Northern Ireland Assembly, 30 April 2001

98 contributions from 32 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was advised on Friday last by the Business Office that my question for oral answer today, No 7, to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has been ruled inadmissible under sub judice rules. Will you advise Members if the issue of sub judice was raised by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister or by your office?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It may be unreasonable to expect the Business Office to keep itself fully aware of all legal cases on which a question might be put. On this occasion the question was forwarded in the usual way. We were advised by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that an appeal had been lodged and the question arose as to whether this rendered the matter sub judice. The Clerks looked at that question and at the relevant Standing Order. Standing Order 68(4)(a) states

"in the case of courts of law, when the verdict and sentence have been announced or judgement given, but resumed when notice of appeal is given until the appeal has been decided;"

In other words, the sub judice rule applies until a verdict has been announced or judgement given. However, once notice of appeal is given, the sub judice rule applies again.

I asked the Business Office to seek advice in writing from the Court of Appeal on whether that was now the case. We received a written note from the Court of Appeal to the effect that the appeals have been lodged and will shortly be listed for hearing. That means that until those appeals are dealt with, these matters fall under the sub judice rule again. As soon as judgement is given by the Court of Appeal, that will cease to be the case. However, if the right of appeal to the House of Lords is upheld, the sub judice rule will apply again until such time as the appeal is dealt with, when it will no longer apply. I trust that clarifies the matter.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a matter of some importance to the House. I tabled the question because I am finding it virtually impossible to get a response from the Executive on this matter. All of the civil servants were put out of the room the last time the Executive dealt with this matter so there was no independent record of what happened.

Taking the sub judice rule into account, how can Members establish what action was taken by the Executive when there were no officials present to record the minutes? Very shortly we will be dealing with the North/South Ministerial Council report from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. If a Member were to ask a question about how the unlawful activity of David Trimble is impacting on the the work of the Council, will that be viewed as sub judice and, therefore, inadmissible?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is not uncommon — although never having been a participant I do not know from first-hand experience — for Executives in various Governments to meet on occasion without officials being present. The opportunity to question Ministers directly is always there except when a matter falls under the sub judice rule. The period of time — and I have no idea what length it was — from the judgement having been given in the case to the point where an appeal was lodged was a window of opportunity for a question to be asked. I do not know whether it was a practical opportunity to engage in a question. Such a window of opportunity will appear again subsequent to an appeal, the ruling having been given.

There are not many precedents in this matter, because it is not particularly common for Ministers in a Government to take other Ministers to court. We have to operate from first principles, and the principle of sub judice applies. The fact that civil servants are not present in the meeting does not mean that questions cannot be responded to. Sometimes such meetings are not regarded as formal meetings. However, the context in which those individuals were meeting is entirely a matter for the Executive and not for me. The sub judice rule applies at this juncture in respect of the matter which has been taken to court in two cases which are now under appeal.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a final point of order, Mr Speaker. This is relevant to the ability of a Member to raise any question of any Minister coming forward with a report on the North/South Ministerial Council. If I were to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development a question about the negative impact of David Trimble’s unlawful activity, for example, would that be ruled out of order?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will have to consider that matter, because that was not the question that I had to consider at the time. The question I had to consider at that time was whether the specific question, which related directly to the appeal, was sub judice. I will take your question and think about it with regard to the business of Ministers at Council meetings. There is no problem with asking questions about that. However, I will need to give some consideration to the question relating to whether there has been adverse consequence before giving a reply to the House.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You said that Members had the opportunity to question Ministers at any time. Surely Ministers here have hidden behind what they call "confidentiality". Therefore, if the matter is not in the public domain we have no opportunity, at any time, to question them.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As I have said on previous occasions — and the Member will know from other experience — the opportunity to ask questions of the Minister here or elsewhere is not a guarantee of an answer from a Minister.

I am simply stating the obvious. There are Question Times, and there are opportunities to ask questions. Of course, it is difficult to ask questions about things of which one does not know, but Members frequently get a hint of something which they are not "behind the door" in asking a question about.

Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission: North/South Ministerial Council

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 North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights sector held on Friday 6 April in Dublin.

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

The fourth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights sector took place on Friday 6 April in Dublin. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Mr Sam Foster and I represented Northern Ireland. Mr Frank Fahey TD, Minister of the Marine and Natural Resources, represented the Irish Government. The Executive Committee noted the papers for the Council meeting during the week commencing 2 April.

The meeting opened with updates from the chairman of the board of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC), Mr Peter Savage, and the chief executive of the Loughs Agency, Mr Derick Anderson. The chairman informed the Council of the contributions made by the agency and local angling clubs to curb the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. During the crisis the agency has not been issuing angling permits to fish in its waters and has curtailed its enforcement activities to boat patrols on the loughs and rivers. Agency staff have complied fully with disinfection procedures where they have had to address pollution or water quality issues. Anglers in the Foyle and Carlingford areas have been very co-operative and responsible in their attitudes during the crisis. I was very reassured by these remarks.

The chairman also advised us of a visit by a party of shellfishermen from the Foyle and Carlingford areas to Tralee and Clew Bays to observe the operation of shellfisheries there. This visit took place prior to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and the shellfishermen were accompanied on the trip by members of the FCILC board’s shellfisheries subcommittee, representatives of the cross-border Aquaculture Initiative team and a number of Loughs Agency staff. The visit proved to be a very useful learning exercise and provided a good opportunity for a range of interests to begin the process of co-operation that will result in more productive and better managed shellfisheries in the Foyle and Carlingford areas in the long term. Further, he advised that the Loughs Agency’s regional office in Carlingford is now fully staffed and operational, and that a marine tourism officer has been appointed to begin work on drawing up a strategy on marine tourism for the Foyle and Carlingford areas.

The chief executive explained the further work undertaken by the agency — building on what was learnt from the trip to Tralee and Clew Bays — to ensure that all views on the development and management of shellfisheries are taken into account in setting up a regime that will lead to the development of a sustainable aquaculture industry in both loughs, and one that has the consensus of as many stakeholders as possible.

The chief executive also gave a report on fishing effort and the continued work in relation to poaching and pollution, and he further updated the meeting on plans concerning marine tourism. Although it is still early days, the agency is keen to develop a strategy that clearly defines its role, that sets the strategy firmly in the context of the various forms of fishing and that builds in support for the provision of the information, accommodation and services required to support and encourage fisheries-based tourism. It also aims to extend the strategy to cover other water-based tourist activities such as canoeing and mammal watching or birdwatching. I am, therefore, content that there is a heavy agenda of good work being progressed by the agency.

Following the updates, a presentation was made to the Council on the agency’s detailed plans for selecting and appointing members to the advisory forum and focus groups which the Council agreed should be established at its meeting in November 2000. It is intended that the focus groups will represent the interests of a wide range of stakeholders in the loughs, including shellfishermen, nets-men, conservation interests and tourist representatives, to name but a few. The agency is keen to ensure that appointments to these bodies are made independently of the agency. To ensure this, independent consultants have been appointed to undertake the process of selection and appointment. The agency aims to have active groups by the end of this summer. The Council approved the agency’s forwarding its draft equality scheme to the Equality Commission. I am satisfied that the agency has consulted widely in drawing up the scheme and that it has taken on board the outcome of this extensive consultation.

