — and this was a resolution of the whole Committee — can question them to see if this is going to be effectual. Many people want to get into the scheme but some have already been told that they are not accepted. It is important that they are given another chance. It is also important that the ratio of applications to successes, 500:80, is changed and that the pig farmers who are in difficulty can benefit from the scheme.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the scheme that the Minister has introduced. It is an indication of a vote of confidence from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to the agriculture industry, and especially to the farmers.

Will the Minister give details of the take-up of the scheme that enables pig farmers to leave the industry and will she tell the House if that take-up has been lower than expected? Many telephone calls to me suggest that that was the case, so will the Minister tell the House how much money is left in the kitty and how much money is available for the restructuring of the scheme?

The scheme is UK-wide, and other areas are involved, but surely there was a designated amount of money for Northern Ireland. How much of that money has been used, and what contingency plans are in place for making the remainder available to more pig farmers?

With two experienced politicians — one on each side of me — I have to be careful how I proceed, but I welcome the loans scheme for pig farmers. In these days when the agriculture industry has come through crisis after crisis it is an opportunity for the pig industry to restructure, for the out-goers scheme to be successful, and for those who want to stay in the industry to do so. I congratulate the Minister and I will support her 100% in any way possible.

The agriculture industry must modernise and unless it goes forward as a modern agriculture industry, Northern Ireland cannot compete with its counterparts across the water. People must realise that we are part and parcel of Europe. It is hoped that the Minister will see fit to broaden the outlook of the loan scheme to cover other areas. Time will tell as to the major difficulties that will be faced by the agriculture industry due to foot-and-mouth disease.

I hope that, in time, the Minister will broaden her outlook and take those things on board.

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

I too support the motion. Cattle-related matters have dominated the agriculture agenda, so it is good to know that back at the ranch people were working in the interests of the pig industry, because it is very much part of our history. I will not give into the temptation of rehashing much of what was said about farming debt and about restoring profit to the pig industry. I support the capital grant scheme. As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee has said, it is long overdue. The on-goers will welcome it, and I thank the Minister for moving this motion this morning.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A Cheann Comhairle, the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee agrees that this scheme is overdue. It is also a welcome opportunity for people who previously missed out on the wider scheme. There are many difficulties with funding, and there is the possibility that it may not do what it was intended to do and help farmers. Those involved in the fishing industry have also found that the scheme is so complicated that it is difficult to say whether it will benefit those who are most in need of it in the long term. This is due to a lack of information and to delays on the part of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in delivering and implementing the schemes.

These are the main problems that farmers face. In this instance, they have to decide if they want to, and need to, get out of the industry. They have not always had the information to allow them to do that. They have to decide if they want to leave the industry permanently, although a son may want to get into the industry in the next few years. These are all very difficult decisions. A farm has to be taken out of the business of pig production completely even if there is a possibility that it may become profitable in the future.

Farmers must decide whether to go for the scheme or to try to have a future as a pig farmer. Whether we have a future as an area that produces pig meat, or we just give in and allow imports, has an impact on the overall economy. Our debt reports have shown that most of the difficulties that farmers faced were beyond and outside the farm gate. That includes the BSE crisis and now foot- and-mouth disease, which may be the deciding factor for many farmers on whether they remain in the industry.

We have covered most of the arguments regarding the ‘Restoring Profit for the Beef Producer’ report. There are similar arguments in the pig industry, which was very strong in all counties 20 years ago. Most of that industry, certainly from the area that I come from, is no longer there. You could count on one hand the number of people who are involved in pig production in Fermanagh, and a number of years ago every second farm was involved in it. The pig industry now faces the foot-and-mouth disease, and pig farmers must decide whether they have a future.

We are also losing other aspects of farm production such as beef. This is due to the impact of the power of people outside the farm gate — the supermarkets and the processors — and how they deal with farmers. The reports that we published have several recommendations for putting this right. Some of the recommendations point to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s taking a proactive role in helping farmers who remain in the pig industry to have a future. Malton Foods and others have stood firmly against any moves towards strengthening the hand of the individual. That difficulty may be overcome if farmers can remove the fear of trying to stand against large corporate organisations that work for profit, try to stifle all opposition and create a total monopoly over the profit of an industry.

At present, those outside the farm gate have the power. When farmers are making an income of approximately £22 each and everyone else is talking about the massive economic impact in relation to farming, it shows who is making the money and the profit and who is being excluded entirely from this. It is up to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, in particular, to do its best and to work with the farm groups that want to move to a position of strengthening their base.

I support the motion because it allows progress and allows farmers to go for money at this point. Previously, they were afraid to move because they lacked the information to make a decision.

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

The benefits of the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme and the length of delay can all be measured best and most accurately by the number of producers who have been forced from the industry. I accept that the blame for such delays in the introduction of support lies with the United Kingdom Minister and with Mr Fischler in Brussels. Delay in supporting, during crisis, any of our farming sectors is increasingly becoming the norm. However, for those producers suffering the collapse or manipulation of their markets, this is of little comfort.

The pig industry has, without support from subsidies, endured the rigour of what has often been a very uncertain market for its product. I pay tribute to those who have remained in production against impossible odds. That said, a strategically targeted £400,000 grant at this stage might have a positive impact on those who have managed to remain in production. Further developments involving Government funding for producer co-operatives would have attracted much support, both within the industry and from many members of the Agriculture Committee. In order to bring the price of Northern Irish pork into line with the United Kingdom mainland, a level of financial commitment from Government, however costly in the interim, could prove one of the only alternatives.

Regarding price differentials, I share the view of the producers that explorations of the impact of swine fever and the more extensive downsizing of the pig herd on the mainland are the factors that explain the higher prices for pigs across the water. The Ballymoney fire has had an enormous impact on the prices paid to producers, but so has the procurement of pigs in the Republic. Tie in those factors with the disadvantage of Northern Ireland’s greater input costs and the fact that a level playing field of animal welfare Regulations does not exist, and the stage is set for the extinction of the pig industry. United Kingdom pig producers have been forced to accept the stall-and-tether ban in advance of other EU states, which has imposed costs on the industry that it cannot afford in the current circumstances.

This welcome, but late, injection of cash for restructuring the pig industry, involving the development of marketing structures and improving quality, is welcomed by the industry. However, it must be seen in the context of the current difficulties, and I urge the Minister not to rule out the provision of cash to fund a new co-operative initiative in the future.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The pig industry has faced many difficulties in the past few years, and many farmers find themselves with debts that outstrip their assets. To this end, the on-goers scheme must be welcomed as a step in the right direction. There are other steps that many of us would like to have seen included. Nonetheless, we welcome the steps that have been taken in the interim.

I have a number of questions arising from this issue. Mr Savage said that there may not have been a full uptake of the on-goers scheme. If that is true, is it possible for money from that scheme to be put towards the out-goers scheme where it appears that there has been a higher take up? I understand that many farmers have applied to the out-goers scheme and have been rejected. I want to question the role of the Department in that.

Farmers had to pay £350 plus VAT to get their animals valued. It has also been claimed that those who applied to the out-goers’ scheme were told at meetings held by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development that they should do it on a 10-year basis. Yet the vast majority of those who listened to the Department’s advice have had their schemes rejected. What opportunity is there for those people to reapply? Is there any advice that can be given before they go down that road to ensure that they will get finance from the out-goers scheme?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Member agree that we do not have the details of how those people who have not been accepted for this scheme can be included in a second phase? Does he agree that it is a problem that farmers who applied for this scheme were told by the Department that they should apply for the full amount of money and, when they did, they were then refused? That is one of the concerns that pig farmers have about this issue.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I agree.

I know that the Minister is busy with the foot-andmouth-disease crisis. Believe it or not, we are sympathetic to the Minister. The fact that we ask awkward questions does not mean that we are trying to get at her. However, our constituents are concerned about the issues we are raising on their behalf. There are 500 farmers out there, and 420 of them are not very happy. It would be useful if the Minister could make a statement to the House at some stage on the out-goers scheme. It would be appropriate if the Minister could set out what has happened so far and the way forward as the Department sees it and allow the House the opportunity to ask questions about it.

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

I would like to thank all Members for their contributions. I understand the concerns that many of them have about this scheme, which was long in gestation.

With regard to Dr Paisley’s comments, the applications accepted were based on a UK-wide tendering process. That meant we had to accept the cheapest bids. There could not be any question of regional shares for Northern Ireland, or anywhere else, but I can confirm that the out-goers’ bids so far show that Northern Ireland has received approximately the proportion that we should have, based on sow numbers. That may well not be proportionate to our problem, but it is proportionate to our sow numbers.

Taking Mr Savage’s points next, I have already said that we will get our share based on applications to date. There will be a second chance for others in the mark II out-goers scheme. The Member asked me to broaden my mind regarding the loans scheme. I think that my mind has always been pretty broad, but in relation to loans scheme, there is the little matter of the EU state aids regulations.

12.00

With regard to comments made by Mr Savage and Mr McGrady, the next issue is the need for a grant scheme for Northern Ireland pig farmers. I have said many times that I cannot hand money out without EU state aids approval. Although I would like to do that, it would be illegal. As Members will know from my remarks earlier today, I am not prepared to act illegally for the pig farmers or for any other farmers. I thank Mr Bradley for his comments and his support for this scheme.

Mr McHugh raised a number of issues. I accept that the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme is complicated. That was necessary in order to satisfy the EU that we are not simply handing out money to farmers who might go and increase their pig production, which would be adding to our problems. My officials have tried to help farmers to comply with the scheme and are happy to continue to do so. Mr McHugh’s point about co-operatives is noted, but it was merely an observation rather than a question. It has been made in the past by many people, including Mr McHugh.

I fully agree with Mr Kane’s comments regarding the delay in approving the restructuring scheme. The delay was both inexcusable and frustrating, both for me as Minister and also for the people who are waiting for it. However, neither Nick Brown nor myself were in the driving seat on this. I have pressed Mr Brown on numerous occasions to exert pressure on the European Commission to speed it up. The other points made by Mr Kane about the cost of stalls and tethers are points that have been made in the past. I have dealt with them before.

I am grateful for Mr Poots’s welcome for the restructuring scheme. It is not possible or, indeed, necessary to reallocate cash from the on-goers scheme to out-goers. The budget that we have is the maximum available. Many of the bids were low, thus allowing us to achieve the reductions at a lower price. Mr Shannon asked whether unsuccessful bidders in the out-goers scheme could reapply. The answer is that they can.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Pig Industry Restructuring (Capital Grant) Scheme (Northern Ireland) 2001 (Statutory Rule 2001 No 90) be approved.

Companies (1986 Order) (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That the draft Companies (1986 Order) (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

We are here today to debate the Regulations that propose to change the existing law on the audit of company accounts. They are made under the powers in article 265 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. The purpose of this proposal is threefold. First, to raise the threshold for audit exemption from its current level of £350,000 to £1 million. We are concerned that the Regulations placed on businesses not be overly burdensome, particularly to our smaller businesses. Hence, the Regulations we are debating today will reduce those burdens.

In the light of consultation by the Department of Trade and Industry in London, we are persuaded that the balance of argument favours moving the turnover threshold for audit to £1 million a year figure as a first step. We are aware that the independent company law review is specifically addressing whether some other, less burdensome form of assurance could replace the full audit for companies with an annual turnover of between £1 million and £4·8 million. That is the maximum turnover figure permitted under European rules. The review will make its final recommendation on this "lighter touch" independent assurance later this year. We have not as yet taken a view on this.

Secondly, the Regulations simplify the law relating to dormant companies — that is, companies which are still on the register but which have had no significant accounting transactions during the period. They dispense with the requirement that dormant companies must pass a special resolution to gain exemption from audit, but they do allow one if 10% or more shareholders so require. The Regulations allow certain payments required of all companies to be made to the Companies Registry while status remains dormant.

