Northern Ireland Assembly, 23 April 2001

166 contributions from 49 members. The official report.

Royal Assent

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to inform Members that Royal Assent has been signified to the Street Trading Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 and the Electronic Communications Act (Northern Ireland) 2001. These Acts became law on 5 April 2001.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

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

The position in relation to foot-and-mouth disease has changed greatly since I last made a statement to the Assembly, and I would like to bring Members up to date on it and on my response to it.

Members will recall that I reported that we had received regionalised status for Northern Ireland. With some difficulty, we mounted a substantial exercise to seal off the Newry and Mourne District Council area against exports of relevant animals and products, and we seemed to be on course for full regionalisation on 19 April. Much to my dismay, we almost immediately became aware of a possible second outbreak at Ardboe, County Tyrone. There were some puzzling aspects to the symptoms, which made it possible that something other than foot- and-mouth disease was at work. As always, we imposed restrictions and carried out tests. On 12 April 2001 we received the results of the preliminary tests from Pirbright, which indicated that it was not foot-and-mouth disease. Members will recall that there was great public interest, and — as we have always done, and in line with my policy of openness — we announced that result, albeit with the reminder that it was subject to confirmation following other tests.

To my great surprise the results of those further tests, when received on Good Friday night, were positive, thus giving Northern Ireland a second foot-and-mouth disease case. As the Assembly will be aware, that was followed on Saturday 14 April by the discovery of a third case in Cushendall. Since then there have been other suspects, both hot and cold, but the situation on Friday last was that we had only the three confirmed outbreaks I have mentioned and three hot suspects. One was close to the Ardboe outbreak, one was adjacent to the Cushendall outbreak and the other at Ballintoy, County Antrim, was linked to the Cushendall case. The animals concerned have all been slaughtered.

As Members will be aware, the test results for the Ardboe suspect have now been received and have confirmed foot-and-mouth disease at a second farm in the area. This is now Northern Ireland’s fourth case. I still await the results relating to the Ballintoy suspect and the suspect case adjacent to the Cushendall outbreak. Late yesterday afternoon I received negative test results on other suspects at Limavady, Martinstown, County Antrim and Armagh.

As far as the confirmed outbreaks are concerned, the usual three and 10-kilometre zones are in place around all of these areas, apart from Meigh where the zones were lifted at the end of last week. All the in-contact animals are being slaughtered and incinerated, as are some other animals on a precautionary basis.

One encouraging aspect of this situation is that the testing of sheep flocks around the Meigh outbreak has indicated no evidence of residual infection in the remaining sheep. There is evidence that the present situation is a consequence of the virus circulating in sheep where the symptoms are not apparent. Consequently, I placed a complete ban on the movement of all susceptible livestock to allow us to carry out the necessary tracing of animals and to prevent further disease spread. I have now been able to relax that ban a little to allow movement direct to slaughter, and I hope to be able to ease it further very soon so as to allow some welfare-related movements.

I fully appreciate the impact that these restrictions are having on farmers, but I implore them to ensure that no unauthorised movements take place, however inconvenient or even painful that may be. Such movements have been responsible for introducing foot-and-mouth disease to Northern Ireland in the first place and have been instrumental in allowing its spread since then. The unauthorised movement of susceptible livestock is a criminal act which endangers the whole future of our industry, and it must stop. Sheep represent a dangerous threat, and it is essential that no movements of sheep occur in order to eradicate foot-and-mouth disease.

My priority now is to find out the extent of the unauthorised movements that have already occurred. To that end I have made several well-publicised appeals for information and have written to every sheep farmer with a personal plea for information relating to purchases of sheep before the Meigh outbreak.

To deal with this situation I have established a contingency plan for my Department to ensure that it can cope should there be widespread further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. We have acquired additional veterinary manpower by contracting private veterinary practitioners to carry out work for the Department.

Agri-food representatives have been fully briefed on the situation. The inter-departmental group of officials has identified additional Northern Ireland public sector manpower which can be mobilised if the need arises.

I have continued to have essential support from the RUC and the Army, and, as a result, the Army has been assisting with the disposal operation under Department of Agriculture direction. The police continue to assist with the checking of movements of animals, road closures, and so on. Representatives from those organisations are now based in Dundonald House.

I have extended serological testing to all sheep within the 10-kilometre zones around the outbreaks in order to determine the extent of the virus in those areas. I will be widening that exercise in due course.

Following what appeared to be a complete closure of the border to exports of all Northern Ireland produce on 14 April, my representations to the Dublin Department led to the resumption of permitted exports, although there were problems over the Easter holiday, and I subsequently discussed these with Joe Walsh last week. Against the background of evidence that lax observation of fortress farming principles by some has been partly to blame for these outbreaks, I have been trying to drive home the message that responsibility for disease control rests primarily with farmers. The Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association (NIAPA) have been helpful in getting the message across. In fact, I have already initiated a four- week publicity campaign to emphasise that very point. We have been providing technical and moral support to farmers and rural communities by means of a helpline, counselling telephone numbers and local liaison channels.

I would like to say something about my Department’s slaughter policy, because there has been some public confusion about this. While no two cases are the same, the normal sequence of events is that all infected animals are slaughtered and incinerated on the farm. Animals on any outfarms of the infected premises are also slaughtered and incinerated on site. Next, pigs in the surrounding three-kilometre zone are slaughtered, followed by sheep in the surrounding three-kilometre zone and cattle in the surrounding one-kilometre zone, working inwards from the outer limits of the zone. Subsequent to this, any animals that are suspected of being at risk are also slaughtered. That means that when new outbreaks occur, the focus may shift from low-risk slaughter in one area to high- risk slaughter in another.

As far as disposal is concerned, infected animals must be incinerated on site, but other carcasses may be incinerated, buried or rendered, depending on the circumstances. There has been much discussion about vaccination, and some seem to think that it represents a quick and easy cure for the disease in individual animals — it is not. Current veterinary advice is that the immediate slaughter of animals around the location of an outbreak provides the best protection against spread of the disease. By contrast, vaccination takes several days to take effect, and it is a less desirable option. While it can, in certain circumstances, be a valuable weapon against foot-and- mouth disease, it has serious drawbacks. We must be prepared for further outbreaks of the disease in Northern Ireland, and the number will dictate the scale of the resource problems we will face when dealing with them. If there is a significant number of widely scattered outbreaks, the problems will be greater than if they were geographically grouped.

I have already outlined how I propose to deal with the manpower implications of any such spread, but as far as physical resources are concerned, there may be pressure on slaughtering capacity. I am in dialogue with the meat plants, which have offered to help establish options for a solution. There will be pressure on disposal capacity, and my officials are working with the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development to identify a possible site or sites for mass burial, should they be needed. The Executive Committee has declared its support, and I have been assured that any resources needed to deal with the problem will be made available. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Social Security Agency have been asked to examine any additional counselling and cash needs that they could help to meet.

In conclusion, the situation remains serious, and the farming community needs to take responsibility for its salvation. All my efforts and those of the Executive will come to naught unless all farmers take every step possible to protect themselves and their fellow farmers from this disease. Dealing with the disease will be a joint effort. As I have said, I will be carrying out serological testing, and I am acting to trace all relevant sheep movements. For their part, farmers must ensure that the virus is locked up by observing the movement restrictions that I have had to put in place. I again appeal to them to inform my Department, any public representative, the UFU or NIAPA of details of any irregular movements of livestock which they know about.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement today. I want to ask her some questions about compensation.

What amount of money is set aside for the future? Where will the resources come from to pay compensation, and will the level of compensation remain stable throughout this crisis? Is the Minister satisfied that payments made to farmers in Meigh in respect of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak there have been based on genuine claims? What checks and balances, if any, are in place to guard against claims that could be made by those unscrupulous persons who have done real damage to the farming industry? Is the Minister aware of the serious difficulties on farms with welfare and putting cattle out on to grass, and does she realise that it is not enough —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. One must restrict questions to a reasonable number. If Members ask a series of questions, the Minister is under no obligation to reply to them all. It would be better if some opportunity to ask questions were left to other Members as well.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I accept that, but these questions are linked, and it is impossible to ask one without following up with another. This is a very serious crisis in the farming industry, and time must be allowed to let the Minister answer these questions.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. There is adequate time, but it must be available to all Members, not just to some.

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

Mr Speaker, I am afraid I did not get all the questions, because they were asked in quite rapid succession, but I will deal with those that I did get.

To date, £1·3 million has been paid out. That amount relates to the Meigh outbreak and the cull in south Armagh. The money will come from the Northern Ireland block. It is impossible for me to say how much will be required. Clearly, that is a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Department is abreast of the situation and will be taking account of the fact that more money will be required.

I missed some of the other questions. There was one about something genuine in Meigh, but I did not quite get the last bit of the sentence, so I cannot deal with it.

I am very much aware of the difficulties being encountered by farmers because they cannot get their animals out to grass. I am extremely anxious about that and am dealing with it urgently. In fact, my officials have been working on it over the weekend.

I hope to be in a position to allow movement across roads on to grassland by April 30, which is this day week. I want to be sure that when that happens, it will be under strict veterinary supervision and that there will be no possibility of abuse, of cattle coming in contact with land which has had sheep grazing on it in the last 14 days and of spreading the disease. For that reason my officials are working to put in place the necessary measures which will ensure that when it does happen, it happens in a restricted and very controlled manner. However, I am very much aware of the pain and difficulties being experienced because of this, and I ask those farmers affected to bear with me. If at all possible, I will allow that movement earlier — perhaps on Wednesday or Thursday of this week — but at the very latest by April 30.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I too welcome the statement from the Minister this morning and thank her and her staff for all the work they have been doing over the weekend. I have to come back to the matter of the movement of cattle across roads.

Stock has now been housed for seven months. Farmers have to keep to a tight schedule; they have to plan, and there are now only 25 weeks before livestock are brought back in again. I am speaking of three farms in particular. The Minister knows them very well, and they have to get their cattle out. I know she is aiming for 30 April, but I hope that the problem can be solved in two or three days’ time. I also welcome the involvement of local vets, because they have sound local knowledge. I urge the Minister to try as quickly as possible —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I must ask the Member to put his question to the Minister. This is an opportunity for questions not speeches.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

The welfare of cows that cannot cross a road and horses that cannot be taken to vets’ surgeries is the problem that I am asking the Minister to take seriously here.

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

I thank Mr Savage for his initial remarks about myself and my staff, who have now been working overtime for a number of weeks. I appreciate the Member’s point about the need for planning. Some farmers have already run out of fodder, and if we knew how long this situation was going to last, farmers who have food would help others who have none. My officials worked over the weekend because of the urgency. At the very latest I hope that movement can be resumed by 30 April, and earlier if at all possible.

I understand the problems that people are encountering with horses. However, the whole community is encountering problems — and that is not to downgrade the problems of the farmers. For instance, there are problems in the tourism industry. My priority is to stop the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. This requires sacrifices, and I ask everyone to recognise that and bear with me. I am doing my best to get the balance right between risking a further spread of the disease and allowing for the alleviation of a serious welfare problem.

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

I too would like to pay tribute to the Minister and her officials for the way in which they are managing this situation. Can the Minister tell the House if there are any investigations into the illegal movement of animals? Most decent farmers are disgusted that the spread of foot-and-mouth disease has resulted from illegal movement of animals.

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

I thank Mr Byrne for his remarks and for his question. Several investigations are ongoing, as are follow-up investigations and interceptions. Nineteen cases of illegal importation are being followed up and investigated, most of them by the RUC, but in three cases by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s own investigation unit. The vast majority of farmers are becoming increasingly angry with the very small minority who are putting them all at risk.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A Cheann Comhairle, I have stressed the need for an extension of the IACS (Integrated Administration and Control System) by going to Europe and asking for it, as has been done in the South. At the moment people who have leasing arrangements to make do not know if they can take land. People cannot get onto land to fill out forms. The Minister knows the difficulties that farmers will face if we find ourselves using the penalty system. This must be done immediately.

Members have already mentioned livestock movement, and 30 April seems a long way off if you have already run out of feed for cattle. Which is the greater evil — farmers bringing feed from 20 different sources or farmers bringing cattle across a road to be beside their farms?

Farmers will be asking those questions — they are critical. They are ringing the stress line now in a panic over the movement of animals. That has to be dealt with.

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

The IACS situation, of which I am very much aware, has been raised by the unions and many farmers. The cut-off date for IACS remains 15 May. However, negotiations with the Commission are afoot for a 30-day window to allow changes without penalty. Normally there is a 15-day window for changes with penalty. Given the present circumstances, we are now negotiating for a 30-day window to allow for changes without penalty after 15 May.

Mr McHugh also referred to the problem of feeding, which has been raised already. There are many evils in this situation, but the greatest evil would be the further spread of the disease throughout Northern Ireland. That is what I am trying to avoid. I am very much aware of the problem, and, as I have already said, I am trying to allow alleviation earlier than this day week if possible. I hope that it will be, but I cannot guarantee it — I am doing my best.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I too thank the Minister for the efforts that she and her staff have put into controlling foot-and-mouth disease over the holiday period. However, can she clear up a degree of confusion over the slaughter policy? I am glad she explained the way in which slaughter is carried out when there is an actual case. What is her Department’s slaughter policy where there is a suspected case? I know of at least one example where people were told that animals were to be slaughtered on their farms before being told they were not to be because of a suspected, as opposed to a confirmed, case on an adjacent farm.

Does the Minister believe that there is a case for further checks on roads, especially on the border with the Republic? Many people have commented on an anomaly in the full check applied when goods travel south, including bizarre examples of tins of food and unopened packets being confiscated by the guards. Given that there is a degree of concern over where foot-and-mouth disease may exist on this island, is there not a greater case for also checking northbound vehicles?

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

The slaughter policy in the instance of a suspected case is clear. Each suspect is looked at in view of the clinical evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case. In some cases the veterinary advice is that while animals may be showing clinical signs, they may not necessarily be signs of foot-and-mouth disease. Other circumstances, as happened in the Donnelly case, place a big question mark over whether an animal has foot-and-mouth disease. In such a situation, the veterinary advice is to place the farm under restriction until test results have been obtained. That is what we have done in all cases, and in some cases we have moved into slaughter immediately. We did that near the Donnelly farm in the Ardboe area where we slaughtered on a farm about three kilometres away because the animals were showing clinical signs. Moreover, it was in the vicinity of the outbreak already in Ardboe. Because of that it was a highly suspect case, so we slaughtered. As it turned out the test result, five or six days later, was negative. However, some you win and some you lose. There was a suspect case near Armagh city, and the vets, on the night that they did the clinical examination, advised me that we should move to slaughter the next morning. I agreed. When they examined the animals the next morning they discovered that they were responding to antibiotics, which indicated that it might not be foot-and-mouth disease, so we halted the slaughter. The Armagh case has now proved negative.

We look at all the circumstances. We look at the clinical assessment made by the vet, and we make a decision. The situation is such that sometimes we will get it right, and sometimes we will get it wrong. We will continue to err on the side of caution as we have done previously.

On the question of border checks, the Member will be aware that there are export controls on products exported from Northern Ireland — which is no longer foot-and- mouth-free — to the Republic. Therefore the strict controls are to ensure that no prohibited products get into the Republic. We do not allow meat products to be exported from here to the Republic. That is why people are having their cars stopped and are being asked whether they have food with them. It is because the Republic has been declared to be disease-free while we are not.

With regard to our own checks, we are targeting our resources where we feel they will be most effective. That is at the farmgate and in raising the awareness of people — particularly the farmers — to what needs to be done. We also must make the public aware of areas that they must avoid going to — for example, the advertisements that we have put in the papers today tell people what they need to do if they are organising public events and other such things. The recent outbreaks had nothing to do with border controls, rather they were to do with the unauthorised movement of animals.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

I am sure the Minister will agree that over the last few weeks I have been fairly supportive of her and of the Department. I will continue to be supportive, because, as she said, we are all in this together. However, it seems that it is only now that we have good precautions in place at the ports and are taking blood samples from wider areas throughout the country. My criticism is that it has taken too long to get to this stage. The entire farming community has been held to ransom by a few, and we have many difficult problems with welfare in the country at present. Will the Minister promise to put in place whatever is necessary to ensure that in future we will be able to trace stock coming from across the water and from local areas much more quickly?