The Council approved a proposal by the agency that a review of the grading and salary of field staff posts be undertaken as a matter of urgency. The agency has encountered difficulties in attracting and retaining such staff, due to unfavourable salary differentials between its posts and those of comparable organisations in the rest of the island of Ireland.

We also approved a proposal to defer an overall review of the staffing structure of the agency for six months to allow sufficient time for it to acquire the aquaculture licensing function and to develop its strategy on marine tourism. The Council approved the making of three sets of regulations. These were, first, regulations on salmon carcass tagging to introduce a tagging and log book scheme for all salmon and sea trout over 50 cms. The introduction of the scheme will enhance conservation measures already in operation as well as provide the agency with more accurate information on catch data to facilitate better management of stocks in the areas. The Department of the Marine and Natural Resources introduced a similar scheme from 1 January 2001 for sectors other than the Foyle and Carlingford areas. I understand that the Fisheries Conservancy Board plans to introduce this scheme throughout the rest of Northern Ireland.

Secondly, regulations are being put in place to lift a ban on angling on a stretch of the River Foyle. The ban was introduced in 1999 to prevent illegal netting on a heavily poached stretch of the river and will be unnecessary when the tagging scheme comes in. This will extend the section closed to angling on the River Mourne to prevent excessive exploitation of salmon and sea trout in an area where there is a natural obstacle to migration.

Thirdly, the Council made regulations to extend the provision in relation to the close season in the Carlingford area — the periods when the waters are closed to angling to protect salmon and trout while spawning.

In addition, the Council was updated on the coming legislation to enhance the functions of the Loughs Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC) in line with the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 and on the transfer of functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the body.

Finally, the Council agreed to meet again on 22 June 2001 and approved the joint communiqué, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

I am making this report on behalf of Mr Foster and myself.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s report and note and welcome the fact that the chairman informed the Council of the contributions that the agency and local angling clubs have made to curb the spread of foot-and- mouth disease. I know the Minister is aware that that co-operation has been freely given, not just within the Loughs Agency, but right across the Province.

I would like to bring the Minister back to her statement that agency staff have complied fully with disinfection procedures where they have had to address pollution or water quality issues. I seek her assurance that considerable attention is being paid to the run-off of disinfectant, because thousands of gallons of disinfectant are now pouring into our drains, and then into our streams and waterways. Before I am reminded that I cannot ask questions about the Province in general I want to focus on the Loughs Agency. The same concern is expressed right across the Province. Is the Minister keeping a focus on this issue, and are her staff co-operating with other Departments — for example, the environmental protection section of the Environment and Heritage Service, which is an agency of the Department of the Environment?

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

I can assure Mr Jim Wilson that I am very aware of the problem of run-off of disinfection or, indeed, anything else in the waters. I have been assured by the agency that it is taking all the necessary precautions on the foot-and-mouth disease situation. I imagine that because it is an agency whose main purpose is conservation and protection of the fishing environment, it will most certainly be taking precautions to ensure that nothing is done to damage the fish stocks.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minister will be aware that the members of the Agriculture Committee were concerned about the inconsistency in regard to lights and the fact that the South of Ireland’s fishermen pay nothing, whereas our hard-pressed fishermen have to pay towards the upkeep of lights.

The Speaker mentioned that the Minister was going to deal with the matter of lights dues. Was the need for equality of opportunity for Northern Ireland fishermen discussed at the meeting? Fishermen in Northern Ireland should not have to pay for a service which fishermen in the South avail of free of charge.

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

Dr Paisley will be aware that the payment of lights dues by fishermen in Northern Ireland is not a matter for the Government of the Republic. I commend the Government of the Republic for not asking their fishermen to pay the lights dues, and I should like our fishermen to be treated in the same way. However, we are governed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in Whitehall.

Dr Paisley might be aware that I wrote to the Minister to say that it is unfair that the fishermen should have to pay lights dues in Northern Ireland. In fact, I pointed out that fishermen in the Republic of Ireland were not required to pay those same dues. The response I received was not encouraging, so I wrote another letter to the Minister.

I have now been told that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is undertaking to review its policy on charging. I have asked the Department to ensure that the position of Northern Ireland fishermen is considered closely when this policy is being reviewed.

Dr Paisley will appreciate that at present this is a reserved matter of the UK Government. I will consider all the available options after the transfer of the functions from the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, and we are attempting to develop that legislation at the moment.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I thank her for making an important reference to the efforts of anglers in the Foyle and Carlingford areas to co-operate with restrictions during the foot-and-mouth disease crisis.

In the light of the important visit to the Tralee and Clew Bay shellfish farms, will the Minister ensure that the management of shellfish farms is stringently controlled, particularly in regard to pollution. It is well recognised that this constitutes a major threat to waters worldwide, and the Committee highlighted this as an issue of considerable concern in its recent report to the House.

Does the Minister agree that the three sets of regulations are a welcome addition to the existing measures for protecting our salmon and trout populations? As a Committee, we will, in due course, be making a formal report to the Assembly on the content of the regulations.

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

I thank Mr ONeill for his comments on the anglers whose contribution in the fight against foot-and-mouth disease is much appreciated. I met some anglers on Saturday during a visit to another area, and I was very aware of the difficulties being experienced by the angling clubs. They were nevertheless content that protection against foot-and-mouth disease has to be a priority, and I appreciate that.

The purpose of the legislation, which will be introduced as soon as possible, is to ensure that shellfish farms are properly managed and that all aspects of the operation are examined. I understand that the visit to Clew Bay was extremely informative and that the visitors learned a good deal about the management of those areas.

I have not taken a note of the next part of the question.

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

Are these regulations a welcome addition to the measures for protecting our salmon and trout populations?

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

Carcass tagging will be a very welcome means of protecting salmon. First, it will allow us to gain a clear picture and a database of the salmon stock. It will also be a helpful and effective way of preventing poaching of our salmon stocks. It will, therefore, be a very big advance.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I appreciate that the Minister’s statement covers a wide range of issues such as foot-and-mouth disease, staffing matters, strategy and legislation. There is a pointer that says that some of this work has been outstanding for a number of months. Given the range of issues involved, will the Minister tell the House if she has taken any steps to ensure that there will be a full meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council to address these significant matters?

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

Mr Speaker, I am not sure if that question relates to today’s paper.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As the Minister knows, questions are on the statement that she has made.

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

The Member will be aware that the SDLP supports full meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. That has been our stated position. The Member will also be aware that the present embargo that has been placed — illegally, as I understand it — on Sinn Féin Members does not apply to my position on North/South Ministerial meetings in the field of agriculture. That is because, as a Nationalist Minister, I am always accompanied by a Unionist Minister. Therefore, it is not an issue in my own dealings with the North/South Ministerial Council. As some of the other issues are matters of judicial review, it would be unwise for me to say any more at this stage.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister stated that the Loughs Agency is keen to develop a strategy for sustainable industry in aquaculture. Is there any limit or control on the extent to which these businesses can, or will be allowed to, grow?