Thirdly, the Regulations require that a dormant company acting as an agent for a third party must disclose its agency status in its annual accounts.

There is little doubt that these proposals will be warmly welcomed by the business community as a means of getting rid of burdens and removing unnecessary irritations. I want to emphasise also that the changes reflect a careful assessment of the relative costs and benefits.

It may help if I give some explanation of how we reached our conclusions. Regarding the audit exemption and the background to it, I turn first to the increase in the threshold. The Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 introduced a requirement that all companies should not only file their accounts with Companies Registry, but that those accounts should be accompanied by a report signed by a registered independent auditor.

On three occasions in the 1980s the Department of Trade and Industry in London consulted on whether the audit requirement should be kept for all companies. On each occasion it was decided to retain the status quo.

The first cautious step was taken in 1995, with the exemption of very small private companies from the audit, while those with turnovers of between £90,000 and £350,000 were given the option of filing a similar report in place of the full audit report. This regime was considered unsatisfactory and was abolished in 1997. The current position is, therefore, that only companies with a turnover of above £350,000 are subject to a full statutory audit.

The typical cost of an audit for a business with a turnover of around £1 million is between £1,000 and £1,500. With regard to the effects of amending the audit Regulations, we estimate that the increase in the threshold to £1 million will enable approximately 3,000 more Northern Ireland companies to take advantage of exemption from audit, leading to annual savings of £3 million to £4·5 million. Research suggests, however, that only half of the companies eligible to take advantage of exemption might be expected to do so. In that case, annual savings would be between £1·5 million and £2·25 million. The important point is that those companies will have a choice to make in the light of their own particular circumstances.

The proposals change neither the existing minority shareholders’ safeguard that 10% of shareholders can require an audit, nor the treatment of groups of companies, where a parent or a subsidiary company may take advantage of the exemption only if the total turnover of the group does not exceed the threshold for individual company exemptions. The Regulations also preserve the existing separate regime for charities.

If approved by Assembly Members, the new threshold will apply for financial periods ending two months or more after the Regulations come into operation.

Regarding dormant companies, article 260 of the 1986 Companies Order draws a distinction between those companies which are actively trading and those which are not. We estimated that some 2,000 companies have dormant status — often incorporated to protect a company or brand name, or whose only purpose is to own an asset, such as the freehold of a building. Many dormant companies are in groups and would not otherwise be eligible for audit exemption. In March 1999 the Department of Trade and Industry published a consultative document on the legislative framework for dormant companies, which set out proposals to reduce the costs involved in running a dormant company. A large majority of respondents agreed with the proposals for simplification of the law.

On the proposals concerning agent companies, most respondents agreed that where a dormant company acted as an agent for another company, some action was needed to make it clear to a third party.

It is certainly legal to act in this way, but it can be confusing or misleading to a third party. Just over half agreed with the proposal that companies acting as agents should be required to declare their agency status in an annual report.

I hope that it is clear from what I have said that the consultation by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on these proposals has led to a package of measures which are practical and appropriate, which relieve unnecessary burdens on smaller companies and which have the broad support of the business community. I can confirm that in my view the amendments to the 1986 Order proposed in these Regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

In our modern economy, small companies are increasingly the vehicles of sustained economic growth and job creation. It is therefore vital that we reduce unnecessary burdens on them. The Regulations are a significant step in that direction. They help to make an appropriate and equitable regulatory framework for business.

I commend the Regulations to the Assembly.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. The pertinent phrase was in the last sentence or two — "reduce unnecessary burdens". The proposals that he has outlined make sense, and a serious or legal audit should only be required where it is absolutely necessary. In my view, a full audit is certainly not essential for small businesses with a turnover of less than £1 million. Such a company will still have to do its accounts, but the problem has been the legalities and obligations imposed on it. The Minister mentioned a figure of between £1,000 and £1,500 as a possible audit figure. However, in my experience, the cost can be between £3,000 and £4,000 by the time all the documents are completed and all the Regulations that go along with the audit are complied with. The protection still exists through the suggestion that 10% of a minority shareholding can seek an audit if it is required or if there is any suggestion of underhand dealing.

The Regulations will remove a threat, burden and responsibility from small companies and allow them to get on with doing what they do best. It is up to them to meet the bookkeeping requirements. Companies will still have a choice. The Regulations proposed by the Minister are very commendable, and I hope that in the future we can look at methods of further reducing the burden on small businesses.

As the Minister has rightly suggested, even in the large US economy, growth is taking place in the small business sector, for example, where 10-person companies are expanding to become 20-person companies. The growth is not taking place at multinational level because those companies have grown almost as much as they can. This is a good start, but I urge the Minister not to leave this where he has left it today. Rather he should look at other technical means of reducing the burdens of bureaucracy and bookkeeping and the other stresses on small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our economy.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I broadly welcome the proposals made by the Minister. If he manages during his tenure of office to cut through much of the red tape that burdens small companies in Northern Ireland, he will have done something which will make a contribution to the economic development of the Province and provide new jobs.

I well remember starting out in life as an accountant. I realised that I found it as interesting as being an undertaker and that it was not for me. After three or four months in — I will not name the company —

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

He got sacked.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I certainly was not sacked. I discovered that I was not a number cruncher, so I gave up.

During that time — 25 years ago — I carried out audits at very small companies. Although Sir Reg Empey has said that the average cost of an audit for a small company is between £1,000 and £1,500, that is not a true picture. I recall the amount of work and staff time that companies had to devote to having the paperwork ready for our arrival. Therefore the real cost, including that of staff time, is much higher than £1,500.

I welcome the fact that the limit for a compulsory audit has been raised from £350,000 to £1 million. This could free 3,000 companies from the burden of an audit. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee brought departmental officials to one of its meetings and questioned them closely about this, and we were satisfied that this was a good move. I am also content because I do not feel that an audit system for a small company works. The number of cases of skulduggery unveiled through an audit is very small. I asked the officials to tell me when a company was last prosecuted as a result of the findings of an auditor, and nobody could remember. Therefore, the audit of small companies seems to be a totally unnecessary piece of red tape which is burdening those companies and achieving nothing. I also welcome the removal of the need for a special exemption motion for dormant companies.

Representatives of small businesses, in a recent presentation to the Assembly, said that the two factors that drag down the expansion of small companies in Northern Ireland are red tape and bank charges. If the Minister can make a dent in those two problems, he will achieve real growth in this economy because, as the hon Member for South Belfast, Dr McDonnell said, the real potential for increased employment in the Province is through small companies.

According to a fascinating statistic in the United States, the country’s top 100 companies have had a net gain of nil in employment there. The huge surge in economic growth in the United States has been almost entirely in the field of small companies with fewer than 500 staff. In that country, one of the main reasons for that has been the cutting of red tape and the ending of unnecessary bureaucracy. If this is a step in the right direction, it is very much to be welcomed.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I have listened carefully to hon Members’ comments, and I thank them. This is a deregulatory measure. I appreciate that much of what the Government ask the private sector to do constitutes a direct charge on those companies because time is money. However, it is essential that we find out certain pieces of information in order to provide a service, though we have been searching the entire system for ways to reduce the burden. I take the point that Dr McDonnell and Mr Wells made about the costs involved. The figures quoted here are, I suppose, the sort of invoice figure that you might expect, but, as Members have said, they do not take into account management time and preparation et cetera.

I would not want the impression to be given that we are trying to relieve companies of the requirement to produce accounts, because companies need to know what is happening for their own benefit. In many cases lenders require certain information, and it may very well be that lenders will require audits. If that is the case, it is a matter for an individual company, but some small companies do not require this audit and there has been no significant evidence of large-scale fraud. The proposal is, therefore, appropriate.

Members may ask why we do not go further. We may go further, but we will wait for the outcome of the review. Mr Wells also referred to bank charges. I attended a recent seminar in the Long Gallery at which these matters were highlighted. I am very conscious of them and, at the moment, we are considering approaching the banks. One gentleman who was at that seminar earns a living by saving his clients from losing money through bank charges. This would not be possible if overcharging did not take place. How else could he make a living out of saving companies’ money?

Something is not quite right, and that will have to be followed up vigorously. As Mr Wells said, any charge on a company is money directly off the bottom line; it is money that is not available to reinvest or available for research or any form of development. Therefore we are obliged to try to find ways of simplifying matters and assisting these companies. This would be far better than having to go through a complicated grant procedure that involves significant costs to the public and even further regulation. If we can make things more cost- effective, everybody will benefit. I hope these Regulations will make a good start.

If I have not responded to all relevant questions, I will pick them up later. I appreciate the support voiced by the Committee and other hon Members for these measures which I hope will make some small contribution to the added efficiency of many of our small businesses.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Companies (1986 Order) (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 be approved.

Assembly Commissioner for Standards

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the findings and conclusions contained in the first report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges — ‘Inquiry into the Possible Appointment of an Assembly Commissioner for Standards’ (01/00/R) — and calls for all appropriate arrangements to be put in place by the Assembly Commission, the Speaker’s Office and other relevant Assembly Committees to ensure implementation of the recommendations.

As Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I am pleased to bring before the Assembly the Committee’s first report, which contains the findings and conclusions stemming from its inquiry into the possible appointment of an Assembly commissioner for standards. I am particularly pleased that the report enjoys the unanimous support of the Committee, and I am grateful to the members of the Committee for their assistance, hard work and contribution. I also thank the various witnesses, most of whom were from legislatures throughout the British Isles, who attended the Committee to provide oral evidence.

Following its establishment on 15 December 1999, the Committee received several complaints from Assembly Members about the conduct of other Members. The Committee carried out initial investigations of these complaints, but it soon became apparent that the investigation process had certain limitations and disadvantages. It was unclear what constituted a complaints investigation, and there was no provision for detailed investigations. The Committee was not empowered to decide what further action the Assembly should take when a complaint was upheld. Despite its powers to investigate, the fact that the Committee had no clear sanctions or penalties to recommend to the Assembly in that event tended to limit its operation and effectiveness.

It was against this background that in June 2000 the Committee resolved to undertake an inquiry into the possible appointment of an Assembly commissioner for standards who would be responsible for investigating complaints against Members of the Assembly. In the course of this inquiry the Committee considered and reported on the role and responsibilities of an Assembly commissioner for standards; his or her relationship with the Committee; the arrangements for reporting the findings of the Committee to the Assembly; the powers of, and sanctions that could be recommended by, the Committee; and the impact of the Committee’s findings on the Standing Orders of the Assembly.

In conducting the inquiry, the Committee heard evidence from a wide range of individuals from Parliaments, Assemblies and other organisations with experience and expertise in parliamentary standards and privileges and the parliamentary investigation of complaints.

The Committee took evidence from, among others, representatives of the House of Commons Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the Welsh Assembly’s Independent Adviser on Standards of Conduct, the Scottish Parliament’s Standards Committee and the Dáil Éireann’s Select Committee on Members’ Interests. The Committee also examined several systems for dealing with complaints against parliamentarians in a wide range of Parliaments, Assemblies, and legislatures in different countries. I shall outline the Committee’s key findings and conclusions in each of the areas that I mentioned. Some of my Committee Colleagues will speak in greater detail about the issues arising from the inquiry.

The fundamental issue considered by the Committee was whether it would be appropriate, in principle and in practice, to recommend to the Assembly that a commissioner for standards should be appointed to investigate complaints against Members. The Committee was mindful of the problems and difficulties that it had encountered while investigating the small number of complaints against Members that were referred to it. The evidence given by several witnesses reinforced those concerns.

Most witnesses were strongly in favour of having some kind of system to investigate complaints against Members that was independent of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. One reason put forward was that it was important for the credibility of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and of the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that complaints against Members were investigated — and seen to be investigated — in a fair, unbiased and non-party- political way. It was also felt that the establishment of an independent investigative process would increase public confidence in the commitment of the Committee and the Assembly to ensuring the maintenance of high levels of probity on the part of Members in conducting their affairs as public representatives, inside and outside the Assembly.