I am not so concerned about stock movement at this time but rather about the people who brought stock in over the previous months. It has taken weeks and weeks to get on top of this, and we need some structure in place to allow us to tie this up in a matter of days. We have it for cattle, and we need something similar for sheep. I hope that the Minister will promise to do her best to ensure something is done about this.

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

I thank Mr Douglas for his remarks and his support over the previous weeks and months. The precautions that we put in place at the ports were not put there just recently. Mr Douglas will be aware that the first step I took when foot-and-mouth disease was discovered in Great Britain was to close down the ports. That was an extremely important step at the time. We have had precautions in place at the ports. We have people handing out leaflets, and passengers are informed about what needs to be done. We have arranged for mats to be put on the boats, which people cross when picking up their vehicles or when boarding. I understand that the Chairperson of the Agriculture Committee visited a port about a week ago and expressed himself satisfied with the precautions there.

We are now taking blood samples from sheep, because our vets have said that the recent outbreak has shown that the infection is present in sheep, which we were not aware of. It is very difficult to diagnose the disease in sheep. They can have the disease and recover from it without its being seen. However, they can continue to infect others. As I have stated, we carried out blood sampling in the south Armagh area, and that has been satisfactorily completed.

The other blood sampling is currently the most important part of my strategy in trying to get ahead of the disease. While the investigations that are being carried out and the information that is being sought are, in a sense, trying to catch up with where the infection may have gone, the blood sampling is a clear example of trying to get ahead of the disease before it gets any further and to establish where it is and where we can deal with it.

I take the point that the tracing of animals, particularly sheep, has now been identified as a serious issue. Although sheep flocks in Northern Ireland were tagged, sheep were not tagged at all in Great Britain or in the Irish Republic. We just tagged the flocks, not the individual sheep. The vision sub-group that I have asked to look at all the lessons to be learnt from this recent outbreak is urgently examining all the issues, including the tracing of animals, and will be reporting to me and making recommendations.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Contributions — whether they are questions or contributions to debate — ought to be made through the Chair. What that means, if Members are unclear about it, is that they should be couched in the third person, not in the second person. There are very good reasons for that, as I am sure Members are aware. Some Members are very attentive to this, but others have become a little loose in their application.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

On 2 April, the First Minister assured us that there would be cross-border co-operation on the illegal movement of animals. Can the Minister tell us whether any resources have been committed to stopping the illegal movement of animals on both sides of the border and across it?

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

The attempt to stop the illegal movement of animals is being dealt with mainly by the RUC, which is assisting us through both static and mobile patrols. Over the weekend there have been six interceptions of illegal animal movements by the RUC, and prosecutions are being followed up.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister said in a previous answer that she believed that all the missing sheep that were roaming Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic had been identified. Does the Minister still believe that? Where did the flock that brought the infection to mid-Ulster, specifically to Ardboe, come from?

The Minister will also be aware that, because of a second confirmed outbreak in mid-Ulster, the area of Ardboe is gripped with fear. That fear is heightened by reports that animals have been buried in an area that is not on the affected farm. Surely the only way that the Minister and the Department of Agriculture can allay those fears, or bury the rumours, is to excavate that clearly identified site in the interests of the particular farmer and of the surrounding community.

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

I did say on a previous occasion that all the sheep that had come in to Northern Ireland since 1 February had been identified. That is the situation. We traced all those sheep and found that, as Members are aware, one consignment did not go to Lurgan Chilling as it was supposed to. That consignment ended up in Meigh and subsequently in the Republic. All those sheep have been accounted for and have been monitored.

We have now traced back to 11 to 19 January. We are going back beyond 1 February, which we believed was the first date when infection could be possible. To be sure, we are going further back to 1 January. Two thousand two hundred sheep were brought into Northern Ireland legally between 11 January and 19 January but were illegally traded. We are investigating that matter at the moment, and we will go back to 1 January eventually.

We have not identified the source of the infection in Ardboe, but we are investigating that urgently. It is not easy to identify the source of the infection. However, the sooner we find it the better. The second outbreak was on a farm adjacent to the Donnelly farm. It was disappointing but hardly unexpected given its proximity to the farm with the outbreak. Several allegations have been made; I have read them in the paper, and allegations have been made to my Department and to my officials. I assure Mr McCrea that all of the allegations are being investigated. Some of them have been found to be spurious, but we are following up and are thoroughly investigating every allegation that is made.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her statement. It is obvious that farmers appreciate having their own Minister of Agriculture, and we can see the benefits of that during this crisis.

Livestock farmers have reached the time of the year when livestock should be put out to grass. That cannot happen due to the ban on stock movement, and it creates problems for the breeders and finishers of cattle. We do not want to put others at risk. Can the Minister advise farmers how long they might have to keep their stock confined? Uncertainty causes concern. We know what the welfare problem is now: the problem of moving stock across roads — an everyday occurrence in the dairy cow situation — and the movement of store cattle to permanent grazing for the next three or four months. We do not want to see farmers moving stock unnecessarily and without control.

Beef farmers supply stock to abattoirs. However, abattoirs have been out of stock for six weeks. Could the Minister relax the rules in areas where there are no sheep so that beef farmers can avail of store cattle to keep the food chain going? Breeders’ farms are overstocked, and finishing farmers have no stock.

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

From today, I have allowed the movement of animals to abattoirs for slaughter. I have responded to Mr Savage and to other questioners about cattle moving to grass and across roads. I hope to be able to make an announcement next Monday at the very latest. I hope that it will be sooner, if I can get everything into place.

My advisors in the local veterinary offices are working with farmers on the problems of animal feed. Farmers are being advised individually as to where they can access animal feed.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement. I look forward to the day when the Minister will not be compelled to attend crisis meetings of the Assembly. Can the Minister advise the Assembly on the level of harmony that exists between Government valuers and the owners of culled livestock? Has any conflict arisen during the valuation process?

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

There have been problems inasmuch as farmers have expressed, as Mr Bradley will be aware, not so much dissatisfaction but confusion. They have sought clarification on what the compensation method would be.

In each of those instances I have been able to assure those concerned that my Department’s policy is that animals will be valued at what is considered to be full market value. That is precisely what happens in Great Britain and in the Irish Republic. Compensation will be paid. If a farmer has a concern about that, he has the option of asking for an independent valuation from one of three named valuers. In very few cases in recent times, if any — perhaps one or two — farmers have taken that option. That leads me to believe that there is no dissatisfaction with the present situation.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for keeping Members up to date with the foot-and-mouth crisis.

There have been reports that the amount of compensation being paid to farmers will be reduced. Can the Minister reassure farmers in the Ardboe and Antrim areas that they will not suffer any further loss, that they will be paid at a similar rate to those who have already been compensated, and that as the crisis continues, there will be no such reduction?

Will the Minister also take into account the situation that farmers are in? Normally, if a farmer sells animals at a mart, he or she can buy stock again and go back into farming. However, in this situation, farmers are receiving compensation for stock but cannot go back to farming and are not clear when they will be able to do so. Account needs to be taken of the fact that farmers will not be able to get an income from that.

Does the Minister consider the movement of animals across roads to be an illegal act? Can she clarify how one of our Committee members, Mr Gardiner Kane, was able to say at the Committee meeting this week that he had had to move his own cattle across the road and that the Minister would simply have to abide by that? Do some people have a special licence to move animals across the road while, for everyone else, such movement is restricted?

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

There is no question of the compensation policy being changed. It remains the same and will remain the same — that is, compensation at the full market value of the animal, as assessed by the valuer, with recourse to independent valuation if the farmer is not happy with the initial valuation.

I agree that the fact that farmers cannot immediately go back to farming is a huge disadvantage. Farmers will be in a difficult position, but it is an issue of consequential, rather than direct, compensation. It is not an issue for me to deal with, as I try to cope with the problems of eradicating this disease. I fully sympathise with the farmers in that position and the advisors on the rural stress hotline and in the Department — and I understand that the Department for Social Development is working at this also and has announced that it is setting up networks to help people in difficult situations. It is working to try to alleviate the very difficult situation that these people, who now have no income, are in.

I repeat that unauthorised movement of animals is illegal. This weekend there were six interceptions by the police, and prosecutions will follow.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Minister has concentrated entirely this morning on the effects of foot-and-mouth disease on the farming community. However, she will be aware that many businesses throughout the Province have suffered greatly as a result of this crisis. Has any further progress been made on the issue of payment for consequential loss? Has any form of assistance been given to, for instance, hoteliers, riding schools and feed companies, which are incurring enormous losses as a result of this crisis? Has she had any discussions with her counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom? Has there been any progress on this important issue?

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

I thank Mr Wells for his question. He will understand that my responsibility as Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development is solely to the farming community. However, I am aware that other sectors are suffering as a result of the present situation. I assure Mr Wells that the Executive have discussed the matter on at least two occasions.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Durkan, is looking at how some measure of relief might be given to people who are suffering consequential loss. It is a very difficult area, because the payment of direct consequential compensation could be infinite. The Department of Finance and Personnel is looking at issues such as the deferment of rates. I hope that we will be bringing a paper on the matter to the next meeting of the Executive. I am aware of the problem, and the Executive are looking at it.

I had raised the issue at a meeting with the Prime Minister some time back when consequential loss was raised. I have made it very clear that in the area of consequential compensation — if it is agreed by the Treasury — Northern Ireland people should not be treated any less generously than those across the water.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I want to take up the point made by Mr Wells. Since the last plenary session of the Assembly, a very responsible decision has been taken by the organisers of the North West 200 to cancel this year’s race on the recommendation of the Executive. As the event attracts over 100,000 people to the Causeway coast area, its cancellation will have a profound detrimental economic effect on those involved in the tourism and hospitality industries. Do the Minister and her colleagues have any plans to alleviate the hardship caused to those businesses by some form of business rates relief, as is the case in other parts of the United Kingdom?

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

I thank Mr McClarty for his comments. I will take this opportunity to agree with him about the responsible attitude shown by the North West 200 organisers. I recognise that it was a particularly difficult time for them, and it was a huge sacrifice. The loss is in the region of £5·5 million to the local area. I am totally appreciative, as is the farming community, of the responsible attitude that they have displayed in the situation.

Consequential compensation is being looked at, and the Executive, on advice from the Department of Finance and Personnel, are looking at all possible ways to help people who have suffered loss as a result of the present foot-and-mouth disease situation.

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

I compliment the Minister and her officials on their sterling work during this major crisis. This morning she has talked about compensation, but farmers have expressed concerns regarding the compensation being offered for animals about to be culled. Can the Minister indicate whether those concerns have been addressed and have the fears been allayed?

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

I thank Mr McMenamin for his remarks. Concerns have been raised at various times by groups of farmers in different areas. My officials have met with farmers on each occasion and have explained and clarified the situation. As far as I understand, concerns have been allayed and farmers have been assured that compensation will remain at full market value.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What effect are the emissions from culling pyres having on the environment? Given the forthcoming elections, has the Electoral Office been in touch with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to give directions on how members of the farming community should register their votes in order to protect themselves and their fellow farmers from spreading the disease? Go raibh maith agat.

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

I thank Mr Murphy for his question. The first part of the question concerned emissions from culling — I assume that Mr Murphy was talking about the emissions from the burning of animals. As the Member will be aware, this issue has now been raised, particularly across the water. I will be in consultation with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of the Environment about the issues involved. I will be guided by those Departments in any recommendations that they may wish to make, given that, so far, we have burnt animals on site. We are working as an Executive and working in a cross-departmental manner; these are not issues for my Department but for the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health. I will be taking their advice on those issues.

In relation to voting, I have had so many other things to think about that voting has been the last thing on my mind. Perhaps I should not be saying that, but that is the reality. Clearly it is, and will be, a serious issue. I have had no contact with the Electoral Office on this matter.

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

Is the Minister aware that the majority of decent farmers in Northern Ireland are resentful of the use of the word "rogue" when referring to any of their number? Can the Minister confirm that the rogues are those individuals who, in this instance, used an opportunity to distribute infected sheep brought into the Province under authorisation from her Department? Can she therefore confirm that the roguish activity conducted by these individuals, and its disastrous consequences, is an indictment of the Department — an example of negligence on its part by failing to ensure that sheep imported for slaughter were in fact slaughtered?

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

I thank Mr Kane for his comments. The vast majority of farmers in Northern Ireland are ordinary, decent people eking out a living in what is a very difficult way of life. Most people get Saturdays or Sundays off — unless you happen to be the Minister of Agriculture at the moment — but farmers do not get Saturdays or Sundays off. It is a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week job. It is not just their livelihood, but it is part of their whole way of life. They are going through a very difficult experience. The vast majority of them are people of integrity who work very hard. Yes, there are rogues, but there are rogues in every walk of life. I am sure that there are even rogues in politics.

Farmers are as keen to rid themselves of the rogues as the rest of us are, because the rogues are bringing the whole farming community into disrepute. That is extremely serious at the moment for the very many decent farmers, and I regret that it is happening. The last thing that I want to see is a few farmers — a few bad apples, as happens in every case — giving the whole barrel a rotten name. The fact that I have referred to a few rogue farmers is not in any way an indictment of the whole farming community, and I would be appalled if anyone would even consider that.

I take exception to the Member’s remarks in relation to the movement of animals and the fact that the whole thing is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Live imports into Northern Ireland are certified at the ports, and, under EU regulations, spot checks are carried out on their destination. The EU is a free market, and, therefore, it is not possible to do 100% checking. That would be against EU rules.

The reality is that some people broke the law; they abused the situation, and instead of bringing the legally imported animals to their legal destination in Northern Ireland, they took them to other places. We have been successful in tracing those animals and dealing with the issue. I absolutely refute the idea that is the fault of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development that those animals ended up where they should not have been. It is the fault of those who acted illegally for whatever reason, be it small profit or large profit.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister and her Department for their efforts in trying to control this disease and bring it to an end. I should declare an interest in the subject, as someone who assists on my parental farm on a part-time basis.

Is the Minister satisfied with the current level of fines imposed on the tiny minority of rogue dealers who have made illegal, unauthorised animal movements in Northern Ireland and have put our entire economy at risk? The Public Accounts Committee recently examined evidence that showed that there was a low level of fines for fraudulent agricultural transactions. Has the Minister any proposals to increase the level and severity of the fines? Has her Department been in contact with the courts in order to maximise the fines that are currently available?

Is the Minister aware of any investigation into illegal animal movements into my constituency of East Antrim, bearing in mind the outbreaks that have occurred in the Glens area?

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

I can assure Mr Beggs that the question of fines is under review. The Member will be aware that in all situations, much depends on the attitude taken by the courts. There might be a very high maximum fine, but it is up to the court to decide what the actual fine will be. I suspect that at this moment, the courts might take a very severe view of anyone who has been guilty of breaking the regulations or acting illegally.

Over the weekend the RUC intercepted illegal movements in six cases, and prosecutions will follow. I cannot say exactly where each of those took place or whether they took place in the Member’s constituency.

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

We all recognise the enormity of the situation. This Assembly and the community also recognise the total commitment of the Minister and her officials to resolving this problem, and it is our job to assist them.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the problems in rural mountain areas such as south Down, south Armagh and others, where the grazing of livestock always takes place across a lane or road from where they have been housed for the winter. That is a very important issue, and one which the Minister has already touched upon, but I would like her assurance of total security within this framework.

Additionally, there is the question of the horse-breeding fraternity. This is the time of year when mares must be moved if there is to be an end product at the appropriate time. The mares are now totally restricted and cannot be moved to stud. Can the Minister look at that as a matter of urgency?

There is also the question of horse racing. We know that both Downpatrick and Down Royal racecourses have heeded the advice of the Department. The meetings that have been postponed or cancelled are the total lifeblood of the end product of horse breeding in this country. Can the Minister give help or advice to the horse breeders?

Finally, regarding this statement, I was deeply concerned when the Minister said that any compensation funding would come out of the Northern Ireland block. I find this totally unacceptable when the Exchequer at Westminster has a multi-billion pound surplus. No sector in the Northern Ireland block should be put in this situation in order to pay such compensation. We should get extra funding from the central Exchequer.