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

It is not the intention of the agency to curb the development of these industries. It wishes to encourage the development of the industry, but in a regulated way that will also enhance the conservation of fish stocks. There has to be a sustainable industry, and the purpose of the legislation is to ensure that. The industry will be limited only by the capacity of the loughs. We have to ensure that stocks are preserved.

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

I welcome particularly the announcement that

"a marine tourism officer has been appointed to begin work … on marine tourism for the Foyle and Carlingford areas."

Will the Minister advise us on the level of consultation that will be undertaken during the drafting of the strategy?

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

With regard to the drafting of our strategy, the agency intends to consult fully with all stakeholders. It recently advertised an invitation to interested parties to make suggestions as to how the consultation process should be established and what arrangements would be entered into. The outcome of that exercise was that the agency now plans to establish an advisory forum and focus groups, which will involve representatives of all of the local fisheries industries, including the marine tourism industries.

The focus groups representing all the sectoral interests in that area will consult with their own people — for example, in the case of marine tourism they will consult their wider community on marine tourism issues — and that will then feed back into the consultation process. Therefore, there will be a wide and, I stress, independent consultation. The agency will retain an independent consultant to recruit the membership of the focus groups and the advisory forum. Therefore, it will be a fully independent process of consultation with all the interests and stakeholders involved.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Last week, when the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment made a similar statement on North/ South meetings, he assured me that the minutes of those meetings were relayed to the Committee. I immediately checked that, but there was no trace of that’s happening.

I also asked the Chairman of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee whether his Committee is getting the minutes of the meetings that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development attends. He assured me that that was not happening.

These bodies are making important decisions on the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, yet all we receive from them are the statements that the Ministers deliver to the House. On this occasion, the statement is quite detailed, but that is unusual. Normally, we receive a few terse statements saying that a meeting was held, decisions were made and some money was disbursed.

Can the Minister assure us that the minutes of those meetings are, indeed, being referred to the Committee? If they are not, why not?

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

I assure Mr Wells that in everything I do and in all my dealings, whether in the North/South Ministerial Council or on issues specific to Northern Ireland, I have been open and accountable. I have never tried to hide anything, nor is it my intention to do so. All decisions made at these meetings are put into the public domain via a joint communiqué.

As the Member has clearly recognised, I have given a very full account of everything that was decided or discussed at the meeting. It is doubtful that the minutes will be any more enlightening, but I will certainly take the matter up. I assure the Member that he has nothing to fear and that I have nothing to hide.

The whole purpose of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission is to enhance the capacity of both loughs for the benefit of people in both parts of Ireland, both in the development of tourism potential and of the industry itself.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I also welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the detail that it goes into on the situation, and the large number of issues that have been addressed. It is incredible that the Minister feels that the ban on other ministerial Colleagues is not an issue for her — it certainly should be.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I fail to see how the issue to which the Member has referred, and to which I referred in a ruling on sub judice earlier, is related to the Minister’s statement.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You did not actually give a ruling on questions, in relation to another Minister asking questions —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I referred to the fact that the Member is now asking a question that, by the very way that he asks it, indicates that it is nothing to do with that statement. These are questions on the statement — they are not general questions or questions on the generality of the Department. Members need to stick with the statement that the Minister has made. She has, in fact, already referred to precisely this issue.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I take your point, a Cheann Comhairle. My question relates to appointments to this particular body. It is not fully functioning, and, therefore, there are heavy costs in staffing, and so on. Can the Minister say something about that? It is not up and running because of legislation.

Are all measures being taken to allay the concerns of farmers in border areas about people entering lands via waterways, and the consequent fears of foot-and-mouth disease?

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

To set the record straight, the Member’s initial allegation concerns something that I did not actually say. He criticised me for saying something that I did not say. I do not want to reiterate my party’s position or my position on the matter, because those are well known. I assume that the Member’s question refers to appointments to the body itself rather than to the people who have been employed. Is Mr McHugh suggesting that it is not a good idea to have a North/South body for the Loughs Agency? We think that it is a very good idea, because it enables Ireland, North and South, to work together on a very important area. The body will allow us to develop the potential of Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle together. I presume that the Member is not suggesting that the body is a bad idea.

We could take the view that when a body is set up, it should have everything in order at once. It is obvious that when you set up a new body, you must make arrangements to make it fully operative. The body could not be fully operative from day one, given that legislation must be passed and we have to go through a consultation process with the stakeholders. All of that is part of the work of establishing what I consider to be a very important body that will enhance the potential of the loughs in the North and the South.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Given that Members have referred to the matter raised by Mr McHugh on two or three occasions and that the House seems to want direct reference made to it, I will look into it further. I refer the House again to Standing Order 68, paragraph (2), which states that

"matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court should not be referred to:"

I will study the matter further, but until then a straightforward reading of the Standing Order simply suggests what it says: the matter should not be referred to in a motion, a debate or a question to a Minister, including a supplementary question.

Because the House has pressed me, my interim ruling must follow what the Standing Order appears to mean. I will take legal advice on the question. The ruling may not appeal to all Members, but I trust that I have clarified matters as best I can. I cannot take any further points of order on that matter now, but if Members have other points of order that relate to the issue, I will take them at the end of questions to the Minister on the statement.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s report, but I would like some clarification of the statement that

"a presentation was made to the Council on the agency’s detailed plans for selecting and appointing members to the advisory forum and focus groups".

It goes on to say that independent consultants will oversee the appointments. How many groups will be formed? Will the groups be quangos? Could the Department, with advice from the Committees, do some of the work? How much will each group or forum cost?

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

There will be one advisory forum and six focus groups. I cannot say how much those groups will cost, but I do not imagine that the cost will be very high. I assure Mrs Carson that it is very important that the Foyle and Carlingford Irish Lights Commision (FCILC) is in a position to consult with stakeholders and those who have an interest in the loughs. The legislation and regulations have not been in place before, and there are many people who have a legitimate interest in having their voices heard. It would be remiss of the agency if it were to ignore those people.

The best way to progress the legislation — since we are now going to have legislation to regulate the industry — is to give all these people their place, consult with them and ensure that they feel that they are part of the decision-making process. I do not see it as the setting up of a number of quangos; I would be surprised if it were a costly exercise.

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

I compliment the Minister, and her associate Minister, on this morning’s report and the great work that she is doing generally in relation to foot-and- mouth disease. The report refers to the aquaculture of the lough shores, particularly of Carlingford Lough. The Minister met with the Carlingford Lough Shore and Land Owners Association. Its members outlined their concerns regarding the proliferation of aquaculture licences, particularly in areas where they have the ownership of the rights to the wrack. They think that there should at least be a moratorium on the issue of licences until the landowners’ difficulties with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development are sorted out. Can the Minister accede to that, because it is important? Farming diversification for these landowners could mean aquaculture involving their wrack rights on the lough shore. Can the Minister give further consideration to a moratorium on, or a suspension of, further aquaculture licences on our side of Carlingford Lough?