The Committee concluded that it should recommend to the Assembly that a commissioner for standards be appointed to investigate complaints against Members. If the Assembly endorses the Committee’s recommendation that there should be a commissioner for standards, we shall approach the Assembly Commission to discuss the process of recruiting a commissioner and decide on the terms and conditions of employment associated with such an appointment. I urge the Commission to work closely with the Committee to make an appointment as soon as possible.

Having determined the need for a commissioner for standards, the Committee felt that the primary role of the commissioner should be to investigate complaints against Members. It is anticipated that the type of complaints that would be referred to the commissioner for standards would routinely include matters relating to alleged breach of privilege; specific complaints about Members in relation to the registration or declaration of interests; and matters relating to the conduct of Assembly Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches of the Assembly’s code of conduct. To ensure the effectiveness of the commissioner, the Committee agreed that, if necessary, it would use its powers under Standing Orders to send for persons, papers and records.

The Committee, in considering the role and responsibility of a commissioner for standards, focused directly on the importance of having an independent means of investigating complaints against Members. That is crucial if Members are to be sure that complaints against them will be investigated in an impartial and non-party-political way. The Committee also considered that the appointment of a commissioner to investigate complaints would promote the credibility and integrity of the investigative process, the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Committee decided that the limited role proposed for the Assembly commissioner for standards should be subject to review in the light of experience. However, the Committee did not rule out an extension of the commissioner’s role and responsibilities to include making recommendations about sanctions and penalties, advising and guiding Members on the registration and declaration of interests, and compiling, maintaining and making accessible the Register of Members’ Interests.

The Committee spent a considerable time examining the relationship between the commissioner and the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Committee wished to strike a balance between the independence of the commissioner and the authority of the Committee and, ultimately, the Assembly.

Key witnesses all stressed the importance of the commissioner’s being, and being seen to be, independent from the Committee and the Assembly when investigating complaints. That independence was seen to be crucial to enable the commissioner to investigate complaints in an unbiased and fair manner. That is also important to promote public confidence in the investigative process.

In taking evidence, the Committee also noted that several individuals who investigate complaints in other Parliaments and Assemblies had resigned directorships and memberships of political parties, or other affiliations, if that was considered to prejudice their perceived impartiality. The Committee intends to discuss that matter in detail with the Assembly Commission, if the Assembly agrees that a commissioner for standards should be appointed.

The Committee agreed that the commissioner would report his or her findings on all complaints to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The commissioner’s report would also be submitted to the Assembly under cover of a report from the Committee.

As part of its inquiry, the Committee also considered the extent of the powers of the Committee and the sanctions or penalties that it can recommend to the Assembly. The Committee was concerned that, although it had some power to investigate Members, there was a lack of clarity on what, if any, sanctions or penalties the Committee could recommend that the Assembly impose on a Member if a complaint were upheld by the Committee.

The Committee was clear that in serious cases it is essential that it should be able to recommend the imposition of some kind of sanction or penalty. If that is not the case, the process of investigating and reporting on complaints will be of limited value and the concept and practice of the Assembly’s regulating its affairs will seem to be ineffective.

The issue of penalties and sanctions against Members is referred to in section 43(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and there is provision in the Act for those powers to be included in the Assembly’s Standing Orders. Unfortunately that has not yet been done. The Committee is therefore strongly of the view that Standing Orders and, indeed, the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members should be amended to empower the Committee to recommend the imposition of a limited range of sanctions or penalties in cases where a serious complaint is upheld against a Member.

If Standing Orders were amended to incorporate the provisions of the Act, the Committee would be in a position, when required, to recommend to the Assembly that a Member be excluded from proceedings and/or that his or her rights and privileges be withdrawn for that period of exclusion. A recommendation of that nature from the Committee would be made if a Member failed to register an interest, financial or otherwise, failed to declare an interest before taking part in proceedings relating to such an interest or breached the rules of advocacy.

In proposing these changes to the Assembly’s Standing Orders, the Committee acknowledges the need to discuss the issues raised with the Committee on Procedures. I encourage members of that Committee to support our desire to put in place arrangements that will ensure implementation of my Committee’s recommendations.

The Committee believes that the recommendations in this report will go a long way towards demonstrating to our electorate the commitment of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Assembly itself to the highest level of probity on the part of Members in conducting their business inside and outside the Assembly. I sincerely hope that the report will receive widespread support in the Assembly.

Finally, I thank the Clerk to the Committee, who is ill at this time, the replacement Clerk and the staff for their hard work and valuable support in helping the Committee to present the report. I invite Members to support the motion.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Committee agreed unanimously that there is a need to appoint an Assembly commissioner for standards. The Committee also made recommendations on the role of the commissioner and the way that role would interact with the Committee to maintain standards and public confidence in the Assembly.

I express my appreciation to the witnesses who appeared before the Committee, and I would like to particularly thank the Clerk of the Committee, Mr John Torney, and his staff for their work throughout the evidence-gathering period. I valued their guidance and assistance, and I hope that John will make a full and speedy recovery.

At the outset, the Committee on Standards and Privileges received a stream of mostly minor unsubstantiated complaints against Members. Most of those were dealt with speedily. It became apparent that there would be practical difficulties if the Committee had to gather evidence for a more serious case. There is a need for clarification and certainty about how detailed investigations should be carried out and what sanctions the Committee could recommend.

It is essential that we progress and improve our system of regulation. I will be concentrating on the relationship between the commissioner and the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

It is important to strike a balance between the independence of the commissioner, when investigating and reporting to the Committee, and the authority of the Committee, and indeed, the Northern Ireland Assembly, in making the final judgement and determining the appropriate penalty.

Those who investigate complaints must be unbiased and fair and must also be perceived to be so. The Committee believes that it would not be possible for a Member to carry out the role of commissioner because of the political or other relevant affiliations that might bring their impartiality into question.

We propose that, in order to maintain public confidence in the process, all complaints be passed to the Clerk of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in writing. The Clerk would log the complaints, pass them to the commissioner for consideration and then advise the Committee, which would have no role in sifting complaints.

In a case where the commissioner determines, on the basis of a preliminary investigation, that the complaint is of a trivial nature, he will advise the Committee that no further action is required. That will minimise the possible abuse of the system by political opponents and maintain maximum public confidence.

Members agreed that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should not question decisions by the commissioner in trivial cases.

When the commissioner determines that a detailed investigation is required, we would request that the Clerk and the Committee be advised of the likely timescale and the progress that is being made. Several witnesses recommended that, in order to protect the Member under scrutiny, the Committee, and the commissioner, would submit no intermediate reports because such information could lead to ill-informed press speculation about the final outcome.

The commissioner will submit the completed report to the Committee and, having given the commissioner independence in making the report, we recommend that the authority to make a judgement remains with the Committee and the Northern Ireland Assembly. As in other places, the Committee should be empowered to request additional information from the commissioner and to question additional witnesses should it decide that that is necessary. The Committee will then assume responsibility for publishing the commissioner’s report, as well as its covering report.

Lessons may be learned in the future and the Committee has, therefore, included in its report the need to review practices. I recommend the Committee’s report as the best practice that we are aware of, considering our limited experience to date. I urge Members to support the motion, and the relevant Committees and the Assembly Commission to progress this matter as quickly as possible.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

This is the Committee’s first report and if it is implemented it will serve to underscore the need for Assembly Members to ensure the highest level of probity in conducting their affairs inside and outside the Chamber. There have been remarkably few complaints made to the Committee since it was set up.

I visited the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament over the past couple of months. The people there were amazed when they heard how few complaints had been levelled against Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

In the Scottish Parliament complaints are running at about one a week, and in the Welsh Assembly the relevant Committee is kept very busy dealing with complaints. However, there have only been five or six minor complaints in the entire lifespan of the Northern Ireland Assembly and none have occurred in the past 18 months. When preparing for this speech I tried to think why this was. I can only think that it is because of the calming influence of the DUP in the Assembly — it ensures that everyone is extremely well behaved. There is absolutely no doubt that had the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly had the benefit of the sanctifying influence of Dr Paisley and William McCrea, they too would be very well behaved.

The report has the unanimous support of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. We are grateful to all the witnesses — including those from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly — for their evidence. I thank the Committee staff for their assistance in the inquiry. We should place on record our debt of gratitude to John Torney, who, unfortunately, has been ill recently. I understand that he is recovering well. The document is a testimony to his efforts. My Colleague Mr Beggs explained the relationship between the commissioner and the Committee. My comments will concentrate briefly on the proposed arrangements for reporting the findings of the Committee to the Assembly following investigations by the commissioner for standards.

Following the commissioner’s investigation into a complaint, the findings and recommendations will be presented to the Committee through the Clerk of Standards. The Committee will report that either the outcome of the case is trivial in nature and requires only preliminary investigation — indeed, that has been the situation with all the complaints that have been made to date — or that the results are such that the complaint requires a detailed investigation. In the case of trivial complaints the Committee will report the commissioner’s findings to the Assembly. That will be accompanied by a statement confirming that the Committee accepts the commissioner’s recommendation and that no further action is required.

In the case of complaints that require detailed investigation, the commissioner’s report will be submitted to the Assembly under cover of a report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Committee’s covering report will detail its consideration of the commissioner’s findings and conclusions, its decision on whether the Committee has upheld the complaint and a recommendation to the Assembly on the appropriate sanction or penalty.

It is essential that the highest standards of probity be maintained in the Assembly. They must also be seen to be maintained. Therefore an independent commissioner is vital. There are those who have argued that, because of the level of complaints, perhaps we do not need a commissioner. The presence of a commissioner should ensure that there will be few complaints. That person must be someone of the highest possible standing — someone who is totally independent and impartial. The appointment will underscore people’s confidence in the Assembly. I believe that we will continue to have a situation where there will be little cause for complaint.

I urge Members to support the motion in the name of Mr McClelland. It has the unanimous support of members of the Committee. It has been a smoothly run and amicable Committee, and we agreed on almost every point of the report. I highly recommend it to the House, and I hope that it will have the unanimous support of everyone here today.

Pat McNamee (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an rún agus mo thacaíocht a thabhairt don tuairisc ó Choiste Caighdeán agus Pribhléidí an Tionóil. I too endorse the report and support the motion from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Members have outlined the broad role of the Committee. It deals with matters of privilege for Assembly Members, the work of the Clerk of Standards and the arrangements for compiling and maintaining the Register of Members’ Interests. The Committee’s role also involves the consideration of complaints relating to the registration and declaration of Members’ interests, the conduct or misconduct of Members, and breaches of the code of conduct for Members.

When the Committee on Standards and Privileges considered the small number of complaints referred to it, it became clear that there was no clear outline, guideline or procedure on how the Committee should proceed to investigate a complaint. The investigative powers of the Committee were not clearly defined.

I will focus on the range of sanctions which may be applied to a Member if a complaint is made against him. Neither the Standing Orders of the Assembly nor the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members empowers the Committee to recommend a sanction if a complaint is made against a Member. Standing Orders enable the Committee to investigate complaints which have been referred to it and to summon Members to respond to the complaint.

Section 43 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 allows for Standing Orders to include sanctions against Members, but our Standing Orders do not, at present, make provision for such action. The Act allows for Standing Orders to make provision for the exclusion of Members from proceedings and the withdrawal of their rights and privileges during exclusion.

In considering this issue together with the role of the Assembly commissioner, how he would work with the Committee and how the Committee would report to the Assembly, we heard very useful evidence from other sources. These included representatives from the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament. Their evidence was particularly useful because, fairly recently, these institutions have also had to deal with the issue of standards and privileges and the investigation of complaints.

We also had witnesses from Dáil Éireann, the Select Committee on Members’ Interests and the House of Commons. We heard particularly useful evidence from Elizabeth Filkin, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in the House of Commons.