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

I thank Mr McGrady for his —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Members should be aware that if I hear remarks made from a sedentary position, and I refer to them, they will be put on the record. If they are on the record and are critical of the Chair, then they fall foul of parliamentary procedure. Members need to be aware of that.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I do not normally take points of order during the question time. However, it is coming to a close soon, and I will take the Member’s point of order at that time.

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

I thank Mr McGrady for his initial remarks. With regard to his comments about the winter house stock going out to grass, if I were in any doubt about the strength of feeling on the severity of this situation, the fact that so many Members have reiterated that point today clearly indicates just how serious the situation is. I am urgently trying to address it — I hope during this week but at the very latest next Monday.

In relation to the horse-breeding fraternity, I am also aware of its difficulties, particularly in getting horses moved to stud. I am addressing that issue at the same time and will be guided by the vets. I hope to be able to make an announcement on this very soon. With regard to horse racing, I will be guided by the veterinary advice on this.

Regarding compensation from the Northern Ireland block, I agree with Mr McGrady. It is my earnest wish that all compensation could and should come from the Treasury, and I will be making that case very strongly — in fact, I have already made it. I still hope that Her Majesty’s Treasury may top up the compensation money.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I congratulate the Minister on the work that she and her Department are doing. I want to draw her attention to that part of her statement that deals with vaccination. She says that vaccination, in contrast, takes several days to take effect and is a less desirable option. It can be a valuable weapon, the Minister says, in certain circumstances but does have serious drawbacks. Is the Minister in a position to elaborate a little on what those circumstances are and also on what the drawbacks are?

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

Vaccination, as I understand it, takes a number of days to kick in and would not be an effective way of dealing with the disease at present. The longer you wait, the more chance there is of the disease spreading. The most effective way of dealing with the disease is to cull immediately — thereby killing it off. The serious drawback of vaccination is that it would blight our export trade. In Northern Ireland we depend on our export trade — for example, 80% of our milk product is exported, with 30% of that going to the Republic. We are very dependent on exports, and vaccination would have serious implications for the economy.

It would also mean that we would not be considered disease-free and would be considered as having an endemic problem of foot-and-mouth disease. Those are serious drawbacks, from the point of view of our whole industry.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of the debate you called me to order for the way in which I was putting my questions. Why was that ruling not applied to everyone? I have been listening carefully. For instance, Mr McGrady asked three completely distinct questions. I asked only one question on compensation before moving on to welfare, but I was called to order. Why did that happen? Is there one rule for one Member and another rule for another?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The answer is simple. I was counting the number of questions that you asked, and, when it came to six or seven, I intervened. A Member might say that he had asked one question with six or seven parts or legs to it; that would be a matter for judgement. I counted some six or seven questions before I intervened. The Member then moved on to the question on welfare. Mr McGrady asked three questions — or perhaps four — but not six or seven.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

We will see the six questions in Hansard tomorrow.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I did not quite catch what the Member said. Not all the Member’s questions were answered. As I advise the House generally, the greater the number of questions asked of a Minister by one Member, the less likely it is that every question will be answered. It is much more likely that questions will be answered in full if fewer questions are asked. One cannot force Ministers to answer questions, as the Member knows from the House of Commons. One must simply put the questions.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

An hour was set aside for questions this morning, and we did not take up all of that hour.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member is incorrect. Standing Orders require that not more than an hour be taken. There will now be a further statement on foot-and-mouth disease to which, I have no doubt, the Member will wish to attend fully, as will the rest of the House.

Agriculture (Foot-and-Mouth Disease): North/South Ministerial Council Sectoral Meeting

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

I should like to report to the Assembly on a special meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its agriculture sectoral format held in Dublin on Friday 6 April 2001. Mr Sam Foster, Minister of the Environment, and I attended the meeting, and the Irish Government were represented by Mr Joe Walsh TD, Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. It was the third meeting of the Council in that sector, and it was exclusively devoted to foot-and-mouth disease and the efforts to combat its spread on the island of Ireland.

The Council received an update on the situation and acknowledged with gratitude the part played by so many people — North and South — in guarding against the spread of the disease by following the respective guidelines and acting responsibly. The Council fully understood the difficulties being experienced by agriculture and other sectors of industry and acknowledged the reasons why both Administrations were keeping restriction measures under continual review. It was hoped that, in the light of the determined manner in which the outbreak was being tackled North and South, the scale of the difficulties would be kept to a minimum and that that approach would bring real benefits to everybody in the long run. Ministers reiterated their personal determination, and that of their respective Administrations, to ensure that everything possible would be done to alleviate the difficulties.

Acknowledging that both Administrations attached the highest importance to animal health, the Council again underlined the value of enhanced co-operation on the issue. The Council noted that since the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, collaboration between the two Administrations had intensified, with the primary purpose of containing and eradicating the disease. It emphasised that the events of recent weeks illustrated the importance of an island-wide approach to such issues, and it agreed that sustained co-operation between the two Administrations was essential to reduce the risk of further spread of foot-and-mouth disease.

The Council therefore agreed that both Administrations should continue to: closely monitor the situation in their respective herds and flocks; exchange all relevant information in respect of animal movements; strongly encourage the public — particularly the farming and agri-business community — to continue to follow the advice being given to prevent any spread of the disease; review the activities that might be resumed and the conditions under which such resumption might be permitted; liaise closely in the prevention of the importation of susceptible animals from Great Britain; maintain co-operation in ensuring that proper disinfection arrangements are applied at all entry points to the island; monitor ongoing developments in respect of cross-border issues; and maintain liaison with the port and other authorities in Britain to ensure that appropriate disinfection procedures are maintained at ports and other exit points from Britain to this island.

The Council decided that officials of the two Agriculture Departments should develop a strategy for the control of animal movements on the island of Ireland, drawing on work done in both jurisdictions. It also decided that in the light of the experience gained from the current foot-and- mouth disease outbreaks, officials should consider the means of prevention, containment and eradication of future epizootic disease outbreaks on the island.

The Council requested that the officials report back to subsequent Council meetings in the agriculture sector. The Council agreed that the next meeting of the agriculture sector would take place in the South in June 2001. Following the meeting a joint communiqué was issued. A copy has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Mr Speaker, I hope you will understand the difficulty that one has in responding to the second statement without making reference to the first. I thank the Minister for her statement. She rightly said that the Administrations are ensuring that everything possible is being done to alleviate the present difficulties. The House has heard of roguish actions having been being carried out, but that is an erroneous term. Deliberate illegal actions or actions of — at the very least — economic terrorism are being carried out.

What is being done on a North/South basis to address that issue? The Minister talked about the lax observation by some and the evidence — not reports or perceptions — to that effect. Will the Minister outline the sort of lax observation being talked about and tell the House who the "some" are?

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

The Governments North and South are continuing to share information about their investigations, and some of the lines that we are following with a view to prosecution are as a result of shared information between the two jurisdictions.

Will Mr Hussey repeat the other part of his question?

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. I said that it was difficult not to relate the Minister’s two statements. The Minister mentioned lax observation by some and said that there was evidence of it. I asked her to reveal to the House the type of lax observation that there is and who the "some" are that there is evidence against.

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

I thank Mr Hussey for that clarification.

In my original statement — and I am not sure that I should be responding to it now, but I will indulge the Member — I referred to lax observation of fortress farming by some farmers, and I emphasise the word "some". The people delivering census forms are arriving at avenues and lanes in the country, but how are they to know whether they are at a farm if there is not a foot-and- mouth notice warning people to keep out? Lots of people live in the country but do not farm. Some people are not observing all of the advice that has been given about fortress farming, and that is what I referred to in my statement.

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

Can the Minister assure the Assembly that no four-footed animals of any kind are being imported from Great Britain or Europe on to the island of Ireland?

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

Not all four-footed animals are susceptible. Horses are not susceptible, but there is always the danger that they will carry the disease if they have been in touch with susceptible animals. I can speak only for Northern Ireland; I cannot speak for the Republic of Ireland on the four-footed animals that are allowed on to that part of the island of Ireland. However, I assure Mr Bradley that no four-legged susceptible animals are getting into Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

What discussions has the Minister had with the Dublin Government about smuggling? Can she confirm if any of the 19 people who are under investigation by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development are also under investigation in the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic? Have any of those people been paid compensation or sought an amnesty from either Government? Has the matter been raised and discussed by Ministers? Has any compensation been paid from departmental money to those who have sought an amnesty or are under investigation? If so, what advice has she received from the Dublin Government?

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

The 19 cases that I referred to are being prosecuted by the RUC in Northern Ireland. Three cases are being dealt with by the veterinary investigation unit. I cannot speak for what is happening in the South, because I do not have the information here. However, I assure the Member that any information that we receive is shared with the Republic. I would be very surprised if it is not being followed up, because the Republic is taking a very hard line. It has already changed its legislation, and we are now looking at changing ours.

The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has not offered or considered giving amnesty at any stage to people who have acted illegally. The compensation already paid out has been paid in the south Armagh cull area and the Meigh area where there was a precautionary cull of infected animals. No compensation was paid in at least two cases where the people involved were guilty of illegal activity. That is the policy.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What animals are considered susceptible, and what animals continue to be imported from Britain? Will the Minister comment on the continued criticism from the Government and media circles in the South on the disparity between the approach to prevention and eradication by the Department in the North and the Department in the South? Will the Minister assure us that her Department operates on the same philosophy as the Southern Department? The priority is to eradicate the disease rather than take the London line which appears to be damage limitation and give the impression that things are OK. The priority is to eradicate the disease as the Southern Department is doing.

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

No susceptible animals or horses from Britain are allowed into Northern Ireland. The susceptible animals are cows, pigs, sheep and goats. Horses are not susceptible. However, if they are in touch with those animals, they can be a danger, and they can carry the disease.

With regard to eradication of this disease, I am pleased to clarify the confusion raised by some recent remarks. At my meeting with Joe Walsh last week I also clarified the fact that our policy on dealing with suspect cases is based on our commitment to eradicate the disease and to err on the side of caution and cull if there is a doubt in our mind about whether the disease is present.

Our policy is exactly the same as that in the Republic. When we come across a suspect case, the vets make a judgement as to whether it is likely to be foot-and- mouth disease or whether there are other circumstances that point to its not being. If there is less concern about it, we restrict the farm until we get the result. If there is more concern, we err on the side of caution and we cull. That is precisely what happens in the South. I am aware that, for instance, last week there was a suspected case in the South, and they restricted the farm but did not cull. In one case in Armagh we decided to cull, then changed our minds on foot of further evidence. As it happened, we were right, because the result was negative. From the beginning, my priority has been to eradicate the disease.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her statement and take this opportunity to reiterate the value of the North/South Ministerial Council. At a time when this whole island is under serious threat from a deadly animal disease, joint action is being taken to halt this plague. That can only be welcomed by every right-thinking person. I also point out that that special meeting was called — and rightly so — to show the determination of both Governments to tackle this serious problem.

How quickly will the strategy for the control of animal movements be agreed and in place? Has the Minister any plans to tighten the regulation on the individual tagging of sheep?

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

We will certainly look at the tagging of sheep. A subcommittee of the vision group is already working on the lessons to be learnt from the present situation. That issue is being looked at, and recommendations will be made. I will be very surprised if movement is not made in that direction. I also understand that the view of the Republic is to move towards individual sheep tagging.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will there also be control of animal movements?

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

I believe that the Member was talking about movements across the border, rather than within Northern Ireland. We will be looking at how we can co-ordinate our efforts and our legislation, initially to minimise the incentive for that type of movement as well as to deal with it.

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

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her comments on the North/South meeting. One point was that both Administrations should continue to

"maintain co-operation in ensuring that proper disinfection arrangements are applied at all entry points to the island".

At the Committee meeting last week it was said that automatic demisters were to be installed. Can the Minister tell me when that will happen?

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

Automatic sprayers — not demisters — are to be installed, and we have been working on that for some time. I cannot give the Member a definite date, but I imagine that it will be before the end of this week. At the time of my last enquiry, it was a matter of sorting out the contract — the sprayers have to be made to specification to fit the vehicles — but I expect that they will be installed very soon. Automatic sprayers are not an improvement in the controls, but they need very little manpower and will simply allow us to use necessary resources elsewhere.

12.00

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In today’s statement there is a recognition of the difficulties faced by the Department of Agriculture and other sectors. I want to ask about a sector which has been particularly hard-hit in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Retail outlets in that area rely on customers from the Republic of Ireland for a large proportion of their business. That is true in towns such as Aughnacloy, Augher, Belcoo and Belleek. The traders in those towns purchase milk and dairy produce from suppliers in the Republic of Ireland. However, when customers from the Republic purchase supplies in those areas — and I am sure this happens in other constituencies — under present restrictions they are not allowed to take those supplies into the Republic. This has led to a marked drop in trade for these retailers, and it seems that the local authorities are being far too diligent. Will the Minister raise this matter with the Minister in the South, and will she continue to press for more sensible arrangements to be put in place? Of course, such arrangements would be in line with the necessary precautions to prevent any further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.

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

I have been made aware of the issue and have raised it with Joe Walsh, who assures me that this is being dealt with. I am also aware of the fact that Easter eggs were removed from people crossing the border; that was over-diligence. A number of issues arose over the Easter weekend, but Joe Walsh has assured me that they have now been dealt with.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

From the Minister’s statement I noticed that the North/South Ministerial Council meeting, which she attended on 6 April, was exclusively devoted to the foot-and-mouth outbreak. Were concerns raised at that meeting about grants, subsidy and inspection staff in Northern Ireland being ordered off a cull site when fraud was being investigated and exposed? Were concerns expressed that it was not a so-called farmer in south Armagh who ordered those staff off the site, but a veterinary officer?

Are the Minister and the people who attended that meeting on 6 April not concerned that there may be members of staff in the Department of Agriculture who are aiding and abetting smuggling in south Armagh?

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

The matter was not raised at the North/ South Ministerial Council meeting for the simple reason that it was not an issue. There is no truth in the allegation, and I have to refute the suggestion that grants and subsidy staff were ordered off the cull site. I have thoroughly investigated the allegations made and am satisfied that the implication that staff were somehow involved in collaboration with illegalities is most certainly not the case.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A LeasCheann Comhairle. It is welcome to have these discussions taking place on an all-Ireland basis, particularly with regard to the foot-and-mouth outbreak.

In the Minister’s discussions with the Minister in the South, has it been suggested that the controls and traceability systems for livestock and food production should be harmonized on an all-Ireland basis? Given that the disease affects both parts of the island, has an all-Ireland approach to determining, through an inquiry, the cause and impact of the foot-and-mouth outbreak here and in the South been discussed?

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

An official working group is examining the matter of tracing to which Mr McHugh referred. I have clearly indicated that we are taking an all-island approach through our use of the North/South Ministerial Council. The Council has already been described by Mr McCarthy as a very useful way of dealing with this outbreak — it has been co-ordinating, where useful, our efforts and exchanging and sharing information. This is helping us, on both sides of the border, to deal with what is an all-Ireland animal health problem. As the Member may be aware, as early as last November the North/South Ministerial Council set in train working groups to look at harmonised animal health strategies on the island of Ireland as a whole. At that stage, of course, there was no indication that we were going to witness this crisis, but we were already recognising that animal ill-health, infections and viruses do not recognise the border.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

On the question of North/South co-operation, it is important that Members compare the compensation paid to farmers affected by foot-and-mouth disease in each of the neighbouring jurisdictions. Will the Minister undertake to publish details of the compensation awards made so that Members can monitor those payments and assess if payments made here are comparable to those made in the Irish Republic?

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

Throughout this unfortunate incident, I have operated on an open and accountable basis. I do not think that anyone would expect a Minister to operate in any other way, but, of course, any necessary details will be put in the public domain, and I expect that they will be thoroughly scrutinised. I simply reiterate that compensation has been, and will continue to be, made at full market value. I cannot say if the market value in the Republic is the same, higher or lower than the market value here. However, we will be paying to farmers the full market value for Northern Ireland animals in Northern Ireland.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement on the North/South co-operation on foot-and-mouth disease. Does she consider that co-operation on the future operation of cattle marts and the movement of animals could be necessary? Has the Minister any view on the opinion that meat plants should conform to the strictest possible monitoring of all animals that are presented for slaughter?