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

I thank Mr McGrady for his initial remarks and his question. I met with interested parties, and Mr McGrady, on the issue of Carlingford Lough wrack rights. Individuals are claiming those rights, and they have provided evidence that is being examined by the Department’s legal advisers. The legislation recognises the rights of individuals who have proven ownership of the right to collect wrack, and the issue is being progressed by the Department.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is notable that this is the third report within two weeks of an all-Ireland Council meeting that has been attended by the Ulster Unionist Party. The report mentions a proposal that

"a review of the grading and salary of field staff posts be undertaken as a matter of urgency."

The communiqué talks of the review of the Loughs Agency’s staffing and structure being postponed for six months until January 2002. There would seem to be some confusion between the Minister’s statement and the communiqué that was produced. What is the staffing situation? How many staff are currently in the field? How many are required? When will the review take place? Will it be in January, or will it be carried out urgently?

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

I cannot give the actual staffing figures, but I will get them. I presume that the Member is talking about the overall number of staff that are employed by the agency.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am talking about the number of field staff.

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

I do not have that figure to hand, but I will let the Member know. The review is of field officers only, so there is not a contradiction in the statement.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A Cheann Comhairle, I welcome the statement. It is useful to have these updates, particularly when some people do not have the opportunity to attend the meetings. However, it was a cheap shot from the Minister to respond to my Colleague Gerry McHugh without answering the question about the North/South Ministerial Council. The Minister will be aware that our party was instrumental in the putting together of all-Ireland structures. I need a clear answer from the Minister about the implementation of, and the legislation in relation to, these bodies to ensure that they are fully operational.

In case there is any doubt, I am talking about what is said in the statement. It is important at this time to get a clear line, because these cheap shots from the Minister about party politics are not in keeping with the statement. Does the Minister agree that the fact that SDLP Ministers continue to attend the North/South Ministerial Council meetings gives the impression that everything is rosy in the North/South Ministerial Council when, in fact, people are being excluded from the meetings?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I have ruled that that matter should not be referred to, and there was a quite clear attempt to find some way of slipping the matter in. I must advise the Minister that she should not respond to that part of the question.

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

I do not think that there was a question in that tirade — except in relation to answers that I had given as being "cheap shots". I answered the question that I was asked — [Interruption].

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will repeat my question.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order — [Interruption].

Order. The Member will resume his seat.

Ministers are not required to answer questions; they are requested to do so. I referred to that matter in response to a question by Rev Dr Ian Paisley. I have also made it clear that points of order are not in order during questions to Ministers. However, I am happy to take points of order at the end of the period of questions to the Minister. This matter also has arisen on a number of occasions. The Member has put his question. The Minister does not consider the issue that Mr Molloy has raised to be part of the question. I cannot rule that the Minister must answer any particular aspect of the matter that the Member has raised.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Would you let me explain? The Minister said that she did not think there was a question. I was simply explaining that there were two questions, one of which was already asked by Mr McHugh.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I leave it to the Minister to respond as she wishes.

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

It is to be regretted that Sinn Féin has turned a report on an important element of the North/ South Ministerial Council into a political point-scoring exercise. I will respond to any questions that I feel are relevant to my brief and that relate to my statement.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister confirm that, according to the statement, extra fishing accessibility is being awarded to those in the Foyle constituency while fishing accessibility in West Tyrone is actually being limited? That seems rather strange, given the circumstances that the Minister will find herself in. Can she explain the rationale of allowing the reopening of accessibility to fishing on the Foyle, which will in fact limit the availability of fish passing through to the rest of the Foyle system? I am thinking of the River Mourne particularly.

Can she tell me exactly to which part of the River Mourne the ban on angling is being extended? Can she comment on the continued intimidation and threats to bailiffs in that area? Was that issue discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting, and how is it being dealt with?

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

The ban on angling on a stretch of the River Foyle was introduced in 1999 to prevent illegal netting from a heavily poached stretch of the river. It will be unnecessary when the tagging scheme is introduced.

The area closed to angling on the River Mourne has been extended to prevent excessive exploitation of salmon and sea trout in an area where there is a natural obstacle to migration. The purpose of these exercises is the conservation of the fish stock and the enhancement of the whole industry.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

How will the carcass tagging of 20-inch salmon prevent the overnetting and illegal netting that have been so prevalent in parts of the Foyle, Derg and Mourne rivers?

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

Salmon carcass tagging will be a more efficient and effective way of preventing illegal catching of salmon. Therefore, it will help prevent the illegal selling of salmon to hotels, for instance, because it will be difficult to sell a salmon unless it is tagged. If the salmon is not tagged, then it will have been poached. It will be much easier to keep track of salmon and ensure that people do not benefit from selling poached salmon — in the sense of being illegally caught, as opposed to being cooked. Also it can be done during the day by officials checking if the salmon being sold are tagged or not, rather than by policing the rivers during the night when most poaching takes place.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement and particularly the plan by the Loughs Agency to establish the advisory forum and focus groups. Will the Minister assure the House that all the stakeholders will be fully represented on these groups? This did not happen when the agency itself was appointed. There was a distinct lack of representation in respect of the fishing community.

Is the Minister satisfied that the process undertaken and the criteria used by independent consultants will be fully inclusive, and particularly of the fisheries industry in Lough Foyle? Will these bodies report to the North/ South Ministerial Council? What costs will be incurred by employing consultants? Has there been any advance on the matter of the enabling legislation to allow the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission to operate fully?

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

Go raibh maith agat. Níl a fhios agam ar mhaith leis an Teachta go dtabharfainn freagra i nGaedhilg nó i mBéarla.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

No.

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

I was offering to answer in Irish, since the Member initiated her remarks in Irish. She does not want that, so I will proceed in English.

In relation to the focus groups — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

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

As I have already stated, there will be a fully independent procedure to decide the membership of the focus groups. This will not be decided by me or by the bodies. It will be decided on an independent basis to ensure that they are independent of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission itself. At the North/South Ministerial Council we had a full presentation on the process to be undertaken and the criteria to be used. I am entirely satisfied that it will be inclusive and that all stakeholders will be enabled to be involved in the consultation.

I cannot give a figure for the costs incurred by the consultants, but I will find out and let the Member know later.

We are proceeding with the enabling legislation, although there are some difficulties in the area of the appeals procedure. At the moment it allows for an aggrieved person to appeal a decision but not for a third party to do so. In other words, other people may object and have their objections overruled or not considered when making the decision. They do not have a right to appeal under our present legislation in the North, which could leave us open to a Human Rights Commission investigation.

A number of other issues are being looked at on both sides of the border, because the two jurisdictions need to bring the legislation forward together. A number of complicated issues still need to be ironed out, but I am hoping to have the legislation ready as soon as possible.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Before the establishment of the North/ South bodies, visits to lighthouses such as Islandmagee lighthouse in my constituency required local youth groups to contact the Commissioners of Irish Lights in Dublin. Is there now a local contact number to enable people in Northern Ireland to contact the Irish Lights body without having to make international phone calls?

Secondly, the issue of shellfish was discussed. Will the Minister say if any concern was raised at the meeting about the number of bodies in Northern Ireland that are carrying out water quality tests, given the duplication and lack of responsibility that result? Finally, will the Minister say whether the discussions took place in everyone’s first language or if Irish was used?