Having considered the range of evidence, the Committee concluded that, in its report to the Assembly, it should recommend that the Standing Orders be amended — in particular, Standing Order 57 — to enable the Committee, when a complaint has been investigated by the commissioner and the commissioner has reported, to recommend to the Assembly that sanctions be imposed. The Committee also recommended that these sanctions should be particularly applicable in cases where there has been an allegation that a Member has failed to register certain interests, or to declare such interests while taking part in proceedings, and where a Members is alleged to have breached the rule of advocacy or the Code of Conduct for Members. It would also be necessary to amend the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members to accommodate the Committee’s recommendations to the Assembly in cases where sanctions may be imposed. Therefore, I recommend that the Assembly support the motion and accept the report.

I thank, in particular, the Committee staff and those who provided us with very useful evidence. Most witnesses came to visit us in Parliament Buildings, thus making it much more convenient. Go raibh maith agat.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

As a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I am pleased to support the motion. As has been said, the aim is to ensure the highest levels of integrity in the conduct of affairs both inside and outside the Assembly. It is unfortunately the case that in recent years there have been several instances of behaviour by members of other bodies, namely the House of Commons and Dáil Éireann, which have come to the attention of the general public for all the wrong reasons. This Assembly is a new authority, and now is the time to say that wrongdoing is totally unacceptable.

The highest standards are expected of public representatives, and rightly so. We must put in place a system whereby wrongdoing by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly will not be tolerated, and neither will unwarranted allegations of wrongdoing. It is regrettable that we have to consider a system of sanctions and penalties, while at the same time hoping that they will never have to be implemented.

I accept that in the event of our agreeing to the appointment of a commissioner, it is necessary to give some teeth to a revised Code of Conduct. Putting all these arrangements in place will need much further work, not least by way of consultation with other interested parties. It is important that the Assembly Commission and other Assembly Committees, such as the Committee on Procedures, are actively involved in this consultation process. I urge those interested parties to work with our Committee to secure the full implementation of our recommendation.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Committee for their very dedicated work in helping members to draw up this report. I thank our Chairman, Deputy Chairman and the members of the Committee for working harmoniously together. I also thank the range of witnesses who contributed to our work. In conclusion, I thank the Clerk of the Committee, Mr John Torney, who has been taken unwell recently. I join with others to wish John a speedy recovery. I recommend that Members support the motion.

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

I am very pleased with the response to the report, and I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. The Committee decided that in presenting the report to the Assembly, it would attempt to cover the key sections of the report among members in some depth, and so demonstrate the cross-party support for the recommendations. In particular, I thank my Committee Colleagues for their contribution and support during the debate.

My Deputy Chairman, Mr Roy Beggs, gave us a very helpful explanation of how a commissioner for standards would work alongside the Committee on Standards and Privileges. He quite rightly stressed the crucial need for the commissioner to be able to investigate complaints in an unbiased and fair way, and so to ensure public confidence in the Committee’s investigative process.

Mr Wells commented on the small number of complaints. I hope that he is not signalling in any way that that will change in the near future. He spoke on, among other things, the arrangements for reporting the findings of the Committee following an investigation by the commissioner. In doing so, he helpfully re-emphasised the role of the Assembly in the self-regulation of Members.

I want to say a brief word about the opportunity or facility to appeal against a decision reached by the Assembly. The Committee considered this issue at the time of the inquiry and agreed that, at present, the best system for the Assembly is to be self-regulatory and operate self-discipline, as the Members are best able to weigh up and evaluate the gravity of the offence. The Committee believes that it is the responsibility of Members to maintain the good name and integrity of the Assembly.

Mr McNamee covered on behalf of the Committee, and quite rightly stressed, the important issue of the powers or sanctions that can be recommended by the Committee to the Assembly in the event of a complaint against a Member being upheld. It is important to the operational effectiveness of the commissioner and the Committee that provision is made for appropriate sanctions and penalties to be made by the Assembly. This point was again taken up by Mr McCarthy, who helpfully highlighted the impact of the Committee’s findings on Standing Orders and the Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members. This shows the importance of the Committee on Standards and Privileges needing to work with other Assembly Committees. I repeat the words of my Colleagues and urge the Committee on Procedures to assist us in the implementation of our recommendations.

Finally, I want again to thank everyone who contributed to the debate and commend the motion to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly approves the findings and conclusions contained in the first report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges —‘Inquiry into the Possible Appointment of an Assembly Commissioner for Standards’ (01/00/R) — and calls for all appropriate arrangements to be put in place by the Assembly Commission, the Speaker’s Office and other relevant Assembly Committees to ensure implementation of the recommendations.

The sitting was suspended at 12.56 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Executive Programme Funds: First Allocations

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on first allocations from the Executive programme funds.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will make a statement on behalf of the Executive on the first set of allocations from the Executive programme funds. I will also touch on the outcome of the final routine public expenditure monitoring round for the financial year that has just ended.

The Assembly will recall that a key innovation in our first Programme for Government and Budget was the creation of Executive programme funds. Our aim was to assist the development of new policies and programmes and new improved services as well as directing spending to new strategic infrastructure projects. By marshalling our resources in that way we are determined to support our agreed priorities and we can break away from the patterns of spending that applied under the period of direct rule and see — more and more — the difference that devolution involving local politicians working together can make.

We are all aware that the problems that our constituents face can only be addressed by close co-operation between Departments and by us finding local solutions to local problems. These funds are a key instrument in promoting co-operation between Departments and making them address multi-dimensional issues in a cross-cutting way. That is how we will ensure that our focus is on those whom we are trying to help and what we are trying to achieve and not on those responsible for delivery or management.

We established five Executive programme funds to achieve that change: the social inclusion and community regeneration fund, the new directions fund, the infrastructure and capital renewal fund, the service modernisation fund and the children’s fund. In total we have made resources amounting to £372 million available for these funds over the next three years.

This includes the amounts originally announced in October, which we have since supplemented when possible, most recently by adding £10 million from the February monitoring round, which I will come to later.

The Executive regard these funds as a major means to support and promote the priorities of this Administration. At the same time the Executive recognise that the creation of the funds signals a new way of working together that will take time to mature. We decided therefore to have two rounds of allocations on the funds this year. This will allow time for experience to be gained in operating the funds without committing all the resources available immediately. It will also make time for potentially very valuable proposals to be properly developed and considered at a later stage.

However, in the case of the infrastructure and capital renewal fund, it is necessary to commit resources in good time to permit investment to proceed. This means that, by and large, only a single and early allocation is feasible each year. This is reflected in my announcement today.

The purposes for the funds were set out fully in the Programme for Government and Budget documents in the autumn. The criteria we adopted to guide the processes of bidding and selection have recently been issued to the Assembly Committees. Bids were sought in January on the basis of clear guidelines to Departments describing the principles underlying the funds and including both the general criteria applicable to bids for any fund and the more specific points covering each fund separately. In total, Departments lodged 139 bids across the five funds totalling £581 million over three years, more than the total resources available in the funds, and well in excess of the amounts we intended to allocate in the first round.

All bids have been scrutinised carefully and measured against the criteria for the funds by the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and the Equality Unit working closely with all the Departments. Among other things, an assessment was made of the consistency of the proposals with the principles of New TSN and the statutory equality duty under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Executive have been able to draw on this analysis in considering all the bids.

For the first tranche of allocations from the Executive programme funds in the 2001-02 financial year, the Executive consider that 62 proposals should be supported across the five funds. In total, this support would amount to £146 million over the next three years. In addition, the proposals announced last week by the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment will be funded from the new directions fund. A full list of the allocations has been circulated to Members, along with a copy of my statement.

Before going into the details of the allocation to each fund, I would like to give Members an overview of what we are aiming to achieve in the first tranche in strengthening the implementation of the priorities in the Programme for Government.

The priorities which we adopted in the Programme for Government were: "Growing as a community", "Working for a healthier people", "Investing in education and schools", "Securing a competitive economy" and "Development North/South, east/west and international relations". When the Assembly commented on the draft programme, Members gave a strong emphasis on the needs of young people, a theme that is found in our first three priorities. It was in the light of such views that we placed greater emphasis on children in the revised programme which the Assembly endorsed last month and committed ourselves to a new children’s strategy.

This focus on the needs of young people is central to my announcements today, with over one third of the projects focused on the young. This is clearly the case in the specific bids on the children’s fund, but there are many other bids, under three other funds, that will make a major difference to the future of young people. A key aim is to protect the vulnerable and ensure that education is open to all, including those who might otherwise fall out of education.

The second main area on which we are making a major focus is improved health and improved health services. That is central to our overall priority of working for a healthier people. A quarter of our Executive programme fund projects are in this area. We will invest in healthier communities. A key part of our public health strategy is seeking to focus much more on the prevention of ill health. We will also start to develop hospital accommodation and use new technology and projects to improve the quality of service.

The third focus in our allocations is on promoting growth as a community, a further Programme for Government priority. We will start new pilots to see how housing estates can work together to tackle health, education and training needs, and build better community infrastructure working with district councils. We are also making a further allocation to fund the Executive’s new victims strategy.

The fourth area on which the Executive have placed special emphasis is securing a competitive economy. For this purpose, major investment is needed from the Executive. We have started to invest further in transport infrastructure through the major roads schemes, ensuring that some of the major routes in Northern Ireland are developed effectively. That is on top of the extra investment in railways announced in the Budget as a pre-allocation from the infrastructure fund.

We are also determined to find a new sustainable future for our rural economy and new opportunities for tourism, an area where it is essential that we invest for a new future. We have backed new innovative schemes to help rural areas and assist tourist fishing. We will develop our creative industries through new seed funding, seeking to encourage new skills and new employment in this growing sector.

Finally, the Programme for Government emphasises the importance of investing in modern services to update the quality of our services, laying the foundations for e-government. The Executive programme funds allocations will provide the basis for more accessible, modern services. They include actions to modernise aspects of the Health Service. We are also investing in the core hardware and software, so that the Executive can provide new e-government services. There is also action to develop our libraries as key electronic centres for the public, while also producing a new electronic job market.

We are also determined to explore, creatively and imaginatively, the scope for new sources of funds to contribute to the necessary investment, especially in infrastructure. We know that there are no panaceas or magic bullets. Misconceptions and misunderstandings concerning private finance initiatives (PFIs) and public-private partnerships (PPPs) need to be resolved. Difficulties and deficiencies need to be overcome. Seemingly attractive options that would only amount to accessing new forms of borrowing are not in themselves the answer, carrying as they do some of the limitations and complications that we must resolve.

The Executive welcome the progress made by Departments, especially the Department of Education, in pursuing new approaches. We have set aside £2 million a year to ensure that the best options are explored and examined to achieve results that have the clear potential to repay that investment in the form of acceleration of PFI and PPP projects.

In short, through these funds and through these 62 projects we have started to make major progress together across Departments on addressing the needs of the young, on improving health, on assisting communities and victims, on securing a better economic future and on modernising our services. We have proved that we can work in a co-ordinated way across Departments to create real change.

I want now to deal briefly with the first tranche of allocations that we propose to make from each of the funds. I will not go into detail on every project but instead concentrate on how these allocations will support the priorities that we have collectively agreed upon as an Executive.

I will begin with the children’s fund, which the Executive have established with the objective of providing support for children in need and young people at risk. Our children are the future, and we are determined to ensure that they have every opportunity to reach their full potential regardless of their circumstances. This fund has offered Departments a further means to demonstrate their support for children and young people, both through their own actions and through working with non-governmental organisations, including the voluntary and community sectors.

The Executive have decided that 12 projects should be supported in the first tranche of allocations from this fund, amounting to £10·5 million over the next three years. Our efforts through this fund have been focused on the most vulnerable and those children and young people in greatest need. We aim to make a significant impact on protecting children by developing specialist residential units, providing residential childcare places and supporting families. We have also recognised the needs of children with disabilities and paid particular attention to helping children who otherwise might fall out of education through a school-age mothers programme, a juvenile justice liaison service, new counselling services for pupils and referral units to support primary education. We will also make a start on the task of redeveloping the Youth Service.