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

The sub-committee of the vision group which is looking at the implications of, and the lessons to be learnt from, this whole episode will be examining the operation of the marts, as well as every other aspect of the industry. I am certain that the North/South Ministerial Council will hold discussions to try to share our experiences, learn lessons from each other and, if necessary, co-ordinate our activities.

In Northern Ireland our veterinary inspectors inspect everything that arrives in and goes out of the meat plants. That is very carefully monitored. I cannot speak for the Republic of Ireland and how they operate there. Clearly, every section of the industry needs to ensure that it is operating in an open, transparent and correct way.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

What arrangements are being made for my constituents in West Tyrone? Directly or indirectly, they have been distressed financially. As the Social Security Agency’s personnel cannot visit due to foot-and- mouth disease and our constituency offices are being used as form-filling centres, that distress is compounded. Can the Minister assure us that some arrangements will be made for the immediate payments of much needed distress funds?

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

I understand that there is a great deal of distress as a result of the present situation, and I sympathise with those concerned. The Member will be aware that the payment of social security is not a matter for my Department but for the Department for Social Development. I understand that arrangements have been made to deal with that problem. Clearly I am not in a position to answer that question, but perhaps Mr Gibson could address it to the Minister for Social Development.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her report. Did she see a report in the ‘Sunday Tribune’ at the weekend which states that some 15,000 sheep were imported from Longtown into Northern Ireland in the first seven weeks of the year? It is thought that a number of these have gone south. Indeed, the junior Agriculture Minister, Noel Davern, says that he is expecting a sizeable number of prosecutions. Hundreds of these sheep are unaccounted for.

‘Private Eye’ magazine has a record for whistle- blowing and being proven correct. Has the Minister seen an article in that publication which states that foot-and-mouth disease was rampant in the national flock in Britain in January? If these articles are correct, we would appear to have a sizeable problem here. What credence does the Minister give to these allegations? When does she expect the missing sheep, in both North and South, to be identified?

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

I suspect that we are moving into the business of the last session rather than continuing with the business of the present one. This session concerns my statement on the North/South Ministerial Council. I am quite happy to respond to those questions if they come to me during the debate, or even by way of a written reply. I have no difficulty in answering them, but we should stick to the rules.

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

I have been quite lax with Mr McFarland. If he wants to write to you, I am sure he will receive a response.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Can the Minister assure the House that the importance of animal health is acknowledged by both Administrations? There may be product coming from another country through the Republic into Northern Ireland and placing the Province’s farming community in jeopardy.

We know nothing about unaccounted sheep that could have slipped into the Irish Republic before 1 February. There could be foot-and-mouth disease or some other problem down there, and it could slip into Northern Ireland. I would like an assurance that everything is being done along the border to ensure that nothing is happening that will jeopardise our farming community.

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

May I again remind Members not to repeat questions that may previously have been answered, partially or totally.

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

Animal imports from the Republic of Ireland are not the problem. We have four outbreaks in Northern Ireland, so the problem is vice versa. However, we are enforcing the controls, and the hypotheses about unaccounted sheep are endless. We will continue to monitor and scrutinise every situation where there may be a possibility of the disease’s either being brought in or spreading further in Northern Ireland, or on the island of Ireland for that matter. Our priority is to contain the disease and then eradicate it.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement and congratulate her and her officials on all their recent hard work.

I am particularly pleased to see a strategic approach to animal movement and the prevention and containment of disease. Does the Minister agree that this not only underlines the need for cross-border co-operation but points to the need for even more serious steps for agriculture in general?

I am at something of a loss. Before the Speaker left the Chair he indicated that although six minutes were left, he would not take my question then but would allow me to ask it later on the back of this statement. I suppose I could dress it up by asking the Minister if, given her relationship with her counterpart in the South, she has been offered any assistance with the problem of sheep movement. Is she aware of the growing welfare problem in my constituency — malnutrition and death among lambs because of the shortage of green grass grazing? There is virtually no substitute for fresh green grass to provide the quality of nursing milk that lambs need. The Minister has already indicated that sheep movement does present a particular problem. Can we make progress on this as quickly as possible?

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

I will leave it to the discretion of the Minister whether she answers the Member’s question.

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

I thank Mr ONeill for his initial comments and his remarks about the need for a more strategic common approach to agriculture on the island of Ireland. Agriculture is the one area with the clearest commonality of interest, North and South and within the North/South Ministerial Council. In conjunction with Joe Walsh, I have been moving to strengthen the co-ordinated approach on the island to animal health and other related agricultural areas.

I have dealt with the welfare problem on a number of occasions, and I refer Mr ONeill to my previous responses.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Bearing in mind that the discussion was solely on foot-and-mouth disease and that the disease was brought in through smuggling, was that issue discussed at the North/South meeting? Were the issues of herds with alarmingly large numbers of twin births in the Irish Republic and of dealers who buy large amounts of calves and cattle into their herds, which subsequently disappear, discussed? Was the Republic of Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development aware that farmers who were involved in the sheep smuggling that brought foot-and-mouth disease in had requested an amnesty? Was it also aware that some of those people were subsequently paid large sums of money for hauling livestock to the cull in Newry?

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

I thank Mr Poots for his question. I am afraid that I did not hear the last part. Regarding the issues specifically raised at the meeting, we agreed to continue to share information on all illegal activities, which involves smuggling. We have been doing that from the beginning, and we will continue to do so. It is perhaps as a result of that that some of the investigations in the South have proved so fruitful.

I could not possibly comment on an amnesty in the Republic of Ireland. I know nothing about it. You would not expect that to be discussed at our meeting, because whatever they do in the Republic is a matter for them.

North/South Ministerial Council: Special EU Programmes

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

Members, I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on special EU programmes held on 9 April 2001.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I should like to report to the Assembly on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in the special European Union programmes sector held in Dublin on Monday 9 April 2001, which Mr Dermot Nesbitt and I attended. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Charlie McCreevy TD, Minister for Finance. The report has been approved by Mr Nesbitt and is also made on his behalf.

The Council welcomed the recently appointed chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), Mr John McKinney, and recorded its appreciation of the contribution which Mr Philip Angus had made during his time as interim chief executive.

The chief executive gave a presentation on the progress made by the Special EU Programmes Body since the last meeting in that sector on 15 November 2000. He identified progress made towards the development of a strategic plan that will enable the body to fulfil its mandate. The Council was pleased to note the work in progress and the evolving structure of the SEUPB.

The Council agreed that the various programmes within the remit of the body had a major role to play in the development of peace and reconciliation and economic and social progress on the whole island, particularly in the border areas. The Council highlighted the importance of the chief executive’s role in that respect and looked forward to working closely with him in implementing those important tasks.

The Council received a report on proposals for a revised staffing structure for the body that had emerged as the result of a review carried out by external consultants. The Council acknowledged that, while an initial staffing structure had been agreed at the sectoral meeting on special EU programmes in June 2000, it had been agreed that that structure would have to be reviewed as the body developed and its responsibilities became operational.

The Council agreed that it was important that permanent staff be appointed as soon as possible and stressed the need for the body to secure value for money by ensuring an appropriate level of staff at the minimum cost to the public purse.

The Council noted that the proposals for a revised staffing structure were now the subject of an urgent full structural analysis and job evaluation, and it approved the immediate recruitment of five new posts, the cost of which would be met from the SEUPB’s approved budget for 2001.

The Council received a report on the outcome of the public consultation on the draft Equality Scheme which the body had drawn up in accordance with its statutory responsibilities under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Council stressed the importance of the application of the principle of equality of opportunity by the body in all areas of its work, and it approved the submission of the draft Equality Scheme to the Equality Commission.

The Council considered the draft targeting social need action plan which had been prepared by the SEUPB in accordance with the requirements of the New TSN programme. The draft plan, which outlines how the body proposes to conform to the principles of New TSN, was approved by the Council as a basis for consultation during April and May 2001. The Council looked forward to the outcome of the consultation and to seeing the final draft of the plan at the next North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on EU programmes.

The Council received a report on the progress of negotiations on the Peace II operational programme and programme complement since the last sectoral meeting on EU programmes on 15 November. The Council was pleased to note that negotiations on the Peace II programme were now complete, and it welcomed the formal approval of the programme in Belfast on 22 March during the visit of the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, Michel Barnier. The Council noted the progress made by the SEUPB on the programme complement and that a draft of the programme complement would be put to the Peace II monitoring committee at its next meeting.

The Council stressed the need for the monitoring committee to be given every support in discharging its responsibilities so that it can give careful consideration and agreement to the programme complement as soon as possible. The Council urged the body to ensure that funding comes on stream in the very near future.

In the context of the Peace programme — in particular, the cross-border elements of the programme — the Council indicated that it would expect to hear about progress on the common chapter at the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in this format.

The Council received a report on the new partnership arrangements being put in place in Northern Ireland to further develop partnership-working at local level by establishing more effective mechanisms to reinforce and extend the social partnership model and to make it sustainable beyond the lifetime of the Peace II programme. The Council noted that a new regional partnership board, chaired by the two junior Ministers in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, is being created and that the SEUPB will provide the secretariat for that new board. This will help to achieve co-ordination between the roles of the body in relation to priority three of Peace II and the wider roles of the partnerships and the board in developing and extending the principles of partnership-working to other areas of European and mainstream public-expenditure-funded activity.

The Council also noted that the SEUPB would take over secretariat functions for the existing Northern Ireland Partnership Board to help to ensure a smooth transition from the current partnership arrangements to the new arrangements.

The Council noted that it is planned to establish a central payments unit in the SEUPB to process payments on behalf of implementing bodies in Northern Ireland under Peace II. The Council agreed that the establishment of a central payments unit would enhance the ability of the SEUPB to monitor spending at a more detailed level under Peace II. It also agreed that the establishment of the unit would go some way towards addressing concerns expressed by the European Court of Auditors about some aspects of financial management and control systems under Peace I.

The central payments unit will not compromise the authority of the various implementing bodies appointed under the programme to take decisions on the allocation of funding to individual projects. The Council also noted that further consideration will be given to embracing payments under other EU programmes under the system.

The Council received a report of the progress made on the negotiations of the community initiatives with the European Commission. The Council welcomed the progress made on the INTERREG III programme and noted that formal negotiation was about to commence. The Council agreed that the finance departments and the SEUPB should maintain pressure on the European Commission to enter into substantive negotiations as quickly as possible. The Council also urged the body to make as much progress as possible on the preparation of the programme complement for INTERREG III in advance of the completion of negotiations.

The Council also noted that the EQUAL programme for Northern Ireland had been revised in response to the Commission’s comments and that the revised programme would be submitted to the European Commission shortly and was expected to be formally adopted during April. The Council noted that comments had been received from the Commission on the Northern Ireland LEADER programme and that that would enable negotiations to proceed.

The Council also noted that the URBAN programme for Northern Ireland, which is one of a package of 13 bids submitted by the UK, was currently the subject of discussions between the European Commission and the UK about the total number of programmes to be submitted from the member state.

The Council received a report from the action team, which was established under the chairmanship of the SEUPB, to consider how the border corridor groups could contribute to decisions on spending from the new round of structural funds support in the border region. The Council agreed a set of principles to underpin the work and roles of the border corridor groups that would give those groups a greater input in deciding on the priority for spending of EU funds in the border corridor area.

The Council noted that work would continue to develop an operational framework for the application of those principles and to examine a proposal for an expenditure performance indicator. The Council asked to be updated at the next NSMC sectoral meeting on EU programmes about the progress on how the principles outlined in the report were being implemented in practice.

The Council considered a paper outlining the progress of spend on the Peace I programme and INTERREG II programme. The Council noted that overall expenditure at 31 December 2000 stood at 79% for Peace I and 86% of the INTERREG II initiative allocations. The Council agreed that that was an important area of work and that while progress had been made since the last report to the NSMC in November, further sustained effort will be required to ensure that full expenditure is achieved by 31 December 2001.

The Council also noted that the body will provide a further progress report on the implementation of both programmes at the next NSMC sectoral meeting on the special EU programmes. The Council stressed the need for the body to ensure that all the EU regulatory requirements for closure of the programmes are met and asked to be advised at the next NSMC sectoral meeting on progress made by the body in implementing those requirements.

The Council will meet again in this format in the North in June 2001. The Council agreed the text of a joint communiqué issued following the meeting. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

The penultimate paragraph of the third page of the Minister’s statement refers to the new regional partnership board replacing the current Northern Ireland Partnership Board. Can the Minister indicate when that process will be completed, the size of the new board and its sectoral composition? Can he elaborate on the middle sentence that refers to the role of the partnership board and links that to extending the principles of partnership working to other areas of European and mainstream public expenditure-funded activity? What does that mean? Does that contain some sort of financial and constitutional innovation, or is it quite innocuous?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The point made in the statement reinforces and confirms a point I made in a previous statement that the operational programme for Peace II had been signed. In that context, both in answers to questions and in the statement, I addressed issues about how we saw the future development of partnership working, and we do want to develop it. The Executive have rightly stressed the need to ensure that we do not use the partnership model only for certain European programmes or for one priority area in the peace programme. If we really believe in and advocate the partnership model, we should extend it to other areas of European programme funding. Beyond the period when we have the special additional EU money available we want to be able to extend it to our own mainstream funding activity. It will mean that more decisions involving different areas of public expenditure and policy management and co-ordination will be informed by the strategic thinking of partnerships at local level.

In the next period, part of the role of the new regional partnership board will be to work not only with local partnerships to help to oversee and support what they are doing under the priority three measure of the Peace II programme but also to foster and develop more partnership thinking and working across a wider range of areas so that we achieve more from partnership and from public expenditure.

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

I welcome the complex and all-embracing statement by the Minister. Once again we see that, in the same way as its predecessor Peace I, the special EU programme for Peace II is a vote of confidence in the people of Ireland, North and South, and in the institutions that were set up through the Good Friday Agreement.

Can the Minister indicate what will be the timetable for the completion of the programme and the complements? When does he expect the resources to flow to the various communities so that the peace process can be deepened further? What special or enhanced arrangements will there be to ensure that the management and direction of the new regime will be based on the equality agenda and on the rural-proofing agenda and extend itself into the communities that are most in need of such support and most vulnerable?

I welcome the enhanced participation by the various bodies, boards, partnerships and district councils in the formulation of the strategy.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his comments welcoming the contribution that has been made by a number of interested parties to the development of the proposals and, just as importantly, to the management and success of the Peace II programme.

The operational programme was signed on 22 March in this Building. Under European regulations the programme complement that will set out the specific actions and measures to be undertaken must be agreed by the monitoring committee within three months of that date. Therefore we must agree it by 21 June.

Only when the programme complement is agreed by the monitoring committee will we be in a position to invite applications. We want to do that before 21 June. The Special EU Programmes Body, the two Finance Departments and all other Departments want to do it as soon as possible. If we are able to invite applications in June, we hope to see funding being allocated in September.

The monitoring committee will have a key role, not just in agreeing the programme complement, but with regard to key horizontal principles that apply right across the community support framework, including the Peace II programme. Those principles include equality and balance considerations. In this round, the monitoring committees will be encouraged to set up working groups that can focus on specific interests. There might, for instance, be a dedicated working group for rural issues.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for making available the communiqué. The communiqué from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development was not available when I called into the Library. Sometimes they are more revealing than Ministers’ statements. It should also be noted that the all-Ireland council meetings are moving full steam ahead, following a slight blip when the Ulster Unionist Party withdrew briefly.

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

Do you have a question for the Minister?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes. My question relates to the moneys that will be allocated to the cross-border element of the European programme. Will the Minister guarantee that that money will be better distributed than it was in the first round? Can he assure the House that the Unionist community, which I represent, will not be discriminated against? Given the demographics of Northern Ireland, North/South funding is more likely to go to people from the Nationalist section of the community. Will there be matching funding for the Unionist community?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Obviously, cross-border measures have particular relevance to border areas, but they are not only relevant to those areas. The monitoring arrangements that will be in place for the next programmes are a significant improvement on previous monitoring arrangements. Adherence to horizontal principles and good monitoring practice will reassure everybody that the allocation and management of the funding is fair. If funding is given to us for specific measures in particular areas, we must use it for those measures and in those areas. Where criteria such as targeting social need are involved we must fulfil those criteria. We will see a fair and competent adherence to all the principles and requirements of EU regulations and to our own equality and TSN obligations.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome this comprehensive statement, which deals with a matter that can be confusing for anyone dealing with the implementation of the programme.