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

In response to whether the business of the meeting was carried out in Irish or English, it was carried out in English, because a number of people there did not understand Irish. It would have been extremely rude to carry out business in that language since we did not have any interpreters. If interpreters had been present for the benefit of those who did not understand the language, I would have been happy to carry out the business in Irish. In the absence of interpreters, I could not do that. Indeed, I would be very happy to carry out all the business that I do in this House in my language, which is Irish, if other people could understand me by putting on earphones.

Irish Lights’ responsibilities have not yet been transferred to the body, because there are a number of difficulties in that area also.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

What about the question on shellfish?

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

What question was that? Mr Speaker, it would be preferable if Members would try to ask just one or two questions. It is very difficult to remember three or four.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have often referred the House to the fact that this is an opportunity for Members to ask one question. When they ask more than one — and sometimes the questions have as many legs as a centipede — the Minister may choose to answer none, one or some of them, but may not necessarily be able to answer all of them, even if he or she wishes to. This is salutary. There is much talk about power sharing; perhaps question sharing with Members who do not have a question might be the way to deal with the matter.

Product Liability (Amendment) Bill: First Stage

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill to amend Part II of the Consumer Protection (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill: Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

No amendments have been tabled to the Bill, but the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Mr Molloy, has indicated that he wishes to speak on clause 3. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the first two clauses and then deal with clause 3, clauses 4 to 6 and, finally, the long title.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 (Tenancies to which this Act applies)

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A Cheann Comhairle, go raibh maith agat. Before addressing the Committee’s concerns about clause 3, I want to thank all those organisations that took the time to write to us and give us their views. I also thank the Minister and ask him to pass on our thanks to the Office of Law Reform, whose officials assisted the Committee during its detailed consideration of the clauses.

In giving evidence, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Housing Rights Service raised concerns about clause 3. Their concerns centred on the fact that the clause exempts landlords of registered and regulated tenancies from the main provisions of the Bill — that is, the additional liability otherwise provided for. During consultation with the Office of Law Reform, it emerged that the Department for Social Development has commenced a major review of the private rented sector with the aim of conducting a thorough analysis of the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 in relation to protected tenancies.

The Committee was told that the intention behind the review was to improve the state of the private rented sector.

The Office of Law Reform told the Committee that the primary purpose of the Bill was to address the issue of liability in tort. It was designed to clarify and extend the liability that applies to landlords but could not focus on imposing repair obligations on the landlord. The Committee received evidence from the Law Reform Advisory Committee. It emerged that the Law Reform Advisory Committee had been influenced and persuaded by representations from the Housing Executive. In addition, it had concluded that owing to the low return that they receive from rental income, there would be a problem of equity should the extended liability provided for in the Bill be imposed on landlords of restricted and regulated tenancies.

The Law Reform Advisory Committee had not considered the broader issue of housing rights, nor was it trying to improve the quality of housing stock. The focus of its consideration was restricted to the limits of liability in the event of an accident causing injury or damage. The Law Reform Advisory Committee had identified an anomaly between the Defective Premises Act 1972 in Great Britain and the Defective Premises (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 and had endeavoured to remedy that anomaly.

The Committee concluded that this Bill was not an appropriate vehicle for addressing shortcomings in the quality of properties in the private rented sector. Members noted the advice of the Assembly’s legal adviser that while grants were available to landlords of restricted and regulated tenancies to undertake repairs, recent reductions in the scale of those grants meant that they were not sufficient to enable a meaningful level of refurbishment to be undertaken.

The Committee concluded that in the present circumstances it would not be appropriate to apply the additional liability envisaged by the Bill to such landlords. The Committee agreed, however, that this was an undesirable outcome to its consideration of the Bill. Members were deeply concerned that the tenants of restricted and regulated tenancies were disadvantaged in relation to the legal redress available to them should injury or damage occur as a result of defects in such properties. The Committee concluded that this situation was unsatisfactory in the longer term.

The Committee decided that its concerns about the exemptions in respect of liability afforded to landlords of restricted and regulated tenancies should be formally conveyed to the review of the private rented sector being undertaken by the Department for Social Development. The Committee further agreed that those concerns should be drawn to the attention of the Social Development Committee, and I have taken steps to do that. The Committee agreed that clause 3 should be recommended to the Assembly for approval. Go raibh maith agat.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I agree with much of what the Member has said and thank him and the members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel for the scrutiny given to this Bill. The Committee has done a thorough job, and the useful working relationship that it has fashioned with my officials in the Office of Law Reform has been demonstrated. Law reform bills can be complex and technical, and I am grateful to Members for coming to grips with the legal niceties — and the not-so-niceties — of this Bill.

I agree that it is unsatisfactory that regulated and restricted tenancies are exempted from this limited extension of liability and recognise the difficulties that could have resulted if we had not acted in this way.

It is clear to all associated with the Bill that the current state of protected tenancies in this jurisdiction requires close scrutiny. Those living in such tenancies face certain and distinct disadvantages in living conditions. Equally, and the Committee appreciates this point, landlords of such properties do not have entirely easy options. They cannot command reasonable rents, a fact clearly highlighted for those restricted landlords who, in many instances, are not entitled to a rent worth collecting. The system of grants, which may help to repair unfit properties, is, at best, unsatisfactory. There are little or no enforcement powers available at present. It is in this context that the exemption is standing as part of the Bill. If I felt that any of the above factors would mean that the extension of liability to such groups would not be onerous, I would have no hesitation in applying them.

Like the Chairman, I welcome the fact that the Department for Social Development proposes to review the private rented sector. The universal hope is that this review will bear fruit and lead to an improvement in the housing stock of such properties. However, we agree that this limited law reform measure, which will deal with the situation after an injury or damage occurring, is not the vehicle to bring about such desirable reform.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Defective Premises (Landlord’s Liability) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill: Consideration Stage

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments. There is one amendment tabled and selected to clause 1, which will be considered in the usual way. I have also had indication that a Member wishes to speak about clause 9. I will take the amendment and clause 1; clauses 2 to 8 ; clause 9; clauses 10 to 16, and the long title of the Bill.

Clause 1 (Regulations giving effect to Convention)

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Aithníodh an gá leis an leasú seo nuair a bhí an Bille faoi bhreithniú ag an Choiste, agus gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Chathaoirleach agus le baill an Choiste as a mbreithniú cúramach ar an Bhille.

Cuireann alt 1 den Bhille ar chumas na Roinne rialacháin a dhéanamh agus coireanna a chruthú maidir le sárú na rialachán sin. De réir mar a dréachtaíodh an Bille, tá an t-uasphionós is féidir a ghearradh i ndáil le coir a cruthaíodh faoi alt 1 (príosúntacht trí mhí nó fíneáil nach mó ná leibhéal a cúig, nó an dá chuid) ag teacht lena chomhfhoráil san Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill 1999 i Sasana, in Albain agus sa Bhreatain Bheag.