I think that the Assembly will agree that these announcements mean that the children’s fund is off to a good start, but I would emphasise that this is only the start. An interdepartmental working group has been established to work with the voluntary and community sectors to develop potential projects that can be supported by allocations from this fund in the future. I look forward to seeing the ideas that it will bring forward.

I now turn to allocations from the infrastructure and capital renewal fund. The objective that the Executive have set for this fund is to support the development and renewal of strategic assets owned by the public sector or that are used to provide services of utility to the public. It is the largest of the funds in terms of resources and therefore offers the opportunity to make a significant impact on the Executive’s strategic priorities.

In the first tranche of allocations from this fund one of the Executive’s concerns has been to move forward projects that will significantly strengthen the strategic roads network. These vital assets have been neglected, and we are determined to restore them step by step. The projects now supported are on key parts of some strategic routes: the A8 Belfast to Larne route; the Toome bypass, on the main A6 Derry to Belfast route; the A1 at Loughbrickland on the Belfast to Dublin road; and the A4 between Dungannon and Enniskillen. Taken together, they are a major contribution to the process. We have retained significant flexibility in this fund, so that in due course we may be able to consider other projects that will strengthen our strategic transport, energy and telecommunications networks when such projects are at a relevant stage of development.

The fund also has a role in supporting major assets that the community depends upon for vital services. The Executive have therefore authorised support for four additional schools capital projects, comprising two primary schools, a special school and one grammar school — each of these being of top priority within the schools planning lists. We have said that the Executive will support our children and their education, and this is proof of that commitment.

The infrastructure fund will also support very important developments in the Health Service. There is an allocation to provide 13 new homes for residential childcare, with 28 new places and 58 replacement places. Money is being provided to begin the redevelopment of the Ulster Hospital, which is a vital facility for many people. We are also providing a new medium secure unit to cater for the needs of some of the most tragically stricken members of our community. In total, these and other projects being supported from the fund will account for £79 million over the next three years.

The establishment of the new directions fund signalled the Executive’s determination to promote new and innovative ways of developing and delivering public services. The allocations I am announcing from that fund today are preliminary and leave substantially larger amounts for future tranches. This will allow Departments to work together to produce further and, I hope, more distinctive bids on this fund in the future.

In beginning to set a new direction, the allocations from this fund include a seed fund for the creative industries, which will support projects designed to harness creativity and to achieve positive social, cultural, educational and economic outcomes. There are also four projects designed to improve the way the Health Service operates through improving IT and other forms of communication, to ensure that the Health Service can make use of more modern ways of working. This will reduce inefficiency and have benefits for patients that will make a difference.

New directions in education include particular initiatives to promote the social inclusion of children from groups whose first language is not English and for travellers’ children. There is also provision for expanding the number of special places available for secondary age pupils.

The proposals include some important developments in agriculture, including assistance with the development of organic farming, action to minimise pollution from farms, and action to minimise the contribution made by agriculture to the phosphorisation of soils, which is affecting our fresh waters. These follow on from the support for the beef quality scheme, which was announced in the draft Budget statement on 17 October 2000, as a pre-allocation from this fund. There is also provision in support of the road safety strategy.

The Executive are determined to ensure that new directions are taken. At the strategic and detailed levels we want to encourage new ways of doing things within the full range of the public services for which we are responsible. The ideas announced this afternoon will contribute to that objective.

I will now turn to the service modernisation fund. We have sought to find means of promoting efficiency and innovation in the delivery of services by the public sector. Our focus has been on ways to make a difference to the way services are managed and delivered for the ultimate benefit of the public.

The actions proposed include several projects to improve the IT networks in Government. These are badly needed if important functions are to be carried out more efficiently and carefully, thus providing a foundation for work to improve support from Departments for Ministers and for the Assembly, to ensure the most effective and efficient delivery of services to the public.

Modernising the provision of libraries will include new electronic information services. This will represent an important enhancement of the range of services available and has potential for links with the school library system and with the public library system in the South. There is also a proposal to enhance the jobcentre online web site, which will improve online access to job vacancy information and enable clients of the jobcentres to apply for jobs online. This is an important development in electronic government. It will make a significant contribution to the objectives of the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and the Department for Social Development.

Finally, I turn to the fund for social inclusion and community regeneration. As I explained on 12 February, this fund now includes an allocation of £2 million designed to provide a safety net on the issue of gap funding. The main point is that Departments can proceed to deal with the problems of the delay in the structural funds by anticipating that there will be draw-down money from the new round of programmes. This involves a judgement and should Department support something which ultimately does not receive support from the European programmes, this £2 million will provide a safety net from the Executive’s own resources to cover the same purpose.

More widely, the social inclusion/community regeneration fund exists to support actions against poverty and to develop effective community measures in both urban and rural settings, as well as community relations and cultural diversity.

The Executive made an advance allocation from this fund when we provided for a pilot programme of housing schemes — announced in October — designed to meet the needs of travellers. The Executive have decided to support a range of activities under this heading. These include the additional match funding required to fully deliver the LEADER+ programme, which is currently being negotiated with the European Commission.

There are also important developments in the reading recovery programme, which is a fundamental foundation for social inclusion through the education system. The proposals also support action to improve youth services and leaving and aftercare services in conjunction with the Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Other important bids under this fund include actions targeted at the health of travellers, who are among the most excluded groups in our society. They badly need the kind of community-based health system and action on health promotion that is envisaged under the fund. The allocations also include a grant programme for local community-based projects that allow local people to design and manage their own actions in relation to public health, in partnership with voluntary agencies. That is targeted at the most disadvantaged and unhealthy 10% of electoral wards.

The programme also contains a contribution for a new initiative to improve adult literacy and numeracy. Finally, there is support for technical assistance to district councils to help draw up community support plans. That is particularly valuable because, under the proposal, every £1 invested by the Department for Social Development will draw in £4 from district councils for the same objectives.

As we proceed, it is our intention that the social inclusion fund should be increasingly well targeted and impact strategically upon excluded groups. There is much more work to be done on this, and I am sure that Members will wish to feed in views in this debate and in the subsequent consideration of the issues in Assembly Committees, particularly the Committee for Finance and Personnel. There are future funding rounds available that must be developed in order to make this and other funds as effective as possible.

As I said earlier, we were able to augment the provision made in the Budget for the Executive programme funds due to the outcome of the February monitoring round. I have explained in the past that the monitoring rounds are routine readjustments of expenditure plans to take account of the latest available information on spending patterns across public expenditure programmes. The February round is routinely the least significant. One of the main reasons for that is that it always takes place after the allocations in the spring Supplementary Estimates have been finalised. There is usually no scope to reallocate resources between Departments, because that would normally involve a change to the amounts in votes.

At this stage of the financial year there is limited scope to increase spending before the end of the financial year. Thus, the pattern is that some savings normally emerge. That proved to be the case in the recent February monitoring round. Departments declared savings amounting to £24·8 million. Total bids amounted to only £3·2 million. However, a proportion of the savings identified by Departments arose through issues of timing — commitments had been made that could not be fulfilled in the financial year.

In those cases the Executive agreed that subject to Assembly approval of the forthcoming Estimates, some £8·8 million should be carried forward for particular purposes. That included £950,000 for Department of Agriculture and Rural Development programmes, £7 million for some aspects of Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment expenditure and £900,000 for parts of Department of Finance and Personnel expenditure.

In addition, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is considering the possibility of a fishing vessel decommissioning scheme, and some provision has been held in reserve which could be used for that purpose in the 2001-02 financial year. Having covered the few bids that have been lodged by Departments and these amounts for carry-over, the amount remaining was £10 million. The Executive decided that this should be carried forward from 2000-01 into the 2001-02 year and added to the Executive programme funds.

In circumstances where the Executive are conscious of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and its adverse implications on so many fronts, it is prudent not to allocate all the money available from the monitoring round now. The Executive, assisted by the interdepartmental working group chaired by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, will be considering further regional responses to the critical difficulties. Notwithstanding the need to keep these matters under review, I hope that there will be a welcome for the Executive programme funds and monitoring round allocations announced for farming and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development programmes today. Details of the February monitoring reallocations are set out in the tables attached to the copies of the statement, which have been made available to Members.

The Executive have set out to make a difference through the allocation of the Executive programme funds, as I have outlined today. They are beginning to work in new and distinctive ways, and their existence provides a totally new way of drawing together the spending plans of many functions into a more coherent strategic approach.

The Executive began to make this difference in meetings held over recent weeks in preparation for these Executive programme funds allocations today. They have developed a strategy and made themselves more effective. They have also been able to address needs and opportunities in a range of services, including some major investments in capital infrastructure, while keeping a way open for others, which could be equally, if not more, important. The process of working together is increasingly important, given the range of departmental functions, which, in turn, represent a range of opportunities to make a difference for members of the public.

It is important that we maximise the benefits from these funds so as to make the most of the resources that we have, although we do not have enough to do all that we want to. The application of the Barnett formula means that the Treasury does not provide sufficient to match the full range of initiatives that the Government have decided to make affordable elsewhere. The Executive have responded to this problem creatively and imaginatively through these funds. They are determined to use them to make an impact on the way we do business and, most importantly, to make a difference through benefits to the public.

I will be discussing the proposals that I have announced today with the Finance and Personnel Committee. In particular, there will need to be consultation with that Committee on the approach to including these allocations in the Main Estimates. Some changes to detail for technical and other reasons may be required as the process of completing the Main Estimates proceeds over the next number of weeks prior to the deliberations on the next Budget Bill which will take place in late spring or early summer.

On behalf of the Executive, I commend these proposals to the Assembly.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

We have one hour for questions to the Minister. I ask that question and answers be concise so that as many Members as possible may participate. I remind the House that the normal procedure is that points of order are taken at the end of the debate.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, go raibh maith agat. First, I welcome the Minister’s statement today on these rounds and, although the Committee did not have the opportunity — and that is our main concern — of scrutinising and going through the departmental bids in the proper way, it does generally welcome the idea behind the fund itself and the allocations.

The Finance and Personnel Committee has severe concerns about the first round of allocations and the way that they have been managed. Those concerns are at two levels that will be dealt with through questions.

The Committee was unhappy that decisions regarding the allocations under this expenditure were taken with undue haste and insufficiently detailed consideration. Committee members felt that the principle of the funds — that they should be directed towards cross-departmental projects — had been set aside. Members felt that they did not get new and innovative programmes in the lines of departmental bids.

Is the Minister satisfied that the principles set out in the management of the funds have been followed? Is it not true that the Executive Committee’s desire to gain early and positive publicity from the scheme — for which no justification has been forthcoming — has overridden the case for properly considered and equitable distribution of the money. The Finance and Personnel Committee certainly had great concerns about that last week.

A stated objective of the Programme for Government was the inclusion of projects that would assist the development of activity across departmental management lines. Can the Minister say how many of the successful bids fall into that category? I believe that the cross- departmental aim has been lost and the successful bids are for a continuation of the same issues.

The evidence given — [Interruption]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Please ask your question.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand your concern about the time, but the Finance and Personnel Committee has not been given enough time to deal with this issue, and there are a number of serious issues that must be dealt with. There was not enough time in the Committee sessions to ask the questions, so we need to ask them in the Assembly.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I appreciate that the Member has asked a number of questions. If he has one more, will he please put it.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I express my concern that the Committee did not have the time to deal with this issue and as such it is making a farce out of discussing it now. Can the Minister assure the House that the September round of Executive programme funds will be examined in a different way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel for his points and I appreciate the concerns of the Committee as expressed by him. Given that this was the first round of Executive programme funds, matters were not dealt with perfectly. The situation is such that information is only made available to the Finance and Personnel Committee if similar information is being made available to other Committees. A more straightforward approach needs to be adopted in the future to ensure that information about bids goes to the Committee for Finance and Personnel automatically and does not depend on what is circulated to other Committees.