The Minister spoke about the "near future". People will want to know when the "near future" is. Such target dates tend to move, and there is great confusion among groups about them. There is much work to be done in border areas, and there is money that can be used to the benefit of those areas.

However, groups need information about how things will happen and when things will happen. They need to know how they can go forward, how they can set up and implement projects, and how to direct themselves towards the right type of projects. They need to know the timescales, and there is a considerable amount of confusion in the industry about that. Single identity groups mentioned by Mr Poots can be dealt with on the basis of information drawn down to them.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his questions, and I acknowledge his point about the complexity of some of these issues and with the number of different programmes and the varying dates that are involved.

Obviously there has been a big concentration on the question of the Peace II programme. As I have indicated, we need to have the programme complements agreed by June. It will be on that basis that we will be able to invite applications for funding. I have said that we hope to be looking at allocations by September. We are trying to be clear and committed in relation to that date.

Some of the other programmes are still subject to further negotiation with the Commission, particularly the community initiatives, so we cannot specify some of those dates at this stage, because we cannot say exactly when negotiations will commence and conclude. We are not entirely masters of the timetable in relation to all of the programmes.

We have sought to communicate as much information as possible to various interested groups, not least in the context of gap funding arrangements, through which projects can apply for interim funding to cover the period from April to October 2001, because that period is clearly related to the fact that we hope to be able to look at allocations from the programme in September.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Can the Minister outline what specific steps, if any, are being taken to address the acknowledged problem of the lack of applications and the underfunding of projects from the Protestant/Unionist community in Northern Ireland?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I have touched on this matter before, because a number of Members have already raised this question. It was a concern, not least at the interim stage in terms of Peace I. Various measures were identified by programme managers, not least in local partnerships, and were designed to ensure that a greater rate of applications would be encouraged and stimulated across the community. There was some success in that regard.

Members need to be careful about relying on impressionistic accounts of what has or has not been happening. I do not pretend that it has been the subject of a definitive and incontestable analysis, but some of the analyses undertaken show that there has been no difference. For instance, the rate of allocations to the two communities has been no different to the rate of applications; so there is no higher relative success rate.

The problem is about how you measure particular projects, whether you are classifying them as being from one community or another. Analyses, such as those by PricewaterhouseCoopers, indicate that significant amounts of funding are going to groups that are in essence cross- community and are able to show cross-community involvement and benefits.

We need to take account of the broader picture as well as try to ensure that we get full adherence to the horizontal principles in the new programme. Those horizontal principles place an emphasis on equality and balance.

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

I too welcome the statement and congratulate all those involved in the Minister’s Department on their work on the EU programmes. Can the Minister confirm that all parties are represented on the various monitoring committees and that the DUP, in particular, is sitting on the cross-border Peace II monitoring committee and playing a full and active part in its cross-border activities?

With regard to INTERREG III, at what stage can we expect to get details of the introduction and implementation of the operational framework and the involvement of the border corridor groups, as they are described in the new arrangements?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Four Northern parties are represented on both the Peace II and the Building Sustainable Prosperity programme monitoring committees. Five parties are represented on the overall community support framework monitoring committee. In each instance those parties include the DUP, and all members are playing a full and active role in the monitoring committees. The committees have a serious amount of work to undertake in the next period, and there must be concentration on agreeing the programme complements. I hope that all parties will play their full parts in that.

In respect of the timetable for INTERREG III, I cannot definitively answer that question, because we are awaiting negotiations, and we must see how things are going there before we will have any precise idea of when they will conclude.

I met the border corridor groups in January. Charlie McCreevy, Minister of Finance in Dublin, also met the groups. We are both very happy to acknowledge the very significant contribution that they have already made and the particular contribution that they could make to the future success not just of INTERREG III, but of other programmes as well. That is why an action team involving members of the cross-border corridor groups was established under the chairmanship of the Special EU Programmes Body. At the sectoral meeting we noted the report from that action team. We intend constructively and positively to pursue some of the issues and ideas in that report, not just for the good of the cross-border corridor groups, but for the betterment of those programmes and the particular areas represented by those groups.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I too welcome the Minister’s statement. Over the years the partnership boards have done sterling work. I am sure that they are very keen to know what is going to happen. The members of the one in which I am involved want to know what the plans are going to be, because they are starting to run out of money. Have all the applications for funding to be made through the partnership boards, and how long is the lifetime of these new boards?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I acknowledge the questions from Mr Savage. I want to make the point that the new local strategy partnerships have a particular focus as far as the management of priority three of the Peace II programme is concerned. That is for the life of that programme. We are trying to make sure that we develop the whole partnership model in a sustainable way. That means that we have to see the partnership model being able to work outside priority three of the Peace II programme and, indeed, outside and beyond the Peace II programmes and European Union- funded programmes in general. We are trying to develop the model of partnership during the next peace programme in ways that will sustain it beyond that particular programme.

Many of the local partnerships that had legitimate concerns and misgivings about how things might go have been somewhat reassured by the approach that is now visible to them. I can understand that there were communication and clarity difficulties that meant that people did have legitimate concerns. I hope that more people involved in partnership activity are now encouraged in relation to the proposals that we have for moving forward. They can see that they are about moving forward for all the very good reasons that the Member identified.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I too welcome the Minister’s statement and, in particular, the continued success in firmly establishing the Special EU Programmes Body. This body, which is a product of the Good Friday Agreement, is a vital component in building peace and reconciliation. We must encourage its work and ensure that it receives support in its development. Can the Minister give details as to the progress being made regarding the Peace I programme, and will every effort be made to ensure that this programme closes successfully?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for her strong recognition of the contribution that the Special EU Programmes Body can make.

I said in my statement that all the Ministers involved are determined to ensure that we complete our spend on Peace I on time this year. The reliable figure that we had was from 31 December 2000, and it indicated that we were at 79% of actual spend on Peace I. The on the hoof indications from the Special EU Programmes Body are that we are looking at an 84% rate of spend at present. It is important to make sure that we spend the rest between now and 31 December. It is also important that we make good some of the spending shortfalls in other areas. It is not that the money is not allocated, but for various reasons it has not been drawn down. We need to look at whether we should move into some reserve allocations for some of the funding as the best way of ensuring that we complete the spend.

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

This and other meetings highlight the effectiveness of the North/South Ministerial Council and the need for it to progress issues such as EU funding and special EU programmes.

Unlike a previous Member who presented his question to the Minister, I do not represent one community. I aspire to represent both communities. Everyone in this House should aspire to represent both communities. We in north Belfast, an area of very high deprivation, look forward to the completion of negotiations between the UK Government and the European Commission in relation to URBAN II. It is vitally important for the development of north Belfast and those communities that have been so badly deprived over the years, both Catholic and Protestant, Nationalist and Unionist.

It is disappointing to note that the UK Government have not yet reached agreement with the European Commission. When does the Minister believe that agreement will be reached in relation to URBAN II?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I want to acknowledge the important point made by Alban Maginness about how we approach and look at these important areas. We should particularly consider that part of the way we have lobbied for and sold the whole concept of these programmes to the European Commission has been on the basis of the significant impact that they can have at a cross- community level in fostering peace and reconciliation. It makes it all the more important, when we are deliberating on these programmes, that we try to think on a whole- community basis and not on a sectional basis.

Regarding the URBAN programme question, I cannot answer that. Alban Maginness will have heard me say before that prophecy is the most gratuitous form of error. I am not going to say when exactly I think negotiations will be completed. I can point out — as he recognises — that the difficulty is not one that arises because of the particular proposals submitted from Northern Ireland. The difficulties arise because our proposals are one of a package of 13 bids for this programme submitted by the UK, and there is a disagreement between the Commission and the UK Government about the number and format of programmes submitted by the UK. We have serious concerns about the Commission’s approach and have registered those concerns. We have also raised them with Stephen Byers, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is his Department that handles these issues at UK level.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I also commend the Minister for this statement and, indeed, for his work, given the enormous difficulties he has faced both on the issue of the gap funding and with regard to the future programmes under Peace II.

My first question concerns the timetable. I welcomed the announcement on March 22, which included an operational timetable. They hope to have received bids and projects by August and to make decisions by September. This seems to me to be a very tight deadline. Is there any flexibility? It is worth putting on the record that it is an impossible deadline. Indeed, we may be back here looking for that flexibility in September, as we may not be in a position to allocate the first round of funding. This may not be as a result of anything that the Minister has done, but I ask him to create a little bit of flexibility, given the concerns that I am hearing on the ground. People do not feel that they may be able to meet the timetable as currently set out.

I also welcome the fact that the social partnership model may be extended beyond Peace II. This has been raised with us, particularly by visiting American delegations, who have come to look at the role of civic society in Northern Ireland, which is of enormous importance to the peace process. One of the points made to us is that the European Community may be creating a monster. Many groups are now being funded, but when Peace II runs out what is going to happen? It is extremely important, through the work of the Minister and others, that we have achieved the substantial amount of funding for Northern Ireland that takes us through this transition. It is a very difficult period for us. What are the plans for mainstreaming?

I remember when we set up women’s aid refuges in the 1970s, and everyone said we could not sustain them and that the Government would never take them over. Today no one would think of closing women’s refuges; that highlights the enormous role they have played in saving lives. I have an enormous concern about closing, or attempting to close, after Peace II, many of the wonderful projects that have been started in communities, particularly by women’s organisations. The Minister will be aware, no doubt, that the rural women’s network and other women’s support networks have written to him with this concern that they no longer want to have to be dependent on European funding. There should be a parallel discussion with Departments about mainstreaming many of these programmes

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It has been recognised that significant work has been involved and is still ahead. There are challenges for everybody in this. There are challenges not just for me and my Department and for other Ministers and their Departments, but for many of the bodies that have been involved in Peace I and have very strong ambitions and legitimate motives for being involved in Peace II as well.

We have been very conscious that there has been a great deal of frustration because the timetable keeps being pushed back. The operational programme was agreed and signed on 22 March. Under EU regulations, we have to have the programme complements agreed within three months of that date. That takes us up to June. On the basis of having the programme complements agreed, we would then be in a position to invite applications and bids. That is not a cut-off date. Applications can come after that time as well. In fact, bids can be made at any stage throughout the lifetime of the programme.

We want to respond to the fact that there is a great deal of concern and frustration. On the basis of the evidence that comes across my desk, there are very good proposals out there. In trying to move to being in a position to invite applications soon, we are not trying to set any deadlines that would make it very hard for groups or projects. We want the best possible spend and use of this money. We are not going to use timetables in ways that would militate against that.

I agree with Ms McWilliams on the need to have a strategy for mainstreaming the partnership model and making sure that the strategic thinking of partnerships influences and informs much more of what we do across a range of measures, not just at local level but also at regional level. How exactly that will be developed and managed will be one of the key roles of the regional development board.

In the new programme, the regional development board will not be preoccupied with micromanaging what local partnerships are doing. It will have responsibility for sponsoring and fostering a much stronger and more strategic approach to partnership that goes on for much longer and affects much wider areas than the Peace II programme.

The sitting was suspended at 1.08 pm.

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

Assembly Standing Orders

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I would like to explain how I propose to conduct the debate. As the next four motions relate to Standing Orders I propose to conduct only one debate. After the debate I will ask the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures to move each motion, and I will put the question with regard to each motion without further debate.

As with all motions on Standing Orders, the question can be resolved only on a cross-community basis. However, where there are voices from all sides of the Chamber for the motion and none to the contrary, I regard a division as unnecessary. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That Standing Order 10(2), line 3, be suspended until the Summer Recess.

The following motions stood on the Order Paper:

In Standing Order 15(1) line 2 and line 3 delete "at least one hour prior to the comomencement of business" and insert "not later than 9.30 am".

[Mr C Murphy]

In Standing Order 20(1) line 7 after "concerned" insert "normally".

[Mr C Murphy]

In Standing Order 10(2)(c) line 2 after "shall" insert "normally".

[Mr C Murphy]

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion to suspend Standing Order 10(2) line 3 is the result of discussion over a number of months following a request from some parties. Standing Orders provide time slots for many things but not for party business. The larger parties have more difficulty in this regard. There are no provisions for fixed time allowing parties to debate plenary matters or those generally pertaining to the Assembly.

The Committee on Procedures was asked to include this as part of an overall investigation into procedures in the House. Research has identified that, from the start of the current session, the average period for lunch on Mondays has been one hour and 45 minutes and the plenary sessions have generally lasted less than six hours. On numerous occasions the Assembly has adjourned much earlier than 6.00 pm.

Plenary sessions start at 10.30 am, and it is not possible to arrange party meetings during the lunch period, given that we do not know how long it will last. We considered a number of options for a later starting time for plenary sessions.

Under Standing Orders, the current starting time for plenary sessions is 10.30 am. Suggested options included a mid-afternoon start, finishing much later in the evening. However, after detailed consideration and taking on board the need to strike a balance with family-friendly policies which underscored the initial Standing Orders laid down for the Assembly, the Committee agreed that a starting time of 12 noon, finishing at 6.00 pm, should be introduced on a trial basis from now until the summer recess.

The removal of the lunch period will provide the Assembly with the same amount of time to consider business as before — roughly six hours. The Committee agreed that the new starting time would be an experiment until the summer recess and that it would then review the matter. For that reason, in this motion we are seeking a suspension of Standing Order 10, rather than proposing a new Standing Order. If, as we approach the summer recess, a review identifies that the later start time of 12 noon has been beneficial, the Committee will then undertake to table a motion at the start of the next session to make the change permanent. I beg to move the motion.

Madam Deputy Speaker, do you want me to speak to the rest of the motions now, or do you wish them to be read first?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

We are having only one debate on all four motions, so could the mover of the motions please speak to all four in his initial statement?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I was aware that all four motions had not been read; only one had been read. Do you wish to have the other motions read first, Madam Deputy Speaker?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Please speak to all four motions.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The second motion proposes a change to Standing Order 15 in relation to amendments. The current practice is that amendments have to be submitted in writing to the Speaker at least one hour prior to business commencing, which is normally 9.30 am on Monday and Tuesday mornings. This amendment seeks to ensure that where plenary sittings start at 12 noon, then further time is available to consider any amendments tabled by 9.30 am. Presently parties have only 60 minutes to consider amendments to business on the Order Paper, and this time is reduced by virtue of the fact that the amendments must be submitted to the Speaker who, within that time frame, considers if the amendment is competent. We propose that the time for submitting amendments be kept at 9.30 am on a Monday morning, rather than one hour before business commences.

The other two motions are connected and seek to amend the Standing Orders to deal with the issue of private notice questions. According to the present Standing Orders, a private notice question may be asked immediately prior to the start of the afternoon’s Adjournment debate. There is no flexibility for a private notice question to be taken at any other time, and if a Minister were not available, then the question would fall, and the opportunity for a Member to hear a ministerial response on a matter of public importance would be lost.

There is a precedent in this matter involving the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. With the indulgence of the Speaker, a very important question was allowed to be taken earlier in the day so that the Minister could be present to answer it. Had the period just preceding the Adjournment debate been rigidly stuck to, the Minister would have been out of the country and the question would not have been answered.

These two proposed changes to the Standing Orders are to allow a degree of flexibility as to when the Speaker may take a private notice question, in light of ministerial availability, to ensure that important issues are addressed.

I beg to move the motions.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

I support the motions put forward by the Chairman of the Committee. These motions deal with minor changes that the Committee believes will be of benefit to the operation of the Assembly.

I will work in reverse order and deal with the motions relating to private notice questions. The Committee Chairman mentioned the private notice question to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. From that past experience we have seen that had flexibility not been exercised by the Speaker to take the question at that point — although contrary to the Standing Orders as currently drafted — we would have lost an important private notice question. It was the Committee’s view that it would be foolish not to allow such questions to go forward simply because a Minister was unable to attend. By allowing a degree of flexibility and discretion, a Minister will be able to fit these into his or her timetable and ensure that private notice questions can be properly raised. This will be of benefit to the entire Assembly. Those are my reasons for supporting those secondary motions.