Dar leis an Choiste gur cóir an t-uastéarma príosúntachta a ardú go sé mhí le gurbh ionann é agus an t-uastéarma don choir in alt 12, sin é páiste a thabhairt isteach sa tír i gcoinne na rialachán. Chrothomódh an leasú ailt 1 agus 12 sa Bhille.

Ní athraíonn an leasú cuspóirí polasaí an Bhille.

I beg to move amendment 1: In page 1, line 14 leave out "three" and insert "six". — [Ms de Brún]

The need for this amendment was identified during the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairperson and members of the Committee for their careful consideration of the Bill. Clause 1 establishes powers for the Department to make regulations and to create offences for contravening those regulations.

As the clause is currently drafted, the maximum penalty that may be imposed in relation to an offence — three months imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 5, or both — is consistent with the equivalent provision in the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 in England, Scotland and Wales. In the Committee’s view, the maximum term of imprisonment should be six months, the same as for the offence under clause 12 of bringing a child into the country in contravention of the regulations. The amendment would create consistency between clauses 1 and 12. The amendment does not reflect any change in the policy aims of the Bill. Molaim an leasú.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I support the amendment. The issue was raised during our deliberations at the Committee Stage, and the need for an amendment was agreed. Committee members are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to take forward the amendment. It will ensure consistency with regard to the terms of imprisonment for the offences covered by clause 1 and clause 12 of the Bill.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety did not undertake consultation on the specific issues covered by the Bill, and, therefore, the Committee decided that it would undertake a consultation exercise on the policy aims. Twenty-four groups from the statutory and voluntary sectors responded to the exercise, and the vast majority welcomed the proposed legislation.

The Committee is satisfied that the Bill ensures that the best interests of children are paramount. It brings greater uniformity and standardisation to the processes, places existing arrangements on a statutory basis and introduces two new offences. It will now be unlawful for anyone other than an approved adoption agency to assess the suitability of prospective adopters of children from overseas or to bring a child into this country without certain conditions being satisfied.

Some respondents raised other important issues, and I would like to cover those briefly today. Some of them expressed concern about the lack of uniformity on the part of health and social services trusts with regard to charging for assessments of persons who apply to adopt children from overseas. Committee members were concerned that different trusts had different practices and agreed on the need for equality and uniformity across Northern Ireland. The Committee raised that issue with the Minister and welcomes the Minister’s intention to issue guidance to the trusts regarding charging for assessments in order to ensure consistency.

As a result of the consultation exercise, it also came to the attention of the Committee that children adopted and brought into Northern Ireland through the intercountry adoption process do not appear to be entitled to a post- arrival health check. That procedure should be completed in the child’s country of origin as part of the entry clearance procedures. However, Committee members agreed that a full health check on arrival in Northern Ireland should be mandatory so that any illnesses can be treated and managed properly.

The matter was also raised with the Minister, and the Committee welcomed the Minister’s positive response that it is her intention to consider, with the Department of Health in England, whether mandatory health checks should be introduced as an additional safeguard for children adopted from overseas.

Finally, I would like to highlight the Committee’s concern at the case of the twin girls adopted, as it were, in the United States and brought into the United Kingdom. It seems that, despite the stipulation in the Bill that assessments must be carried out by a registered adoption agency, all loopholes may not have been covered. Therefore, we welcome the assurance from the Minister that if, as a result of ongoing discussions with Whitehall officials, new primary or secondary legislation is found to be necessary, every effort will be made to bring it to the Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as possible.

I am sure that Members will agree with the Committee that the Bill should go ahead, allowing the positive aspects to come into force, rather than await the outcome of those discussions. The Committee will return to the matters still under consideration in due course in order to ensure a satisfactory resolution.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I wish to make a couple of brief points. I welcome the fact that the Minister has introduced the amendment, which, as Members can see, is somewhat similar to one that I sought to put down. She beat me to it by a few minutes.

As has been highlighted by the Minister, amendment 1 is necessary for internal consistency in the Bill. It is also necessary because of the suggestion that a maximum sentence of three months would have been regarded as relatively light in certain circles. The majority of those who might be tempted to flout the law would be couples who find themselves in trying and difficult circumstances. I am not suggesting that Members should be seeking maximum penalties of imprisonment in those circumstances. However, it is essential that a higher penalty be installed for instances where there is a suggestion that anybody is organising such arrangements for more than one family or is trafficking in babies.

Dr Hendron mentioned consistency on charges between trusts. That is an equality issue. If I may digress, I welcome the action that the Minister took last week to redress the differences that existed in different areas of Northern Ireland regarding fertility treatment. The Minister will need to be seen to be taking action to ensure that trusts are given — and adhere to — sufficiently strong guidance so that she will not face the same equality challenge over the issue of charging adoption fees.

I have no doubt that she will take account of those points, just as she took account of the question I raised last week — even though I did not get the chance to ask it. I urge the House to support amendment 1 and the Bill.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have written to the Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee about charging for assessments in relation to intercountry adoptions. I share the Committee’s view that there should be uniformity between trusts in their approach to that matter. It would not necessarily be appropriate to take statutory powers in the Bill to prescribe the level of charges. However, I understand the Committee’s concern and that of those who have raised the matter this morning. As I indicated to Dr Hendron, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be issuing guidance on charging to ensure that it is carried out on a uniform and consistent basis.

I agree that a mandatory health check would be an additional safeguard. However, those people who are adopting children from overseas are advised to contact their GP to make arrangements for a comprehensive health check of the child as soon as possible. From that viewpoint I am not convinced that it is necessary to make health checks mandatory. The Department expects those parents adopting a child from abroad to have regard for the health of the child.

In preparing for the implementation of the new legislation the Health Department will be issuing extensive guidance over a wide range of matters. That guidance will address the need for adoptive parents to ensure that they approach their GP to arrange a comprehensive health check of the child as soon as is convenient.

In respect of the restriction on advertising contained in the Adoption and Children Bill the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is monitoring the position with a view to introducing an equivalent provision here as soon as possible.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 (Six months residence required for certain intercountry adoptions)

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I would like some clarification on clause 9. Some of my constituents have indicated that it can take up to four years to bring a child through the intercountry adoption agency. Paragraph 32 of the explanatory and financial memorandum on the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill states that

"the child is required to have had his home with the prospective adopters for a period of at least six months before an adoption order may be made."

How can that happen when some people have told me that it can take up to four years for an adoption to take place, whether it be from the Crimea, Romania or Brazil? Will the Minister tell the House if a difference has been made between the adoption agency and individuals who have pursued the adoption under their own steam and through the process?

It is important that adoption agencies and individuals have the same timescale for adoption.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The idea is that a period of six months would apply to those cases where the placement of the child was made by an adoption agency. In cases where the arrangements were not made by an adoption agency, the current provisions concerning the period before an adoption order may be made will remain at 12 months.

I did not catch part of the Member’s question. If I have not answered his question I will try again.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

My constituents have told me that it can take four years to adopt. I cannot understand clause 9. The explanatory memorandum states that

"the child is required to have had his home with the prospective adopters for a period of at least six months before an adoption order may be made."