The first allocations from the Executive programme funds are not just a case of more of the same. I am not pretending that this first tranche of allocations achieves the degree of cross-cutting activity, interdepartmental bid development, and programme planning that the Executive want to see. This is the first tranche, and I would remind Members that we are dealing in the circumstances of Budget underfunding.

The number of demands and bids far exceeds our Budget allocations. Therefore it is not surprising that many of those, that have been of particular concern to Departments and Committees and which did not make it in the Budget, have found their way through to the Executive programme funds.

We would have been open to even more criticism if we had not embraced some of those key projects which have slipped departmental budget priorities and allocations to date but which have been able to qualify using the criteria and thinking for these funds. It is hoped that Members welcome that. The Executive need to develop their approaches in the future and that includes working with the Finance and Personnel Committee.

However, the Executive’s future management of the programme funds will depend on their developing the relevant substructure. In my further dealings with the Finance and Personnel Committee, I will have to take account of the type of subcommittees or substructures that are created.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I agree with the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee’s concerns about this process. The Committee for Social Development was not consulted on these bids. We had the bids for information purposes, but we had no input into them. There are no cross-cutting issues involved. I thought that these were new, innovative schemes with a cross- cutting element, but there is no cross-cutting element in the infrastructural fund for new schools and new roads, and that is a deviation from the original criteria. I am raising that issue because the Department for Social Development, out of a total allocation of £146 million, received slightly more than 1%. Given that there are people living on the periphery and in poverty, that is a disgrace.

The Social Development Committee envisaged the inclusion of schemes such as the installation of Economy 7 heating or replacement bathrooms and kitchens in houses. However, all those proposals were rejected on the grounds that they did not meet the criteria, although three schemes, which are of no particular interest to anyone living in poverty, have been accepted. The Committee has been totally ignored by the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Executive, but there is insufficient time to discuss these important issues.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Will the Member please ask his question.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I want the Minister to address such issues as fuel poverty and the need for a replacement of bathrooms and kitchens in houses, matters which the Social Development Committee has continually raised. Northern Ireland has the worst housing in western Europe. We talk about targeting social need, but the Minister absolutely excludes those who are living in poverty.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I take some of the points that the Member has made, and they need to be responded to. However, the Member cannot have it both ways. He cannot say "This is not new — it is just more of the same" and then say that he wanted more of the same. The measures that the Member has mentioned were covered, and allocations were made as part of the revised Budget to address fuel poverty and the replacement of kitchens and bathrooms, et cetera. Those measures fall to be funded from the allocations that we have already made to the Department for Social Development’s budget. If we had made further allocations we would be entirely open to the criticism that we have just had: that there is nothing different between these allocations and those that were made in the Budget. We want the funds to work and develop on this cross-cutting basis to reflect regional priorities and the inputs and responsibilities of a range of Departments.

In this first tranche of funds, Departments have not yet been able to develop work to that degree or in that manner. The Executive do not yet have the full substructure to do that. It would not have been right for us to delay important allocations of much needed public funding before we had developed an absolutely perfect infrastructure, given that this is money from the new financial year.

With regard to consultation with the Social Development Committee, I am not responsible for what information the Committee did, or did not, receive. It was the responsibility of the Department for Social Development to make known its bids. Perhaps that Department, in its reading of the criteria, did not bid as widely as some other Departments. However, the allocations that have been made to the Department for Social Development will benefit people in need. The Department will use that money well to work with people who are trying to make a difference on the ground.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. We are now beginning to see some tangible evidence of the Executive programme funds. I welcome particularly the funds for schools, roads and children’s issues.

Can the Minister explain the rationale behind the grants programme for local communities to pursue local action in public health and promote stronger community development, particularly in large urban social housing developments? I particularly welcome the new school for Dromore. However, I am deeply disappointed that phase 3 of the Omagh throughpass is not in this current allocation.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The grants-based initiative to which the Member referred was put forward by the ministerial group on public health to deal with the impression that there is absolutely no cross-cutting inspiration to any of these bids. That initiative will target the most disadvantaged and unhealthy electoral wards — the 10%. It will allow people to design and manage their own actions in partnership with statutory and voluntary agencies and make a difference for people who need that difference. The initiative should stimulate community-based actions and should break into those cycles of deprivation and ill health.

I welcome the Member’s support for the spending that we have announced today for roads. I note his disappointment that the spending does not include the further work he has identified on the A5. There is a huge underinvestment with regard to our roads infrastructure. That is something we have been trying to make good with the Budget allocations and through this particular fund. We need to continue to work on that in the future. It is not the case that we had a bid in for every project being identified in the Chamber today.

Mervyn Carrick (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister’s statement reads:

"A key aim is to protect the vulnerable and ensure that educational access is open to all".

I am disappointed, in the light of that, that funding for the upgrading of facilities for students with learning difficulties is not included. Since current funding allocations seem unlikely to meet the timetable for compliance with disability legislative requirements, can the Minister state, in the absence of an unsuccessful bid, how access arrangements for disabled students can be made a matter of priority funding to bring about equality of opportunity as soon as possible?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Executive recognise the importance of the needs of students with disabilities, including those with learning difficulties. In relation to the issues of access that he has identified, that was not something that qualified in the allocations that we were making in this particular tranche. It is an issue of serious need that the Executive have identified, and our hope is that we will be able to address that issue in allocations that will be undertaken in future monitoring rounds.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

The concept of Executive programme funds is one which I welcome. It offers many opportunities for the people of Northern Ireland, but the handling of this tranche has been nothing short of disastrous. How can the Minister convince the House that best value will be obtained through the allocation of these funds when, for example, the Finance and Personnel Committee was treated with what I can only refer to as contempt? It was given no opportunity to perform its statutory function of scrutiny. Furthermore, not for the first time, we were presented with a series of honeyed words by way of trying to cover up the fact that adequate time was not given for us to perform our statutory function.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Will the Member please put his question.

Seamus Close (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I have already asked the question: how can we be convinced of good value for money? The Committee that is fundamentally charged with the role of scrutiny of the Department of Finance and Personnel, and thus the other Committees, was not properly consulted and had no opportunity whatsoever to express its views. How, then, can the Minister state that

"all bids have been scrutinised carefully"?

As we have said before, there must be no whitewash in the Assembly.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I have just been treated to another sermon from "the man from unction". There is no whitewash in the Assembly so far as the Executive are concerned — they have responsibilities as well. I accept and recognise the responsibilities and role of the Finance and Personnel Committee and the other Committees. The Executive also have a role: to come forward with allocations across a range of programmes and to commend them to the Assembly.

The allocations that I proposed today will receive all sorts of comment from various Committee representatives, including those from the Finance and Personnel Committee. I have made it clear that we need to improve how this works in future. I have made no pretence about the fact that I am an agent of the Executive so far as many — [Interruption]

If only Mr Close would actually listen.

The Executive have to consider the issues brought before them. I regret that the information which I thought was being made available to all Committees — and which the Executive agreed could be made available to them — was not, for some reason. That is a communication error, a serious omission that we need to overcome. It is not a whitewash.

I would be glad to hear if there are any particular allocations which this Member, or anyone else, actually disputes and wants us to set aside. I come to the House on many occasions to discuss process and procedure, and I am constantly criticised about it. The statements made here and the details of the proposed allocations are available to all the Committees to pursue and query with us if they want to. Most of Mr Close’s criticism is about process — there is very little about substance.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I do not know how to follow that one.

There was a lot of flowery language in the Minister’s opening remarks — particuarly in relation to young people — and several references to investment in education and schools, with a key line about people who might "fall out of education". However, the budget for youth services — in Belfast in particular; I do not know about the other boards — has been cut this year. Its £2·7 million budget has been reduced by £400,000, but in the Minister’s statement on infrastructure we were told that this service would receive money. On the one hand the Executive are saying that they should cut youth services because the money is not needed; yet on the other hand, they are going to provide money for special youth projects. This does not seem to me to add up.

When the Minister read out the Executive’s plans for infrastructure, he did not once mention youth services. He mentioned social services in the context of providing much needed homes for people who require placements — but he did not mention youth services. How did the Executive arrive at the decision to fund an element of youth services for which his Department had already cut the funding?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Executive did not direct, or seek, cuts in the youth services in Belfast. The decision on those budgets was not made by the Executive. I just want to make that clear. The Executive do not direct every single pound of spend. Departments, and secondary budget holders working under Departments, make various decisions. The most important thing is that the Executive have been able to use the Executive programme fund to invest in redeveloping the Youth Service.

Investment in the Youth Service is not only in the infrastructure fund, which I referred to in my statement. The statement, long as it is, could not cover every bid. However, every bid is included in the table, so there has been no attempt to exclude anything. It is odd that I seem to be criticised for not actually talking up an allocation that was made. It contradicts some of the other criticism that we have received.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unlike other Members, I welcome the Minister’s announcement concerning children and young people. It is a positive first step, and I will not criticise any money going to services for children and young people. Is the money ring-fenced? If not, will the Minister ensure that it is ring-fenced to target these matters? Will the Minister inform us as to the criteria the community and voluntary sectors will need to meet to access these funds? Furthermore, can we have a list of those who are on the interdepartmental working group?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The funding will be used for the particular purposes for which it is allocated. Funding will be given for a particular purpose, although it can be used for a particular whim or legitimate pressure that arises. To that extent the money is clearly distinctive as regards ring-fencing. Some allocations, particularly some of the smaller ones, are clearly in respect of pilot schemes and initiatives. Therefore it is important that those schemes are tracked to ensure that the money is best used and to learn lessons for the future.

The interdepartmental working group is mostly connected with the children’s fund. When we introduced that fund we recognised that Executive programme funds should be available and should be subject to bids from the Departments working together. We wanted to ensure that part of the children’s fund was open to direct bidding from the community and voluntary sectors.

Several Departments are involved in the interdepartmental working group — the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department for Social Development and the Department of Education.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I welcome the statement in the round although I also agree with the points that have already been well made. There are few genuinely interdepartmental plans in the statement. We are pleased that some moneys have been granted for basic adult literacy and numeracy education, given that the amount included under that heading — £2·4 million over three years — comes to less than 30% of the approximately £9 million initially bid for.

Incidentally, my Committee did get an adequate period to consult on the bid and I welcome that.

Given the proportion of the bid that has been granted, what is the Minister’s assessment of the adequacy of the bid at this time? A quarter of the population of Northern Ireland will not be able to read the first few sentences of the statement — let alone its entirety — and probably will not be able to make much sense of the figures at the back as they cannot count. It is a social and economic scandal that needs to be dealt with. The statement is good as a starting point, but it does not go far enough.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am glad that the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment was satisfied that it had had access to information in reasonable time. I acknowledge that that is not the case for all Committees.

The allocation is just a start; it is not, by any stretch of the Executive’s imagination, the end of our interest in — or commitment to — adult basic education and the promotion of literacy and numeracy skills. The Programme for Government referred specifically to work in that area, and that is reflected in the allocation. We also want to see it getting the priority that it deserves in the Department’s budget, and that will be relevant to future Budget bids as well as to further allocation rounds.

Had we confined ourselves to meeting a certain number of bids in total, we would have been able to offer assistance in fewer areas. The Executive felt that it was important to make a commitment to starting and getting on with a number of key programme areas. We have tried to do that, and that decision was distinct from the normal Budget round. Had we acted on the normal Budget basis, we would have considered whether entire projects could have been finished at that stage or not. We believe that starting some programmes — perhaps without full funding at this stage — will put them in a stronger position for priority consideration in future Budget rounds. Previously, many of the key areas that Members consider to be the big needs have been unable to break through in the normal Budget round. I suppose that it is a bit like throwing a six to get onto the board. We have tried to do that in a number of areas with the Executive programme funds.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the announcement and congratulate the Minister and his team on their work. I know that many people will welcome the investment in schools, health and roads. I am grateful for the inclusion of the Toome bypass, having become daily more conscious of the need for it.