On the biggest change — the suspension of the timings — there was, again, a lengthy discussion in the Committee. A number of parties have indicated that the 10.30 am start time on a Monday is awkward — especially for the larger parties. They have a considerable logistical problem in properly discussing, debating and deciding how they are going to react to the day’s business. By allowing extra time, the larger parties, in particular, will be able to facilitate that. It will benefit the Assembly as a whole and especially those Members who are travelling from the west of the Province first thing on a Monday morning. Perhaps it would not be unreasonable for the House to indulge those who have to travel getting on for 100 miles from Castlederg. I am looking for my Colleague Mr Hussey, but I see that he is not here. The extra time would be useful as well. That would be my main reason for supporting that proposal.

The Committee discussed the idea of extending our time into the evenings as well. It was decided that that would not be appropriate, in the light of the family-friendly policy that was adopted by the Standing Orders Committee. We are putting forward a motion to suspend the Standing Order for this period, but we do so simply in order that we can sit from 12 noon until 6.00 pm. The Assembly will not lose any time, because there will not be a lunch break. The sitting time available will be the same as that previously available.

The change will have no impact on family-friendly hours, so that policy, which was agreed by the Assembly, will be maintained. I say that particularly to those Members who are concerned that the motion would take away the pleasurable time that they might spend with their families —or not, if that is their preference.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I have no difficulty with the proposals on private notice questions. They are sensible suggestions, and they provide a degree of flexibility. The Speaker has already exercised such flexibility, despite the current wording of the Standing Orders but with the agreement of the Business Committee.

There is a problem, however, with the first motion, which provides that the Assembly will not sit until noon on Mondays. Although it is only a suspension and an experiment, such things have a habit of becoming permanent. We are being asked to accept a proposal that will allow for debate to be foreshortened on Mondays. At the moment, we can have seven and a half hours for debate in the House — from 10.30 am to 6.00 pm — if required. There have been occasions on which the Business Committee has timetabled debates and motions that have carried on right through lunchtime. That has happened on a number of occasions on which it has been deemed to be necessary; on other occasions, there has been a lunch break. There is also a facility in the Standing Orders to extend time beyond 6.00 pm.

Judging from what the Deputy Chairman of the Committee said about the thinking behind the motion, it is clear that the Committee’s desire to keep family-friendly hours — stopping at 6.00 pm — will ensure that there will be less time available for the Business Committee to play with when agreeing business for Mondays. That does not reflect well on the Assembly.

Just over a week ago, we debated an issue that necessitated the recall of the Assembly. Many Members said then that there were many important social, economic and other issues that had to be debated in the House. Today, we have a suggestion from the Procedures Committee that we should reduce the time available for plenary sittings. Sometimes, we are in danger of forgetting about the views of the people who pay our salaries and who elect us to this place. They expect that, rather than devoting less time to discussion of matters of public interest, we should perhaps devote more time to it.

Members spend time in Committees and in their constituencies carrying out very important duties, but it does not reflect well on the Assembly to suggest, at this stage, that we should reduce the potential time for debate on the Floor of the Assembly.

I suspect that the real motive behind the proposal is that some parties are unable to get their act together sufficiently for a 10.30 am start. That may apply to one or more of the bigger parties whose Members have already spoken in the debate — it certainly does not apply to us.

It is amazing that those who are arguing for a lie-in on a Monday morning, and who have already spoken, say that there is a logistical problem and that they need extra time. If Members have not been organised to speak and amendments have not been thought about from 9.30 am, when they are submitted, it is unlikely that much extra work will be done between 10.30 am and noon.

Some Members, particularly those from west of the Bann, travel very long distances to be in the Assembly. However, to be fair, some of those who travel long distances are often in the Assembly before those who travel from considerably nearer places.

During the very bad weather, when the Assembly was very reduced in numbers, it was the Members from west of the Bann and from very far afield who made it here, struggling through very adverse conditions to their credit. If travelling long distances were really an argument for a later starting time, why are we leaving Tuesdays as they are? Surely the Committee should be suggesting that proceedings on Tuesdays should also start later? The argument does not stand up.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

If the Member accepts family-friendly hours, that the time available from noon to 6.00 pm is the same as that available at the moment, given the lunch hour, and that we have the ability to extend past 6.00 pm if required, would he clarify his objection to the new hours?

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am happy to do so. The Member is clearly labouring under a grave misapprehension. I have not accepted some of the things that he mentioned. I have not accepted that we will have the same hours under the proposal as we do at present.

At the moment, the Business Committee has seven- and-a-half hours to play with, with the potential for extending beyond 6.00 pm if it wishes. Under the proposal to start at noon, according to the Deputy Chairperson, the Business Committee will have only six hours — so it is actually a reduction.

I do not accept that the number of hours will be the same. They would be the same if there were always a lunch break, but there have been occasions — and we are meeting on three days this week — when the Business Committee and the parties have agreed that we should continue through lunch.

Sometimes we have not had to continue through lunch because debates have not gone on as long as they were expected to. However, we are reducing the number of hours that the Business Committee has to play with on Mondays from seven-and-a-half hours to six hours. That is the situation, and I hope that the Member accepts it.

The Member also raised the issue of family-friendly hours. I did not make any comment about my views on the Assembly’s stopping at 6.00 pm — the reference to family-friendly hours came from the Deputy Chairperson. Indeed, other Members have referred to that on previous occasions.

We should try to conclude our business in and around six o’clock whenever possible. I am not against extending that timescale if the business merits that. There are occasions on which I have supported an extension, in the face of opposition from others, because I believed that the subject under discussion merited it. Therefore I am not against an extension on all occasions. However, the proposal not to start the business until 12 noon will make it potentially more difficult to stick to the 6.00 pm deadline.

Those are some of the reasons why I will oppose the removal of the requirement to start Assembly proceedings at 10.30 am on Mondays.

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

I support the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures who have presented the arguments fairly and properly to the House. I do not understand the argument objecting to the temporary suspension of the Standing Orders that Mr Dodds has put forward. The temporary suspension is merely to see how things will pan out. It will show whether starting at 12 noon and moving on to 6.00 pm suits the House in the efficient dispatch of its duties. It puzzles me why the Member is so strenuously opposed to the experiment. That is all that it is — an experiment. If the suspension fails, and we discover that by moving the times we are, in fact, losing valuable time for debate and discussion, we can revert to the present position after the summer recess. We will have lost nothing. Therefore I do not know why the Member is so perturbed about the matter.

There is a fair argument that the parties in the House do need time to reflect on Monday mornings on the business for the week — not just the business of the House, but the business in Committees and so forth. There is a great deal going on; parties must inform one and other about what is happening in the various Committees. On Monday mornings it is important they have time to get to grips with the business, and starting at 12 noon seems to be a sensible thing to do. I cannot see how anybody could have any great objection to the experiment. I hope that the House can support the suspension. It will be an interesting experiment, and if, in fact, it does turn out to be a bad one, we can learn a lesson from it.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I am delighted to hear the optimism from all around the House that the Assembly will go on beyond the summer recess.

It is right and proper that we review Standing Orders from occasion to occasion. While I largely accept most of the proposals that are being put forward today by the Chairperson and his Committee, I have serious reservations about the first proposal. The Business Committee normally meets on a Tuesday, and, to a large extent, the business for the following week and weeks beyond is decided at that meeting. Therefore it provides opportunities, between Tuesday and Friday, for parties to meet and work out who will deal with the various business issues for the following week. My party meets at lunchtime on Thursday.

I accept the Chairperson’s words when he says that it is still the Committee’s intention to preserve the family-friendly hours. However, my fear is that we will reach the stage, maybe on a Tuesday, where we do not get the business completed, and that will necessitate special meetings of the Assembly on a Wednesday.

The Assembly has been functioning very well for a year, and it is clear that the amount of legislative business coming through the various Committees is increasing. I have serious reservations about whether we will be able to get through all of that business.

Subject to the approval of the Business Committee tomorrow, we will be meeting next Wednesday to discuss the item that we were supposed to be dealing with this Wednesday. That shows that business is building up and that the Assembly is functioning well. I echo what Mr Dodds said — once something becomes temporary, it can well become permanent. We must remember that Members also face other pressures.

For example, many of us are members of councils, and every Monday evening many of us have council meetings to attend as well. In the circumstances, my party and I find it difficult to accept the first proposal and urge the Chairman and his Committee to rethink the matter.

Preserving family-friendly hours may seem like a worthwhile gesture to those who do have concerns. However, there is plenty of time to deal with the issues, through you, Mr Speaker, between Tuesday and Friday. We oppose the first motion.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I would like to concentrate on how amendments are dealt with when put forward on a Monday morning. The deadline for amendments is 9.30 am. They are to be submitted to the Speaker’s Office by that time. They have to be marshalled, and the Speaker must determine which amendments are to be listed on that day’s Order Paper. Assembly Members are frequently notified of the Marshalled List at 10.00 am or, on occasion, before 10.30 am. I consider it inappropriate that Members are given only thirty minutes’ notice, or sometimes no notice at all, of the Marshalled List of amendments before entering the Chamber.

That occurs through no fault of the Speaker, but rather through the fault of the procedures that are in place. I favour a trial period purely because it will provide an opportunity for amendments to be properly discussed in each group before a decision is made. It is inappropriate that amendments are presented to Members without proper time for discussion and debate in each of the groups before they enter the Chamber. Some parties may not have the same level of discussion.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I agree with the thrust of his remarks about the time available for the notification of amendments. The Assembly should address that issue. However, given the point that he makes — and I am sure that this will resonate throughout the House — I fail to understand why we are leaving matters as they are on a Tuesday. We now have separate Order Papers for Mondays and Tuesdays, so we will be in exactly the same position on Tuesdays as we are on Mondays, whereby amendments can be tabled up until 9.30 am, and Members can be given as little as 30 minutes’ notice, or sometimes no notice at all. I agree with the point, but I wonder why is it a good idea for a Monday but not for a Tuesday.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I agree with that point and would have supported a proposal to apply the proposed changes to Tuesday’s sittings also. That argument works in favour of having a trial period during which we would be able to see whether there were any benefits from applying the arrangements for Mondays’ sittings to Tuesdays’. There would be a two-month period during which the arrangements will apply on one of the Assembly’s two plenary days, with an opportunity to compare how business is conducted on the different days.

Some parties may not have the same level of internal discussion and debate as others. In my party, it is difficult for everyone to make himself available at a fixed time, given the fact that there is a party Member on every Assembly Committee. It would be difficult not to eat into time during which Members should be at a Committee. I value the democratic nature of my party, and, as an ordinary Back-Bencher, I value the opportunity to discuss every issue and to have an input on the resultant party line. I strongly support the proposal.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I am sometimes amazed by statements that I hear in the House. I thought that it was the role of the Business Committee to make businesslike proposals. I thought that those, in particular, who are so adamant that this place should work, would demonstrate a businesslike administration of their work. However, they are really admitting to the parties’ inability to organise themselves — that is the nub of this whole argument.

The only real argument that emerged — that which took place between Mr Beggs and Mr Dodds — concerned the question of how much time the parties should have to consider amendments. The Committee should go back to this question and have an honest discussion about it. There is concern that at 9.30 am the Speaker has to make a judgement and may have to assess not just one contentious amendment, but possibly three or four. Having made his decision, he has to publish it to the various parties. I can see that this creates some logistical problems.

I want to make a further point concerning logistics. Every Member from west of the Bann, apart from Mr Byrne and me, has disappeared — and quite rightly so, given that they have work to do in other areas. If a sitting begins at midday and ends at 6.00 pm, some of us, because of traffic congestion, will not arrive home until 8.00 pm or later, and bear in mind that in a rural constituency, if a Member wants to do worthwhile work, he has to travel a further 30 or 40 miles. Given the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, how many of us want to drive on to farmyards and run the risk of contamination?

The one sensible thing that Mr Alban Maginness said was that time is important. I would have no objection if a sitting started at 9.30 am and finished at 5.30 pm. Those of us who have to spend time travelling would have more time to carry out constituency work when we returned home. There are constituency offices to run. Some parties cannot manage their affairs, so they are calling upon the Assembly to accommodate their inability to be businesslike. That is not a reasonable argument for the rest of us to accept.

I start quite early in the morning, and although I do not claim that everyone else should do the same, we have taken on the task of representation. We have, therefore, a duty of care to be businesslike and to demonstrate that responsibility not just in the Assembly, but in our constituency efforts. While I am sure Mr Dalton would say that he has a right to family-friendly affairs, I need to be convinced of it. Others among us have family commitments. Some travel from as far as Garrison and Castlederg, and the rest of us must travel considerable distances. This is a design some people have dreamt up because they could not handle their own business.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has now taken his seat.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I welcome these amendments to the Standing Orders, such as they are. Both the Business Committee and the Procedures Committee have a great deal more work to do if we are to run our affairs to optimum effect. A number of remarks are pertinent to the proposals put forward today.

In the past, and sometimes in a slightly different context, we have debated one or two of these matters. I have never subscribed to the view that family-friendly hours should be a particular consideration when deciding how to run our affairs. On the whole, politics is not a particularly family-friendly occupation. I speak as one with a very young new member of my family, so I have some sort of position on that at home as well as here.

However, none of the proposals that I have heard suggests that we lock everybody up in here until about 10.00 pm every night of the week. For the most part, proposals surround the idea of one late sitting a week, and for the time being, at least, that is not the proposal that we hope to run with. The business of the Assembly would be far better conducted if we sat into the evening on the first day, which currently is a Monday, and Members were not inclined to travel a distance to their homes that night. It would be normal practice to stay overnight in the vicinity of the Assembly.

That is a fairly normal practice in most legislatures of countries of any size. In Scotland, which is somewhat bigger than Northern Ireland and has a population of about five million, they manage to conduct their plenary affairs in a day and a half. They conduct their Committee affairs in a further day and a half. They assume that Members will spend two nights staying in the environs of the Scottish Parliament, enabling them to put in three very full days of work.

This has a bearing on the remarks that Mr Gibson has just made about attending to constituency affairs. It seems to me that that is the way to do it as that allows the maximum amount of time in one place and then the maximum amount of time in the other. If you are running your time efficiently, you should not spend too much time running between the two. I have a journey of slightly over an hour, provided I travel outside rush hour to get here. We have not yet fully probed all angles about the times during which we should have plenary meetings.

From time to time, I hear it remarked that many Members sit on councils and have to attend to council business on Monday evening. This is of no concern to the Assembly. We have Members who do two, three and four different jobs, all of them in a pretty patchy manner as far as I can judge. If a Member chooses to try to do two jobs at once, that is his affair. It is not the affair of the Assembly.

We could have addressed a number of other matters when reviewing our Standing Orders that might have tidied things up — such as the banning of Members from reading pre-scripted speeches. That might have made things a little more succinct. We would have a perfectly ample amount of time available if the Business Committee were more selective and critical in its choice of motions, particularly those to be taken on Tuesdays. If we did not devote time to discussing matters well beyond the jurisdiction of the Assembly, we would save a great deal of time. We have some way to go before we can claim that we are operating in the most sensible and efficient manner.

Finally, I entirely support Mr Murphy’s proposal that amendments should still be tabled by 9.30 am for a 12 noon start. The matter of amendments to motions for debate on Tuesdays was raised in debate. It seems to me that if we start at 10.30 am on Tuesday, then logically we should seek to have amendments tabled by 6.00 pm on Monday, so as to allow a similar amount of time for the amendments to be dealt with.

If more time were available, these matters would be better dealt with and debated. There is an inappropriate obsession that the Assembly is more macho the longer it sits and that it does greater good the longer it sits. I contend that the reality is the opposite. The excessive amount of time spent in plenary in this Assembly reduces the amount of time available for proper consideration of issues, and it reduces the time available for Members to be properly informed.