I am trying to clarify how six months is the issue when people have told me that it takes four years.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The child must be in place regardless of the operational question of the time taken. In my view that is separate from the fact that the child must be there for six months. I am still not sure if I have answered the Member’s question.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

If it states in the legislation that a child must be in the adopter’s house for six months, how can we equate that with someone who wants to adopt a child? For example, two suitable adopters in Northern Ireland have told me that it takes four years to adopt a baby from the Crimea. How can they get around this process? How can they fit into the six-months category?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Mr Shannon is not seeking clarification on the legislation but on a totally separate matter which is outside the remit of what we are dealing with today. With regard to the legislation, the period of six months which is being sought is to allow those responsible to be satisfied about the welfare of the child. It is to allow them to assess the suitability of the persons having care of the child and to make whatever additional enquiries may be necessary overseas concerning the circumstances of the adoption or how the child came into the care of the prospective adopters. The other matters are not ones for today.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I must remind Members, as the Minister has done, that when considering legislation it is the legislation itself that we have to consider.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

The sitting was suspended at 1.22 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Children’s Commissioner Bill: First Stage

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do you consider it in order for a private Member’s Bill calling for a children’s commissioner to be discussed while the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Committee of the Centre are carrying out consultation processes on the appointment of a children’s commissioner? Will you refer the matter to the Business Committee and the Committee on Procedures for investigation?

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

That is a matter for the Business Committee to decide, and I will ask it to discuss that at the meeting tomorrow.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA 14/00] to provide for the establishment of a children’s commissioner to promote the rights and interests of children in Northern Ireland; to make provision for the powers and duties of the commissioner; and for related purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

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

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

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

Motion made:

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

Conservation on the Black Mountain

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an seans labhairt ar cheist phráinneach chaomhnú an tSléibhe Dhuibh in iarthar Bhéal Feirste. Tá súil agam go n-inseoidh an tAire dúinn i ndiaidh na díospóireachta seo go bhfuil rún aige deireadh a chur le cairéalacht cloch ansin. Ta an Sliabh Dubh agus cnoic Bhéal Feirste an-tábhachtach do mhuintir Bhéal Feirste.

Tá Béal Feirste suite idir abhantrach an Lagáin ar thaobh amháin agus cnoic Ard Mhic Neasca ar an taobh eile. Tá cnoic Bhéal Feirste ina slabhra ó chnoc Colin go cnoc Carnmoney, agus tá an Sliabh Dubh ina nasc thábhachtach sa slabhra sin.

Bheirim cuireadh anois don Aire siúil liom ar an Sliabh Dubh go bhfeiceann sé dó féin na gáibéil agus na beanna a dhéanann suas an cairéal.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the urgent need to conserve the Black Mountain. It is essential that the Assembly support the preservation of the Black Mountain and the Belfast hills. I invite the Minister of the Environment, Mr Foster, to visit the Black Mountain with me to see, at first hand, the gaping chasm and sheer cliffs that make up the quarry, and to understand why it is vital that his Department takes the necessary steps to end quarrying. I intend, in due course, to invite the Environment Committee to examine the important issue. I hope that today’s discussion will be informative and signal a beginning of the end for quarrying on the Black Mountain and real moves towards preserving the Belfast hills.

The Black Mountain and the Belfast hills are central to the identity of Belfast. In common with many Irish cities, Belfast is changing. With that change it is losing its uniqueness. New developments which are central to regeneration are replacing older landmarks; Belfast risks losing its character. What remains unique to the city is its magnificent setting — a city rising up from the Lagan basin, and framed by the Belfast and Holywood hills. The Belfast hills form a chain stretching from Colin Mountain to Carnmoney Hill, and the Black Mountain is a vital link in that chain. These hills have watched Belfast grow. They have acted as a meeting place for the United Irishmen; the British Army occupied them; they have witnessed all our history. They have acted as a playground for generations, and they should be the common property of all our people.

The hills are a legacy that we have inherited, and it is our responsibility to conserve them for our children. That was recognised by the Planning Service as long ago as 1945 when, in planning proposals for the Belfast area, it recommended the preservation of the hills. Similar aspirations have been voiced in every subsequent Belfast planning document. However, the aspirations of the documents have never been fully realised. Developments are encroaching on to the hills, and significant quarrying is encouraged on the Black Mountain. Therefore, there is a need to implement legislation to end the quarrying and to save the hills.

Sinn Féin and I both welcome the establishment of the Belfast Hills Trust. We have called consistently for the setting up of a regional park across all the Belfast hills. Such a park, based on legislation, and fully funded, would be the best way of securing the long-term future of our hills.

Every year 500,000 tonnes of stone are removed from the Black Mountain. Two thousand five hundred tonnes are removed every day. Last year, the Minister stated that there was at least 20 years’ worth of stone extraction left on the mountain. This projection comes after 12 years of quarrying. By the end of the timescale allowed in the planning permission, in 32 years at least 16 million tonnes will have been extracted.

Fuair muid na cnoic seo mar oidhreacht nádúrtha an dúchais, agus tá freagracht orainn anois iad a chaomhnú dár gcuid páistí.

I wonder, as do many other people who live close to the mountain, if there will be a mountain there at all in twenty years’ time. I ask the Minister if this would be allowed to happen to any other landmark in any other constituency. Would the Minister allow the full-scale draining of the Fermanagh loughs, the destruction of the Giant’s Causeway or the demolition of Navan Fort?

As well as the destruction of the mountain, local communities have to endure 25 large trucks making return journeys every day to and from the quarry. That is 50 journeys through a community with the highest level of road traffic accidents in the Six Counties. There are also reports of increased pollution, with dust blowing off the quarry into neighbouring communities.

To add insult to this the construction industry itself, which is the market for quarried stone, can use recycled aggregate. The industry is not dependent on stone quarry from the Black Mountain. While all this goes on, Belfast is losing a vital piece of our environmental heritage and gaining increased pollution and heavy traffic, borne, in the main, by the people of west Belfast.

The small number of jobs created on the site is not sustainable. Some day the stone will be gone, and with it the jobs. However, the number of jobs lost could be matched and added to by way of restoration work, conservation, education and tourism on the mountain. A single project by the community of the upper Springfield could create 45 jobs on the site immediately.

In March of this year, the Minister informed my office that the Department is taking no steps to end quarrying on the Black Mountain. This approach is short-sighted and wrong and undermines the current consultation on the Belfast metropolitan area plan. I am concerned that this plan will join the growing list of planning documents that have failed to safeguard the Black Mountain and the Belfast hills.

Ba chóir don Aire a bheartú ar cé acu ba mhaith leis bheith freagrach as an Sliabh Dubh a shábháil nó bheith ina fhear ar scrios a neamart é.

We need to move conservation from aspiration to action. We need the Department to implement legislation to conserve the Belfast hills. We need an immediate end to the quarrying, and we need to begin work to redress the damage done. Of course, there will be a cost for all this. However, the cost is justified, as it will save a valued asset for future generations.

The Minister and the Department have the ability to devise measures to safeguard the Black Mountain and the Belfast hills. As I said in Irish, he needs to decide if he will be remembered as the man who saved the Black Mountain or as someone who made a mountain into a molehill.