The Minister said that he had not fully allocated the infrastructure funds. Presumably, the next tranche of funding will allow the gas pipeline to the north-west to become a reality, so that we can be sure of a level playing field for economic development.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Obviously, the Member regularly has to sit in traffic jams in Toome, as do the Minister for Regional Development and myself. That is all pure coincidence — [Interruption] — and we just feel sorry for everybody else that we see there. It is important to our infrastructure, and I hope that it will make a difference to the road between the two cities.

We want to see a significant development of telecoms. The House has shown its interest in and commitment to significant extension of gas pipelines. In both those areas, proposals must come from the private sector. Sir Reg Empey, as Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, is taking a close interest and is working hard on those matters. There are, at present, no proposals that would justify the allocation of funds, so we have retained the flexibility to consider any more proposals that emerge. Any subsequent decisions will be subject to all the normal appraisals.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Given the question mark over the behaviour of the Minister of Education — especially in relation to the allocation of capital funding in the past two years — I welcome the Minister’s assurance that all bids have been carefully scrutinised.

However, looking at the small print in the infrastructure fund — wherein the Minister says that some of the projects financed will require further financing in the fourth year — I am dismayed that there is an imbalance yet again in capital spending between schools that cater mostly for the Roman Catholic population and those that cater mostly for the Protestant population, in a ratio of 10:1. The Minister said in his statement that that is a result of

"each of these being of top priority within the schools planning lists."

Can he assure the House, first, that he has seen those planning lists; secondly, that the projects listed here are top of those planning lists; and thirdly, that he has assured himself that these funds are not being used once again by the Minister of Education as a party political election fund, as his previous allocations were?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Executive are satisfied that in making these allocations in respect of the schools capital programme, we are supporting the improvement in schools capital by taking action to reduce the number of mobile classrooms and so on — all the things that the Education Committee would like to see us do, and that the Executive wants to do. We are doing that on a basis of priority need. That is a fact. We did not manufacture how particular schools have come to fall in a particular sequence of priority need. It is there and it is real.

In many ways, what the argument raises is not just that there are other needs in other schools — clearly there are — but that there is a need for much more money in this whole area. That is one of the reasons why we are trying to seek more money in relation to the Barnett formula. I saw the schools that would have been next on the list and, even if we had some significant extra money in this tranche and were able to allocate it to schools, the presentational or perception issue that the Member seems to be identifying would still have existed.

The Executive had to take decisions on the basis of need. We set down very clearly that targeting social need, meeting need and disadvantage, and equality considerations would be key considerations in the use of the Executive programme funds. We clearly could not discriminate against need just because people raised obvious presentational concerns.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to rehearse any of the arguments made earlier by Francie Molloy, the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee. As a member of that Committee, I share Mr Molloy’s views.

I welcome the fact that 62 projects will be supported by these funds. I thank the Minister for his words. Some of these projects would have been ongoing issues, and the purpose of the funds is to be more strategic and long-term. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to try to influence the Executive to work on that strategic basis in the long term. I understand why the funds have been allocated in such a way.

The Minister states that the Barnett formula disadvantages this area. I would like a commitment — I know that the Minister has already done this in the past, but I want a further commitment — that this continuing problem of underfunding will continue to be challenged by the Executive.

I welcome the fact that money is being allocated to public-private partnership initiatives in order to ensure that all avenues of funding can be properly explored.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I appreciate the frustration that the Member has registered as a member of the Finance and Personnel Committee. We need to ensure that we make best use of these funds, and we need to develop our whole approach to them. I hope that we will have positive encouragement from Members — frustrations notwithstanding — and the co-operation and good counsel of Committees as we set about doing that in the future.

We need to make sure that we make the best use of all funds, not just the Executive programme funds, but also the main Department funds. We also need to make sure that we maximise the resources available to us, and that will include trying to make improvements on the Barnett formula, a task which is not going to be easy or straightforward. We have a very clear view of the difficulty with the Barnett formula. Unfortunately, there are others who do not have the same clear view of the problem and are approaching it from a different starting point. Therefore, we need to build a case there.

We also need to make sure that, where we can marshal additional resources and find better means of managing some of the pressures of private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships, we do so. Some Departments have been examining and developing different ways of doing that, and such activity is to be encouraged. There are no easy answers, and the Treasury’s rules and interpretations need to be considered, because certain actions can count as borrowing. We need to address these issues, and that is one reason for making an allocation from the Executive programme funds to allow the Executive and all the relevant Departments to have a concentrated means of making progress on these matters.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement, and, like others, I welcome the overall concept of the fund. However, I want to look briefly at substance and at some of the processes involved. Does the Minister agree that there could be a perceived lack of location- specific projects for the west and north-west of Northern Ireland? He referred to the A4 project, which, he said, extends from Dungannon to Enniskillen. It is listed in the funding section as extending from Dungannon to Ballygawley. Is there perhaps an attempt to avoid highlighting the fact that the west and north-west have been left out? Perhaps we should wait and see how the various general funding is applied to those areas left out of the location-specific funding.

On the subject of process, and in response to the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, the Minister said that its problems were not his responsibility. Surely he must accept responsibility for the fact that the Finance and Personnel Committee was not notified in January that this process had been initiated. We were not given time — we were not notified that the process had come into being at the end of January in the Departments.

I realise that I have to finish, so I will end with this point. Officials gave the Finance and Personnel Committee evidence to the effect that there was not sufficient time to prepare schemes properly for inclusion in the bids for allocation. This meant — and this goes back to where I started —

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Will the Member come to the point of his question, please.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

— that capital projects were not included in the bids.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

First, I do not accept that the west or the north-west areas are not benefiting from these allocations. The region as a whole will benefit. Some proposals are locality-specific, others have more strategic, regional significance. For example, while expenditure on the Toome bypass is locality-specific to Toome and its immediate surroundings, the project has significance for a much wider area.

On the issue of residential childcare places, we will be looking across the whole region. There are also some provisions which, although they result in investment in a particular location, such as the medium-secure unit, are designed to provide much needed services across the community. As someone who served on the Western Health and Social Services council, I, along with others, had been pressing for the provision of a medium-secure unit here and for residential childcare places. In my view these announcements do not bypass those who have needs in the west and the north-west in particular.

We said, both in the House and elsewhere, that we hoped to make allocations from the Executive programme funds before we got to the Main Estimates. We always said that we would make allocations at this stage. That was never a secret — it was communicated to people.

The Committee for Finance and Personnel was notified some time ago of the Department of Finance and Personnel’s own particular bids for Executive programme funds. My regret and concern is that those making the other bids did not make similar notification, as I believe they should have. That is why I make the point that I made earlier. We want to make sure that there is just one system of "green for go", rather than try to interpret a whole series of different lights from different Committees. We will try to improve that in the future.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate him. He demonstrates, more and more, that he stands at the centre of this Administration. He proves that the Good Friday Agreement and its institutions are working for all our people.

As Committee Chairman, I must welcome the good news for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure — both the plan to buy out the commercial salmon netting licences, which I am very keen on from the Committee’s point of view, and the other moneys. I particularly welcome the creativity seed funding element, which covers four Departments. It is a very good example of a cross-cutting activity, despite what some people have already tried to demonstrate.

Has it something to do with the way a Department presents its budget claim for these particular funds? Have some of the Departments done that inadequately? Can the Minister expand on how the cross-cutting process works in this round of allocation? What are the plans for the future? Does he agree that this is further evidence of the need for collective decision-making involving all parties to the Executive?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am particularly glad that, as Chairperson of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, the Member welcomes the fact that we have been able to fund a measure that that Committee has advocated. He has raised the issue of buying out the salmon licences several times in the Chamber, both in relation to the Budget and to various monitoring round allocations.

The welcome for the creativity seed fund is not just important for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. It can also have a positive impact on employment and regeneration. We know that uplifts in cultural activity can be central to regeneration across the region.

I hesitate to comment on comparative analysis about how Departments have approached those particular funds or bids. I stress that any bids that have not been awarded Executive programme fund allocation at this stage are not, in themselves, bad or unworthy bids. They are not matters that do not need support or attention. It is just that, given the availability of resources, we could not cover everything. We had to decide on the best projects to match the particular criteria. We also had to examine the overall spread for the different funds. I hope that, notwithstanding the disappointments, we have achieved that.

It is a learning experience for all of us — the Executive and the Departments. In the future, we want to see Departments making even stronger and more clearly defined bids of their own, but we also want to see Departments working with one another to develop strong bids that have a clear, strategic impact across Government and on the entire region.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I welcome the outcome of some of the bids that I, as Minister for Regional Development, made for flood prevention and road schemes, including the Toome bypass, under the infrastructure fund. Does the Minister agree that when I was dealing with oral questions today I did not reveal the outcome of the bid or what he was going to say, despite the fact that I was in possession of an advance copy of his statement and that one of the questions was about the Toome bypass?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am glad that the Minister welcomes the decision made by the Executive Committee, and I am sure that he and his officials will use the moneys that have been allocated to the Department for Regional Development for roads and flood prevention. He informs me that he used discretion earlier. I appreciate that — I am not entirely surprised.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, but I am extremely disappointed with the figures for the Department for Social Development — it has fared very badly in this round. I am aware that the Housing Executive put in bids that were not met. We could have been more creative in addressing the needs of those suffering from fuel poverty.

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

I welcome the £0·2 million that will be given to the peripheral housing estates in Derry. However, there are inner city estates in Derry, such as the Bogside, Brandywell, Creggan and the Diamond, that are also experiencing deprivation and disadvantage. It is well documented that poor housing impacts on health, education, mental health and social exclusion, yet the entire Department only received £1·46 million over three years.

I agree with other Members that there has been a lack of consultation with the scrutinising Committees. There is no point in rehashing the points that have been made very well by my Colleagues. The funding that has been allocated to Social Development raises the question of whether the Department would have done better had the Minister for Social Development been in the Executive. Go raibh maith agat.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Many Members have mentioned matters that they feel should have been funded or supported, but which were not the subject of bids. It is difficult enough, when we do not have sufficient resources, to satisfy everybody by meeting bids that have been made, but it is very hard to satisfy people by meeting bids that have not been made. I recognise some of the problems that have been discussed, such as fuel poverty, but no bid was made for that area. However, some of the issues were covered previously by the Budget and so there should not necessarily have been a bid for fuel poverty.

The funds have been concentrated on the peripheral estates in Derry because those estates did not benefit from other moneys that have been managed by the Department for Social Development in programmes such as the urban initiative and the Londonderry regeneration initiative. That is why that particular bid was met.

Significant funds have been allocated to support work — not only by the Department for Social Development but also by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Rural Community Network — in respect of various estates across the region where there is a lack of community-based organisations. The funding is to try to fill some of the gaps. The Department for Social Development is working with other Departments and is trying to make a difference. It has made bids for projects that are outside of, or beyond, some of the activity that is being undertaken.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I give a broad welcome to the additional funding allocated to the education projects that are indicated in the Minister’s statement. The Education Committee was pleased to consider and comment on the bids submitted by the Department of Education, but I want to highlight the lack of time that was provided to undertake effective consideration.

The Committee was pleased to see that several of the early intervention bids had been successful in attracting some, if not all, of the requested funding, including funds for children with learning difficulties and to increase reading recovery work. Although I am pleased that capital building projects have attracted funding, I must express my personal concern regarding the apparent imbalance in the capital funding allocated to the controlled sector in recent years. I believe that that imbalance is reflected in the announcement. There is an obvious and urgent need for capital funding in all of the school sectors.