Consequently we have a great deal of debate that seems to be poorly informed. While the point I am about to make is more a matter for the Business Committee, I think it is worth making: I calculated that this Assembly will, if it gets to the end of this term, have sat for 37 weeks over the three terms of the year. That is totally illogical. It takes four weeks to do a cycle of ministerial questions. Logically, the number of weeks that the Assembly sits in plenary for a year should be a number divisible by four — 32 or 36.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member has digressed well outside this debate and the Standing Orders that are under consideration. We must be reasonably efficient about our time.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am actually speaking in parenthesis on the point about the amount of time spent in plenary. That time is both the time in hours on Monday and Tuesday and the time in hours over the year as a whole. Therefore, the point that I have just made is relevant. I do not think that there are very many legislators that have 37 weeks of plenary. Perhaps we will return to that matter on another date.

My final point relates to the starting of our business. Showing flexibility in working hours, enabling at least some of the population to travel to work outside the rush hour, can only be a good thing. However, there are other Members — perhaps like myself — for whom I do not anticipate any change in the time that they start work on a Monday. I start at around a quarter to nine. The work that I normally do on a Sunday, I might now be able to do on a Monday.

I support all the motions.

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

I support the motions. The first motion is causing the greatest debate. As someone who travels 75 miles on Monday mornings, I think that it is important that there be a discussion within party groups about the order of business for the week. It is unfair to the business of the House if there is inadequate discussion within groups at the start of the week on the order of business.

Currently we have about one hour and forty-five minutes for lunch on a Monday. This motion, under which we would be starting official Assembly business at 12 noon, means that we would be losing under half an hour of actual Assembly time. In order to make sure that all our Colleagues in all the groups are fully apprised of what is going on in the Assembly formally and what is going on in the Committees, it makes sense to have proper discussion in our groups.

It is also important that the Whips have a clear understanding of what is happening so that we have an efficient method of voting on our motions. That would enable smooth functioning and running of Assembly business.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Members who contributed to the debate and those who indicated their support for the amendments we are proposing. The most significant amendment is the first one concerning changing plenary times. It was interesting to hear some of Mr Dodds’s arguments opposing the change of time for starting plenary sessions. It would have been helpful to hear those arguments in Committee. Mr Dodds is a member of the Procedures Committee, as is Mr Paisley Jnr, but they chose not to attend any Committee meetings except when the Committee visited Edinburgh, when we were travelling abroad — [Interruption].

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It is under a foreign country.

Mr R Hutchinson did turn up, and his only contribution to the debate was to tell us that the DUP would be opposing it. Many of the points raised by Mr Dodds were debated and argued at length in the Committee. Had he been there to give his viewpoint, perhaps we could have answered some of the questions he has raised.

On the question of permanence, as Alban Maginness stated in his contribution, this will become permanent only if it proves to be beneficial to the Assembly. It is experimental. We cannot get away from the fact that Mr Dodds says that there will be a reduction in time. The Committee undertook a survey which showed that since the start of this session the average time taken for lunch has been one hour and 45 minutes — wasted time, in effect. The larger parties cannot plan for that because you cannot legislate for when that may happen.

As for the reduction in time and the amount of hours the Business Committee has to play with, if Mr Dodds had bothered to turn up for Committee meetings, he would have known that we are proposing a suspension of that Standing Order, which means that the Business Committee can decide the time. We are not asking the Assembly to adopt a Standing Order that says we start at 12 noon on a Monday. We are, in fact, proposing the suspension of the Standing Order that dictates that we start at 10.30 am on a Monday. If the Business Committee feels that the business merits it, it can decide to start earlier than 12 noon. Our recommendation to the Business Committee is that we try an experimental start time of 12 noon. That is not in the proposal, and it is up to the Business Committee to decide — [Interruption].

Again I make the point that if the Member or his Colleague had bothered to turn up —

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member keeps referring to the "bottle" to turn up. I am here today to make points in this debate. Rather than engage in insidious sniping and personal remarks, the Chairperson should answer the arguments in detail, as I did.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I engaged in the argument.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order, order.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I remind the Member that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order, order. The Member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order, as he knows.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

It was a good point, and it was very eloquent.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It may be a point, but it is not a point of order.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. If Mr Dodds had been listening, he would know that I did not say he did not have the "bottle" to turn up; I said he did not "bother" to turn up to meetings. I will make the point again. It is all very well and good making arguments now. However, when a Committee spends months thrashing something out, and Committee members do not bother to take part in that debate, it is somewhat invidious of them to turn up and make their points here.

Roger Hutchinson (DUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Committee did not spend months debating this issue.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am not sure what the intended point of order is.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That is an indication of the level of contribution from Mr Hutchinson to the Committee debate.

I return to the purpose behind this motion. There were some suggestions, attempts at media sound bites, that this was to give Members a lie-in on a Monday morning. That is clearly not the case. Members, especially those from the larger parties, will start work at the same time on a Monday morning, which is the intention of those from the larger parties who support this motion. Rather than coming straight into the plenary session or, as stated by Roy Beggs Jnr, spending less than half an hour dealing with any amendments, they will have two hours to debate among themselves, which is what democratic parties usually do. The DUP has a different approach, which is somewhat ironic considering its party name. That is what democratic parties do; they not only debate the order of the business for plenary days but also Committee business and general political business in the Assembly.

Almost all other items of business in the Assembly have an allocated time slot, apart from party business. There was clearly a deficit in that parties were struggling to find time to meet.

Travel is not the main consideration — it is obviously one consideration, but it is certainly not the main one. The intention of the parties who proposed the motion — from discussion at the Committee — was that they would start their own party business at 9.30 am to 10.00 am on a Monday morning rather than come into the Chamber. That would provide them with time, rather than having a rushed approach, given that the plenary session starts at 10.30 am and that amendments are not available to the parties until perhaps 10.00 am.

Sean Neeson made several points — and I accept that his party is not represented on the Committee because of the way the membership fell. The Business Committee, by and large, agrees the content of the Order Paper on a Tuesday afternoon. However, the Order Paper is not finalised — as the Speaker knows, and as Mr Neeson and his party Whip will know — until Thursday afternoon. Therefore, the full and final content of the Order Paper is not available to the parties until Thursday afternoon when the Speaker has signed it off.

As regards having party meetings on Thursdays, two Committees meet on a Thursday afternoon, and the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee meets on a Friday morning. Most Members attempt to give Fridays over to constituency business and will operate out of their constituency offices. Therefore, for any of the four largest parties, any party meetings called on Thursday afternoons or on Fridays are likely to have up to five members missing due to there being a clash with Committee meetings. This proposal is an attempt to find a slot for the parties to meet when all party members should be available because there is no other Assembly business to keep them from meeting with their party Colleagues.

As regards the Member’s worry about the proposal on extending beyond 6.00 pm, I remind him that we are not making such a proposal. The Assembly already has that facility, although it has been very rarely used. We discussed the matter in depth, and we are making no proposal to extend beyond 6.00 pm in this experimental change to Standing Orders.

I agree with Roy Beggs that the current procedures provide too little time. Nigel Dodds reinforced that point when he mentioned the Tuesday morning set-up, and other Members also made the point. The Committee must address the issue, and Members, including Mr Dodds, are correct in saying that 30 to 45 minutes is not sufficient time for people to consider fully the implications of an amendment. It is not enough time for a large party of 18, 20, 24 or 28 members to decide how they will vote on an issue and have a proper democratic discussion on it. Clearly, there is a case for a review of the Tuesday deadline. James Leslie suggested a Monday evening 6.00 pm deadline for amendments, and that is something that the Committee is going to have to consider again.

I remind Oliver Gibson that it is the Procedures Committee that are making these proposals, not the Business Committee. The Business Committee can be businesslike, but I do not know if we can be "procedures- like". The matter of amendments is one that we are going to have to keep under review. It has been raised here, and the Committee will want to pay attention to it.

I agree with the point about family-friendly hours. On many occasions when I have debated this issue with people, I have said that family-friendly hours do not apply to those who live in places such as Fermanagh, West Tyrone or Derry — by the time they get home, they will have travelled for maybe two to two-and-a-half hours. Family-friendly hours do not have much value then.

We must also consider that family-friendly hours do not apply to Members only; they apply to the Assembly staff who are obliged to stay on. That was one aspect considered by the Committee. Assembly staff are obliged to stay for at least an hour after the Plenary session is finished. That was one of the arguments against extending into the evening.

I do not agree with James Leslie’s point about overnight stays. I would prefer to go home. However, any matters may be tabled for discussion by the Committee, and if Mr Leslie, through his party representatives on the Committee, wants to table that suggestion, I am sure that it will be discussed.

I hope that I have answered most of the points made. I regret that, at Committee stage, we did not have the opportunity to debate some of the points raised with the Members who made them today. However, it is their preference to choose whether to attend Committee meetings.

Question put.

The Assembly divided (cross-community vote): Ayes 41; Noes 22

Ayes

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey.

Unionist

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Ken Robinson, George Savage, Jim Wilson.

Noes

Unionist

Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells.

Other

Eileen Bell, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Sean Neeson.

Total Votes 63 Total Ayes 41 (65.1%) Nationalist Votes 23 Nationalist Ayes 23 (100.0%) Unionist Votes 36 Unionist Ayes 18 (50.0%)

Resolved:

That Standing Order 10(2) line 3 be suspended until the Summer Recess.

Resolved:

In Standing Order 15(1) line 2 and line 3 delete "at least one hour prior to the commencement of business" and insert "not later than 9.30 am".

Resolved:

In Standing Order 20(1) line 7 after "concerned" insert "normally".

Resolved:

In Standing Order 10(2)(c) line 2 after "shall" insert "normally".

Traffic-Calming Measures in West Belfast

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Obviously the Adjournment motion —[Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. If Members are depriving themselves of the debate on traffic-calming measures in west Belfast, perhaps they would do so quietly. Please continue, Mr Maskey.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a point of order, is it not unusual for the Minister not to be in the House? He has, in fact, just vacated the Chamber.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is unusual, but it appears that the Minister is seeking some sustenance for the verbal journey ahead. Please continue.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The motion relates to traffic-calming measures in west Belfast. However, I want to talk about traffic conditions and, to a lesser extent, car crime in the area, and how traffic-calming measures can impact on that in a positive way.

I welcome the fact that traffic-calming measures have been introduced in a number of estates and roads in the area over the last few years. I also welcome the fact that officials from the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development have been involved in discussions with several local schools, together with the West Belfast Partnership Board. However, those discussions were designed as a pilot survey of road traffic and safety issues around some schools only. There is a clear need to complete that survey.

West Belfast is an area defined as suffering from serious social disadvantage, and there is already clear evidence that there are more accidents, road deaths and injuries in such built-up areas. Therefore, I argue that west Belfast should be accepted as an area that requires further extensive action on traffic calming.

The Department constantly tells us that there are established published criteria for the provision of traffic- calming measures. However, it is my experience — and I argue that it is also the experience of many others — that unless there is community and political pressure the Department will rarely act voluntarily to provide such measures in an area. Consequently, these measures are provided in a piecemeal manner and only after long local campaigning.

I understand that traffic-calming measures in themselves do not solve all the issues of traffic management or anti-social behaviour. However, there is evidence to back up the fact that they can help. A variety of measures can be introduced, such as ramps, road narrowing, traffic lights, or crossing islands, which do not always require a huge amount of money.

Given the identified traffic problems in west Belfast such as on the Westlink, Falls Road, Andersonstown Road, Blacks Road and others, most estates are used as rat runs for drivers seeking to avoid the congestion on the main roads. It is welcome that under new planning regulations housing developments will incorporate traffic-calming measures, but this will not affect existing developments or roads in the area.

I refer the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Campbell, to his response to my question on 5 February. He said that his Department remained keen to investigate properly any problems raised by assessing what contribution safety engineering might make to difficulties in any area. Clearly this assertion totally contradicts the response that I received from his Department three weeks later, on 28 February, in relation to the specific question of the Monagh bypass. I use this example to illustrate the difficulty.

The acting chief executive, Mr Fraser, informed me that a meeting to discuss the Monagh bypass would not be of any benefit in tackling the traffic problems and anti-social activity, which continue to bedevil the residents in that area. That response from a civil servant is unacceptable, and I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to why his official refused a meeting with a local elected representative.

Over the last few weeks the Monagh bypass has featured quite extensively in the local press due to car crime. Physical measures can and must be introduced on this road, as they have been on others, to discourage speeding and car crime and so ensure the safety of other drivers and pedestrians.

On 7 February, the Minister advised me in a written response that resources had not yet been allocated for the year 2001-02 and that Members would be informed when the allocation had been finalised. At that time the Minister could not give any specific commitment to increased measures in any area. To date, I have heard nothing. I read with interest at the weekend that a councillor — in east Belfast, I believe — claimed that extra funding has been made available for the area. I am happy to hear that.

West Belfast, like many other areas, needs to have a planned programme of traffic-calming measures introduced. It needs to be done in a phased, planned way over a period rather than because of local pressure or accidents in the area.

I seek an assurance from the Minister that his Department will honour the commitment that he gave in the House on 5 February and will explore all options with respect to traffic-calming measures in order to alleviate the chronic traffic problems and car crime that exist in west Belfast. Go raibh maith agat.

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

I would like to approach this issue from three levels. First, there is traffic calming itself. Secondly, there is the issue of road strategy in west Belfast, and, thirdly, there is the issue of wider development in the city of Belfast and how it impacts upon west Belfast.

I agreed with Mr Maskey when he stated that there are published criteria in respect of traffic-calming measures. The Roads Service will state what those measures are when one writes to it. Will the Minister ask his officials to consider a review of the current criteria for the installation of traffic-calming measures? In the view of many people those criteria are not exhaustive; they are no longer as applicable as they might once have been, and they should be broadened.

If people write to Roads Service they will get a letter back confirming that the factors included in the assessment of road traffic-calming measures are: the accident history for the previous five years; the volume of cars and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs); the speed of traffic; the width of footpaths and the distance from street to house; the presence of a school or playground in or near the street; the presence of a hospital, clinic, home or suchlike in the street; and the presence of shops or public buildings in the street. These are valid criteria, but they need to be reviewed and broadened, because they do not take account of a number of significant traffic considerations. I will give a number of examples.

First, should the criteria not be broadened to include an assessment of the volume of traffic using roads adjoining those that are being considered for traffic- calming measures? You cannot consider the issue of traffic calming in one street without considering the traffic flow in adjoining streets, especially where those adjoining streets are arterial routes or primary routes going through parts of the city of Belfast, particularly west Belfast. I ask the Minister to consider whether the criteria should be revised to be more explicit or to expressly include that criterion.

Secondly, the current criteria correctly identify issues of traffic management and safety given the presence of a school or playground in or near the street. However, the criteria do not take into account the age profile of the people who might be living in that street. Although a school around the corner might have an impact on having a traffic-calming measure in a neighbouring street, it would not necessarily include consideration of traffic calming, given the age profile of that street, whether that profile is very elderly or very young — having a lot of older people or a lot of children. It would be appropriate and relevant for the criteria to be revised to take that factor into consideration.

The third issue that I want the Minister and his officials to consider the probable future use of roads in particular areas of west Belfast, the city in general and beyond. If there is going to be growth in traffic volume in west Belfast — and empirical evidence suggests that that is likely — then that is also an issue that should be considered when it comes to traffic-calming measures. If there is going to be a likely significant increase in traffic volume in parts of west Belfast because of developments in and around the area that I will detail shortly, that should be factored into the determination of traffic- calming measures.

I want to broaden the discussion, because the revision of the criteria can apply to west Belfast and to other parts of the North, and so it should. However, there is an issue particular to west Belfast, and Alex Maskey referred to it. That is the disproportionate number of accidents — fatal and non-fatal — in west Belfast relative to other comparable areas of the city and of the North in general. That is true not only in the case of road traffic accidents, but also in respect of other accidents.

One of the indicators of the quality of life in west Belfast is that there is a high accident rate. It is a high accident rate in terms of road use as well. Given that particular factor in the area, it seems appropriate that there should be a general review of road traffic-calming measures in west Belfast independent of the review of the specific criteria for traffic-calming measures because of the particularly high volume of accidents in that area. I ask the Minister and his officials to consider that.

The second point that I want to make, which I referred to in my opening comments, is about the probable increase in road use. If that is going to be a factor it should be the case that the Department, as a consequence, look at a far-sighted traffic-calming policy in areas that are going to be affected by the probable increase in traffic. That is particularly relevant to west Belfast. Over the next two, three and four years there is going to be a significant increase in traffic volume there arising from at least three or four developments.