Consideration must be given to the allocation of capital funding on a fair and equitable basis in each sector. Can the Minister explain how the schools named in the statement were selected? I have a list of contenders originally provided by the Department of Education that confirms that the contenders that the Minister named today were in a list dated January 2001 under projects that were insufficiently planned. They have qualified for funding today before some of those schools that were ready and on the starting block for the original announcement but missed out. Will the Minister give due consideration to that? I am sorry that the Minister of Education is not here, but I think that this is a very serious issue, and I am not entirely satisfied that the controlled sector has been adequately or fairly treated.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Executive agreed the allocations on the basis of work that had been done not just by the Department of Education but by the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Economic Policy Unit and the Equality Unit to ensure that the recommendations that were announced were entirely consistent with New TSN and equality considerations. Given the limited allocations that could be made from the fund for schools infrastructure, the schools that received allocations are those that were high contenders. There were other high contenders that could have received allocations if there had been more money, but, as I said earlier, with that sort of shortlist, some of the presentational concerns that have been raised would not necessarily have been assuaged.

We must allocate on the basis of need. We will get into difficulty if we decide to allocate on how things look, or on how things appear, rather than on the basis of objective need. I often get the question from this side of the House that not enough allocations are going to particular areas, and why is money going to some areas that reinforces previous spending patterns and not enough going to other areas? We cannot manage these things by appearances and impressions. If we are in the business of Government we must manage by objective need and by objective criteria, and that has been done.

We could not discriminate against need because of the obvious presentational concern that has arisen, which we were able to anticipate. However, we would have been breaching serious principles if we had tried to come to a different allocation purely on the basis of the impressions that some people might have.

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

I acknowledge the limitation on the funds available and the time constraints for development of departmental projects. I am aware of the relationship between the environment and health and, indeed, between the environment and tourism and encouraging new investment. Can the Minister assure me that environmental and sustainable development projects will be given greater priority in future allocations?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Department of the Environment has one allocation, like the Department of Finance and Personnel, and that one allocation is for road safety. The Executive are very supportive of the consultation exercise that the Minister of the Environment, Mr Foster, has undertaken as the latest in a series of initiatives. The seriousness of the problem was again brought home to us at the weekend.

As regards wider environmental issues and sustainability, some of the allocations that have been made in respect of agriculture have a strong environmental dimension — for example, farm waste management and measures to reduce phosphorisation of water. Both are very significant in environmental terms and were issues that were pursued by the Minister of the Environment at the environmental sectoral meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

A sum of £1·4 million has been set aside for early intervention for children with learning disabilities. Was that the full amount of money requested by that Department? Is the Minister prepared to make available a copy of all submitted requests for financial assistance from each Department, along with a copy of requests that were successful?

Did the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development request assistance for the tie-up scheme, that the House unanimously supported last Tuesday? Of the £2·75 million that has been set aside and could be used for a possible fishing decommissioning scheme, how much will actually be granted for decommissioning?

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

Mr Shannon, if you expect an answer you will have to be brief.

Minister, please be brief.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

There is no secret about the bids that were submitted. Many Committees have received details of the bids as submitted by their Departments. We will try to resolve the issues that have been mentioned today concerning differential timing and level of information to Committees.

It must be remembered that the bids are the property of the Departments making the bids. They are not the property of the Department of Finance and Personnel. That is something that must be clarified so that in future we do not have these glitches. Most Committees have available to them the information about all the bids that were submitted, and we are making no secret of the fact that there have been many unsuccessful bids.

The further moneys that are being referred to as being held over for February monitoring fall for future allocation by the Executive and will depend on the proposals that the Executive have and the prevailing pressures at that time.

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

The time is up.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that I and other Members had the opportunity to question the Minister of Finance and Personnel on this important announcement, but I would like to express some alarm that an announcement of this nature should be made so late in the afternoon business of the Assembly and allocated just one hour. That is unsatisfactory.

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

That was not a valid point of order. As I told the Member’s Colleague, the Member for West Tyrone (Mr Hussey), last week, the allocation of time for any item of business is at the discretion of the Business Committee, not the Speaker. If the Member wishes to raise the matter with his party Whip, he is free to do so.

Private Notice Question: Road Safety

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

asked the Minister for Regional Development, in the light of the high number of deaths on the roads over recent weeks, to detail the measures that the Roads Service is taking to address the urgent need to improve road safety.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I am sure that the whole House will join with me in expressing sympathy to the families and friends of those killed in road accidents at the weekend. My Department is fully committed to the fight to improve road safety in Northern Ireland.

There are three vital aspects to reducing the number of road traffic casualties, and they are commonly referred to as the three Es: education, enforcement and engineering. For education, the road safety branch of the Department of the Environment seeks, through its high-profile road safety publicity campaigns, to change the attitude and behaviour of road users by informing them of the main causes of road traffic death and injury. Then there is enforcement: the RUC will enforce the law in relation to traffic offences. The third is engineering, which includes the provision of traffic-calming and accident remedial measures by my Department’s Roads Service.

During 2001 the Roads Service expects to spend £3 million on road safety engineering measures, allowing traffic-calming schemes and accident remedial measures to be implemented. In recognition of the need to improve road safety for vulnerable road users in urban streets, the Roads Service has allocated steadily increasing resources to traffic-calming measures since the programme began in 1990. In the current financial year, £1·4 million was allocated. As I said some weeks ago, I hope to make a further significant announcement on traffic calming before the Easter recess.

Several of the Roads Service’s other activities also contribute to improving road safety, including major works, traffic management, structural maintenance, street lighting, private streets and development control. The Roads Service has been assisting the Department of the Environment’s road safety branch to prepare a road safety strategy consultation document. I understand that the Department of the Environment will shortly seek a wide range of views on a new road safety target and road safety strategy for Northern Ireland up to 2010.

Official RUC statistics show that the vast majority of accidents are caused by human error and behaviour. The road environment is a contributing factor in very few accidents. Although my Department will continue to make the public road network safer, it is important that each of us —as drivers, riders, pedestrians, cyclists, and so on — accepts responsibility for our road safety and that of others.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his response, and I appreciate the fact that the Minister of the Environment is also in the Chamber for this question. This is the first time that we have put a private notice question to a Minister, and it is appropriate that it should be on such a serious subject. I join the Ministers in expressing sympathy to the families of those killed in recent weeks.

Several questions on road safety have been put to Ministers today. However, the issue must be considered in much more detail than is allowed by a simple question and answer or by the 20 minutes that we have been allocated.

I must admit that I am extremely disappointed that I am not hearing a much greater desire to do something — to do it now and do it fast. Does the Minister agree that there seems to be total confusion over who takes responsibility or the lead role over the three Es that he is talking about, split between the police, the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development?

Secondly, the Public Accounts Committee certainly had a good go at how badly the strategy on this issue was being followed, in relation to a reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. It was hoped that by 2000 this would have reduced to something in the region of 1,500. In fact, there were nearly 2,000 dead or seriously injured in 2000 — the figure was 1,950. In other words, the target was not met, and lives have been lost as a result of inaction by these Departments. Is that what it is? People are being killed — five more after this weekend and three two weekends ago — because of inaction on the part of all these organisations, buck-passing, or somebody else’s responsibility or fault. Will the Minister support a call for a high-level cross-departmental road safety task force to be set up immediately to cut across the red tape and all these barriers that are impeding us from finding a way to reduce the number of deaths on our roads? Set this up immediately; support this high-level task force on road safety, and get something done to cut the number of deaths on our roads.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her response and her question. She has indicated that she is disappointed by the lack of response, but I should say that we — the Assembly collectively — are in somewhat of a difficulty, because road safety, per se — [Interruption]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

That is buck-passing.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Road safety is an issue for the Department of the Environment. [Interruption]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

It is an issue for everyone.

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

Order, please.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

That is the reality. As Minister for Regional Development, I have itemised traffic-calming measures — not as a result of issues that Ms Morrice or anybody else raised. I raised them in my Department, and I will be making an announcement, because I am concerned. I happen to know one of the families that were bereaved at the weekend in Coleraine. It is not a case of a lack of will on my part. I will do whatever I can within the remit of my Department.

The hon Member makes mention of targets not being met. That is a matter for the road safety division in the Department of the Environment. I will gladly meet — [Interruption]

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Road safety is in the Minister’s remit.

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

Order.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I will gladly meet the Minister of the Environment, who is equally concerned about the issue. I will meet him to see if there is any merit in the establishment of a road safety task force, or if there are existing arrangements that can be fine-tuned, with which we can seek to establish a greater degree of response. If the targets are not being met, we can try to see that they are. On those three fronts, we have to continue to educate the public, because all of us should pay greater attention while using the roads, whether as motorists or pedestrians. We need to try to ensure that the enforcement option — for which the RUC is responsible — is vigorously pursued. The engineering option is specifically within my remit.

As I have said, I am committed to the establishment of and additional expenditure on traffic-calming measures. I hope soon to be in a position to make an announcement about these schemes. I assure the Member and the House that I will meet the Minister of the Environment to come up with measures which are not already being taken and to see if this issue can be addressed more quickly than before.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

Every year there are over 800 casualties as a result of traffic turning right. What can the Minister do to remove the serious danger of traffic turning right on dual carriageways?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I will have to examine right turns and other aspects of main junctions and arterial routes where there are higher instances of casualties than expected. The Roads Service is continually carrying out such work and is always looking for ways to make improvements. I have, in response to questions in the House, outlined measures that it has taken to eliminate accidents that occur specifically at right turns.

I will undertake to see what measures have been put in place, for example, in the past 12 months, and I will respond to the Member. I will also seek further safety measures at right turns where problems have emerged from time to time.

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

Like all Members, I am distressed by the number of road accidents. Is the Minister satisfied that investigations after fatal accidents are sufficiently thorough to uncover all the influencing factors? Would he support a more thorough investigation so that, after all these years, we might learn the reasons for fatal accidents? We know that the primary causes of accidents include speeding and drink-driving. However, it is now widely accepted that much more information should be gleaned after fatal accidents to establish all the factors.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

One of the difficulties with fatal accidents involving vehicles is that it may be weeks, as opposed to days, before all the facts emerge, and it is a very sensitive situation. When there has been a fatal accident, family members must be considered, as must the drivers of vehicles. However, I accept the thrust of the Member’s point. We ought to be able to establish the causes of these accidents and consider these factors when implementing changes. I will gladly examine the matter.

I look forward to meeting the Minister of the Environment to see if we can undertake to implement any new measures or to implement existing proposals more quickly. The Roads Service will remain committed to implementing engineering measures, including changes in structure, design, right turns, et cetera, which would help to reduce the awful carnage on the roads.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

My point follows on from the Minister’s response to the last question. I am aware of the three Es approach. With regard to the engineering aspect, how can road safety considerations be given greater priority when schemes are selected for completion using the funding process that the Minister must follow? Is he willing to upgrade road safety as a priority when the Department has to make choices about schemes?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The short answer to that is a simple yes. Roads Service engineers invariably face a problem, which I am sure the hon Member will be aware of given his background in local government. Roads Service engineers examine the road safety implications and the road safety history of a particular stretch of road when there is lobbying for change because of the possibility of accidents. However, many residents and public representatives feel that the Roads Service is almost saying that there must be some sort of accident to guarantee remedial works. That is a difficult situation to resolve. If there are stretches of road where there is the serious possibility of accidents and fatalities, they should be prioritised — and they are.

Occasionally accidents happen that have no obvious safety implications for that stretch of road. If speed or drink-driving is the cause of a fatality, it is difficult to see what could have been done or what can be done in the future to eliminate the problem. I take the Member’s point. I will ensure that where possible — and we are examining possible improvements — road safety will be the top criterion. If there is a road safety implication when alterations and remedial work are being contemplated, that implication will always receive high priority.

Adjourned at 5.53 pm.