First, the builders are currently on site at Springvale campus. The first new build of Springvale is under construction at the moment. In three years and three months time, there will be 3,000 people going onto that campus every single day — students, teaching staff and ancillary staff. It is quite clear that that is going to have a very significant impact on the area. The Department for Regional Development should be anticipating that and should anticipate, as a consequence, road traffic-calming measures in and around that area and in the other routes that lead to that area.

Secondly, there is likely to be the Westlink development. Among the road-use consequences of that development, Department officials refer, inter alia, to the fact that, given that there will be, for a time, less traffic able to use the Westlink, they anticipate that some of that traffic will go into the adjoining areas — one of which is west Belfast.

There is going to be a knock-on effect, if Westlink proceeds, on traffic volume exiting from the M1, both at Lisburn and at Kennedy Way, going into west Belfast in order to avoid the backlogs that will arise further down the Westlink and into the city of Belfast.

Thirdly, there are some very large planning proposals in west Belfast, particularly at Lagmore. There is potentially one at St Patrick’s Training School and one off the Monagh Road. If they proceed, they will have enormous consequences for traffic volume in west Belfast.

Whether all of those do or do not proceed, it is quite clear that over the next four years there will be significant increases in volume of traffic going into and coming out of west Belfast. The increase will be caused by traffic both indigenous to the constituency and traffic using the roads to avoid gridlock elsewhere.

As a consequence of that, the Department should be sponsoring a review of how that will impact in the area so that there are traffic-calming measures to mitigate some of the effects of those developments. In that regard I agree with Alex Maskey. The Department for Regional Development says that such developments as I have outlined are developer-led and that it is for the developer to come up with road traffic management proposals. That is valid, but it is not enough.

It should also be for the Department to anticipate where the difficulties are going to be and to plan for those difficulties. That includes sponsoring a traffic-calming survey in those areas of particular need and particular growth over the next two and three years.

The final issue that I want to raise, moving beyond traffic calming and increased road use per se, concerns the wider development strategy. The Minister’s Department — and I know that the Minister is specifically considering this matter at the moment — is currently looking at a draft strategic framework for planning policy in the North.

One of the issues that the Minister, the Regional Development Committee and others are looking at is the issue of greenfield and brownfield development.

If the Minister and the Government go down the road of concentrating on greenfield development and disregarding or diminishing the role of brownfield development, they will create a situation with increased traffic coming into town and into areas such as west Belfast to avoid congestion elsewhere.

When the Minister looks at that issue, will he ensure that the greenfield/brownfield mix is consistent with other cities of the size of Belfast, given that the strategic proposal and policy are long term and the consequences that will come to the streets of west Belfast, other streets in Belfast and elsewhere if the policy is not right? I suggest that the mix should be 30% greenfield to 70% brownfield. The provision of 10% for over-zoning should not be granted to developers. The suggestion of greenfield villages on the outskirts of Belfast — of which there are 16 or 17 in the air at the moment — should not be approved. Brownfield should become a key element in strategic planning and development policy over the next 10 to 15 years.

It is a multidimensional approach that might incorporate those proposals so that the immediate and the longer-term problem of traffic calming and traffic safety in west Belfast and elsewhere can be properly addressed.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the chance to speak on this issue. Traffic calming is a serious issue in our communities, faced by young people, the elderly and the disabled. It is also an issue in combating car crime. Sometimes it is the only thing preventing a life-threatening situation. The provision of traffic-calming measures in west Belfast as a whole has been poor, but some small measures have been provided lately. However, I am concerned that it is being done in a piecemeal fashion, rather than areas being looked at as a whole.

Mr Maskey and Mr Attwood listed the criteria that the Department uses to provide traffic-calming measures. The criteria are based on statistics such as the clustering of accidents at a certain spot and requests from residents.

A number of years ago I was involved — and I see some officials here who were involved at that time — with the local community from Twinbrook and Poleglass in response to the tragic deaths of a number of children from my own area. The residents, community groups and local political leaders were on board, and we consulted everybody from the residents to the business community to the local Housing Executive and the health centre to see what traffic-calming measures were needed.

The area included three estates with over 30,000 residents, and at that stage there were no traffic-calming measures in place. We produced a traffic-calming scheme document that we thought was relevant to that community, because it was what the community thought was necessary to have an impact and try to reduce the senseless deaths. At one time, six or seven kids were killed in a two-and- a-half-year period.

We realised, following consultation with officials from the Department, that because we were talking about a wide area the schemes could not be implemented right away. We took on board that finance was not available for the full scheme to be implemented. We accepted that the schemes must be phased. We were concerned that what the residents had asked for, because of the background work that they had done, was not going to be followed through. We had heated meetings with departmental officials on a number of occasions, because we felt that we were only getting tins of paint when we wanted roundabouts.

We did fulfil several of the Department’s criteria, and we were amazed to find that our fight was only beginning after we produced the traffic-calming scheme. We did not give up when we discovered that thousands of pounds had been spent on traffic-calming measures in south Belfast, even though the criteria had not been met. The residents there did not ask for the traffic-calming scheme. The Comptroller and Auditor General produced a report on traffic-calming measures, saying that the scheme was flawed and highlighting the inequalities in the Department’s criteria.

On a positive note, there has been some movement on introducing traffic-calming schemes in some areas. However, I am concerned that the Department is still not looking at entire areas and is just putting in traffic-calming measures for the sake of it, without considering the impact of such measures. There was reference earlier to new housing developments such as Lagmore. Regardless of whether those are public or private schemes, they should not proceed unless traffic-calming measures are included. There are over 10,000 people in a new housing estate in Lagmore, but the Department has not adapted the roads. There is no long-term strategy for traffic calming.

Alex Maskey spoke about the level of car crime faced by the community in west Belfast. Residents want traffic-calming measures, because they believe that such schemes will have an impact not only on daily car crime, but on speeding in the area. We should get rid of the Department’s criteria and have just one criterion — saving lives, not money. Go raibh maith agat.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

We have heard much detail about west Belfast and the need for traffic calming there. However, this is a wider issue, which needs a broad strategy. The problem can be commuting rat runs, and Ms Ramsey has described how people drive through estates in order to take short cuts. More often, the basic problem is young men in small, fast cars; we are all familiar with that. It is not just a problem in west Belfast; it is a problem throughout the Province. The tyre marks caused by handbrake turns can be seen in any shopping centre and any other place that allows that sort of thing to happen. I was admiring some in Bangor shopping centre car park yesterday.

This is a social issue. The young men see it as a measure of their courage to drive cars quickly. It is a form of breast-beating; it is the "young-man-out-hunting" syndrome. It involves those who own small cars and those who steal cars, wiring them up and driving them away. Between Belfast and Bangor there are the "Wacky Races"; cars are stolen in various parts of Belfast, and there is then a competition to see how quickly the driver can get to Bangor and steal another car to get back. Some of the thieves end up in court, and the local paper covers such stories regularly. Others end up mashed into a wall around Holywood somewhere, and that is also a relatively frequent occurrence.

The aggressive use of cars is a symptom of a problem found in many areas — a complete lack of facilities. There is nothing for young people to do, so they take to cars. There is little co-ordination of youth provision, and there are few positive role models. In some areas of England efforts have been made to introduce young lads to rallying and stock car racing and teach them car mechanics. When I was that age, I was car mad, and I spent several years rallying and driving cars around in circles and overturning them. It is fairly normal behaviour, and it can be channelled. Unfortunately, in many cases, there is no place to channel it.

It is an increasing problem. Yes, traffic calming can have some impact locally, but I call on the Minister to get together with his Colleagues in social development, in health and in education to try to work out an overall strategy to deal with this problem.

If the question of young men and their cars and how we take that forward as a general social issue were dealt with, we might be able to ease up on what is undoubtedly a massive expense. If one area has it, then why can all areas not have it? I suspect that the Minister will tell us that there is not enough money to put it everywhere. We need to track it back in to the core problem, and, while traffic calming is important, we need a cross-departmental task force, perhaps, to examine the core issue.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I want to take the opportunity to outline the background to traffic calming as a concept, and what my Department has endeavoured to do in relation to it.

The objective of a traffic-calming scheme is to improve driver behaviour and to keep speed at a level in keeping with the surrounding urban street environment. Traffic calming can do a number of things such as reduce the number and severity of casualties resulting from road traffic accidents, discourage heavy vehicles and through traffic from using unsuitable routes, reduce speeding, improve the urban street environment and reduce community severance, promote a greater feeling of safety and promote cycling and walking.

West Belfast is included in the eastern division of my Department’s Roads Service. For information, I can advise the House that the eastern division alone receives approximately 200 requests for traffic calming each year. In fact, I am advised that there are 10 times more applications for traffic calming in Northern Ireland than there are resources to implement them.

In order to make a fair comparison between the various requests and to identify those sites where the greatest benefit may be achieved from traffic calming, primarily in terms of accident reduction, an assessment procedure has been devised that takes into account the following factors, to which some Members have referred: a five-year accident history, details of which are obtained though police records; vehicle speeds; volume of cars and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), calculated using detector equipment placed on the ground; environmental factors such as the width of footways and distance from the street to the house; the presence of schools or playgrounds in or near the streets; the presence of hospitals, clinics, homes or suchlike; and the presence of shops or public buildings.

Sites are assessed and points allocated under these headings, and a priority rating is assigned to each site. It is simply impossible to meet all of the many requests for traffic calming, given the limited funding that is available and the engineering staff resources that are needed for consultation on the various schemes. I have referred to this on various occasions in the House, and on Tuesday April 10 I was pleased to announce my traffic-calming initiative.

There are three key elements to the initiative, which I hope will go some way towards addressing these factors. The first is one that I hope the House will welcome. I have been able to announce a 30% increase in the funds available for traffic calming in the 2001-02 financial year. That is an increase of £400,000 from £1·4 million to £1·8 million.

The introduction of traffic-calming partnerships on a pilot basis is designed to give local communities more say in the development of schemes, which I hope will mean implementing schemes more quickly.

I am signally attracted to that particular element of the scheme, because I want to hear what local communities have to say is the best scheme for their area. Finally, a traffic-calming leaflet will be launched to inform communities of the criteria for traffic calming and the types of calming measures available.

I want to turn now to west Belfast in particular. A pilot scheme has been identified under my new initiative for Stewartstown Park, Stewartstown Avenue, Horn Drive and Falcarragh Park and will be implemented during the current financial year. The area was assessed using the standard criteria and had a high points score due to the number of accidents and the speed and volume of traffic in the area. The estimated cost of the scheme is £40,000.

Roads Service staff attend the Lenadoon Housing and Environmental Forum meetings on a regular basis, and the next meeting is scheduled for today, 23 April, when details of the pilot scheme will be discussed and the Partnership Charter initiated. Given the time of this Adjournment debate, I imagine that the meeting has concluded — at least, I hope that the meeting has concluded.

In addition to the pilot scheme, Roads Service plans to implement four further schemes in west Belfast during the current financial year, all of which have a high priority under the standard assessment criteria. The Edenmore Drive area is to be granted a 20 mph zone, including the provision of road humps. Gardenmore Road in Twinbrook will be given road humps, as will Summerhill Drive in Twinbrook. Suffolk Road will be given central islands and road markings.

West Belfast has been widely treated with traffic-calming measures for which the total expenditure has been £454,000 since 1995. In total, 17 schemes comprising 104 streets have been treated with various measures, the most common being road humps.

Our current programme for the next two years, that is 2001-02 and 2002-03, for west Belfast totals a further estimated £200,000, with nine schemes comprising 26 streets due to be treated. This programme is preliminary, and further areas may be added as resources permit. I think it was Mr McFarland who guessed that I might mention that resources were inadequate to enable us to carry out all the schemes that have been suggested. Indeed, that is the case.

The schemes that have been carried out both in west Belfast and generally across Northern Ireland have been very successful. For example, in 1996-97 five schemes were carried out on 25 streets. In those streets there had been an average of 10·6 accidents a year over the five-year period prior to treatment. In the three years after completion of the work, the accident rate has reduced significantly to an average of 3·7 accidents per year — that equates to a reduction of almost two thirds.

Members can appreciate, however, that a wide range of factors can cause traffic accidents, and it would be wrong to assume that speed control measures, in their various forms, can create an accident-free zone.

Traffic-calming measures are, of course, not confined to west Belfast. I would like to give the House some equivalent figures for Northern Ireland. Since 1995, £6·1 million has been spent Province-wide on traffic calming, with 191 schemes completed. Since traffic-calming schemes were implemented in the three-year period from 1995-96 through to 1997-98, 121 fewer accidents have occurred in Northern Ireland than the yearly average prior to the work’s commencing.

There are many different types of measures used to calm traffic. I will not go into the details today, but they are described in the traffic-calming leaflet that I introduced two weeks ago. The leaflet is available from any Roads Service office. Suffice it to say that one of the most effective speed control measures is the road hump. These are normally considered for residential streets where the main objective is to reduce average vehicle speeds to approximately 20 mph.

Where there is a self-contained network of streets and self-enforcing measures such as road humps can be provided, it may be appropriate to introduce a 20 mph speed limit zone. We have implemented two 20 mph zones in west Belfast since 1995, namely the Riverdale Park area in 1996, and the Ballymurphy/Glenalina area in 1998. This year, Turf Lodge has been traffic calmed, and a 20 mph speed limit will be introduced shortly following the completion of the legislative process. A further zone is due to commence shortly in the Edenmore area between Glen Road and Andersonstown Road. That will increase the number of 20 mph zones to four.

In total, Roads Service has now implemented eight 20 mph zones throughout Northern Ireland. Sufficient measures must be provided in the area to ensure that the scheme is self-enforcing before a 20 mph speed limit can be considered. Signs in isolation have been found to be very ineffective.

In concluding, I want to deal with some of the issues raised by various Members in the debate. A number of Members referred to future development, both in the greater west Belfast area and in other parts of Northern Ireland. It should be acknowledged that in the future, where extensive plans are being finalised, Roads Service will, as a policy, insist on measures that will assist with traffic calming and speed control being included as an essential part of that development.

Mr McFarland referred to an interdepartmental approach on the social issues arising. That is an issue that I will consider. I will respond after having considered that adequately.

There were a number of other issues regarding the disproportionate number of accidents in the greater west Belfast area. I have no figures either to prove or disprove that. The required criteria are a contentious issue, and I know that because local residents complain that there have to be a number of accidents before consideration will be given to traffic calming. At the moment, I am getting 10 times more applications than there are resources to complete them, and I am sure that Members will agree that it is more prudent to deploy that small amount of resources into areas where there have been accidents, rather than into areas where there have not been accidents.

I will look at the issue of disproportionate numbers of accidents. If it is the case that there are a higher number of accidents, then any area with a higher number of accidents should find itself in the front line in terms of getting traffic calming. That is one of the esssential criteria.

I understand that there is an issue with regard to increasing traffic volumes, and again that meets a set of the criteria.

The issue of saving lives and not money was raised. I hope that the announcement that I made two weeks ago, in which not only did my Department devise the traffic-calming initiative, but we managed to increase the amount of expenditure on traffic calming by 30%, shows that both my Department and I take the issue of saving lives very seriously. That is why we have deployed as much as we have, and I want to deploy more. If I had a 1,000% increase in resources, we might get close to doing all of the requested schemes.

An issue was also raised about civil servants not meeting with public representatives. Where public representatives request relevant meetings with civil servants, I will be happy to ensure that civil servants attend those meetings. I understand that the meeting was to do with anti-social activity and car theft, which is a matter primarily for the RUC. I would be quite happy to instruct my officials to go along to such a meeting, which would include representatives of the RUC.

In conclusion, I want to emphasise that the aim of self-enforcing traffic-calming measures is to ensure that vehicles are driven at speeds appropriate to the local conditions. Such measures should not be seen as the answer to all road safety problems. It is only with an integrated approach, involving engineering measures, road safety education, research and enforcement, together with a change in attitude on the part of some road users, that the road safety problems on all our streets can be addressed effectively.

Adjourned at 5.57 pm