I urge the Minister to direct his Department to investigate ways to end the quarrying and to send a signal out today that he will act as a guardian of the environment.

In closing, let me bring you back to Navan Fort. In 1986, it too was threatened by quarrying. The then British Minister, Richard Needham, moved to save the site by invoking article 22 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, to overrule public inquiry commission findings concerning an application to extend quarrying at that site.

Ba mhaith liom an tAire ordú a thabhairt dá Roinn dóigh a fhiosrú le deireadh a chur leis an chairéalacht agus a chruthú go ndéanfaidh sé beart mar choimirceoir na timpeallachta.

As I am sure the Minister is a fair man, I ask him to come with me to the site to see for himself the damage that is being done. I ask him to use his power to save the Black Mountain and the Belfast hills, on behalf of the people of Belfast and this island. Go raibh mile maith agaibh.

Ian Adamson (UUP, Belfast East)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas Cheann Comhairle. Sadly, in our time, the Black Mountain area has come to be considered as perhaps the last resting place of several of the disappeared. The Black Mountain and the Belfast hills were anciently the borderline between the Dálaradia people and the ancient British Cruthin kingdom of Dálaradia. The historical and cultural legacy of Dálaradia, a legacy that belongs in equal measure to both our communities — for in essence they are the same community — was very much the product of a close interrelationship between all the peoples of the British Isles, using the term "British" in its most ancient form and sense.

Such an interrelationship is particularly evident in Dál Riada’s rich literary output, a fact also noted by Seamus Heaney in the introduction to his translation of ‘Buile Suibhne’, when he said

"It is possible … to dwell upon Sweeney’s easy sense of cultural affinity with both western Scotland and southern Ireland as exemplary for all men and women in contemporary Ulster."

Despite the exclusiveness with which many of our community have defensively surrounded their respective traditions of Britishness and Irishness, I take great encouragement from the efforts being made at the grassroots to explore the commonality of our historical and cultural heritage.

In particular I note the work undertaken by the Farset Youth and Community Project, which lies beneath the Black Mountain in the Upper Springfield Road area, and with which I have had a long association. Farset continues to involve young people from both sides of the divide in an exploration of their shared inheritance — the sacrifice at the Battle of the Somme, the story of the Titanic, the idealism of United Irishman, Jemmy Hope, the European dimension bequeathed to us by Columbanus, the preservation of Ulster Gaelic and Ulster Scots and many other equally significant facets.

Farset is appropriately sited on the Upper Springfield Road to explore this inheritance, not simply because the citizens of Belfast are the predominant inheritors of ancient Dálaradia and the Black Mountain interface, but because its location provides ample evidence of the continuity to which I have referred.

Within the project’s catchment area flows the River Farset from which the project, and Belfast, takes its name. Close to the river once stood an old church, mentioned in a document of 1306 as the "Ecclesia Alba", or White Church. The place name for this old church, An tSeanchill, was first documented in the seventeenth century and has been anglicised as Shankill. The old church has long since gone, but as Richard S J Clarke has noted

"Its graveyard continued to be used for burial for succeeding generations, maintaining a tradition established perhaps a thousand years earlier."

When Alderman Hugh Smyth was Mayor of Belfast, I had the great privilege of accompanying him to the National Museum in Dublin to see three fragments from a ninth-century crozier found in the graveyard. These are perhaps the oldest fragments of a crozier ever found in the vicinity of the north of Ireland. Along with a bullaun stone also found in the graveyard and now mounted near to the door of the adjoining St Matthew’s Church, we have evidence of pre-Norman ecclesiastical activity in Belfast.

Equally significant, the medieval parish of Shankill not only embraced the Falls as one of its native divisions but was also directly linked to the monastery at Bangor. A church document of 1615 lists the chapel of Cromoge, located within the parish of Shankill, as one of the six altarages or parochial chapels, belonging to the monastery of Bangor, where oblations might be presented and dues paid.

Tragically for all of us, to many people the words "Shankill" and "Falls" are now synonymous with a deep-rooted communal division, which some claim is unbridgeable. Just as both districts were once embraced in one parish, it is my earnest hope that a proper evaluation of our historical and cultural inheritance will reveal the full extent to which that inheritance has also been a shared one.

I am sad to report that the Farset International Hostel, formulated by Mr Jackie Hewitt of Farset, does not seem to be going ahead. That is a great loss, not only to the people of west Belfast but to the whole of Belfast and Northern Ireland. Something like that would have been a great adjunct to the development of the Black Mountain and the Belfast hills. I agree that this is an extremely important area.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Thank you, Dr Adamson. I was afraid that you were straying a little bit, especially when you got to my constituency in Bangor, but I see the connection.

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

Both Mr Gerry Adams and Dr Ian Adamson have powerfully outlined the cultural, environmental and wider appeal and relevance of the Black Mountain to the citizens of Belfast and beyond. People, when they come to Belfast, often comment on the Belfast hills — Castlereagh, Cavehill and the Black Mountain. Given the natural asset that we enjoy, there is no more compelling environmental argument than to try to save the Black Mountain from further ravages. Both Ian Adamson and Gerry Adams would agree that, while we may articulate a view on the Floor of the Chamber today, it is the Aidan Creans, the Terry Enrights, the Tim Duffys and the late Eileen Fultons who have been in the vanguard in trying to enhance the natural environment, particularly in west Belfast, whether it is Colin Glen, the Black Mountain or the Bog Meadows.

The Minister’s Department should be mindful of other developments on the natural landscape in west Belfast when it comes to directing funds and resources and developing a strategic approach to building the environment in west Belfast. A group is to be set up in the next 10 days to enhance the Colin Glen area and the Glen River’s contribution to the environment of west Belfast. When that cross-community and cross-environmental group makes proposals, I trust that the Department and the Minister will hear what people say with regard to enhancing the environment in west Belfast.

Similarly, in the near future, the Environment and Heritage Service will publish a response to the Northern Ireland landscape character assessment series in which it talks about landscape character and the protection of the environment in Northern Ireland in general. I urge the Minister to respond positively to those recommendations.

This debate is primarily about the Black Mountain, and I want to ask the Minister about that. I have several questions. There are increasing concerns about the future of the Black Mountain and the future intentions of the quarry owners themselves. Gerry Adams correctly pointed out that the quarry owners recently indicated that there are 20 years’ worth of basalt reserves yet to be quarried in the Black Mountain. I heard in 1992, when the then Minister of the Environment, Richard Needham, said that it was his understanding that at that time there were 20 years’ worth of quarrying reserves. Mr Needham’s civil servants at that time did not agree with the Minister. They indicated that there were only between eight and 15 years’ reserves. Ten years later we are told — formally and on the record — that there are at least 20 years’ reserves. The Minister confirmed that in a written answer to me in January 2000, when he indicated that the quarry operator, at present rates of extraction, understands that he has sufficient reserves to carry operations forward for at least 20 years.

If that were the only fact, it might be understandable. However, the plot thickens. Since then, the permanent secretary and the Minister have been asked for an assessment of the remaining mineral reserves in the quarry — an assessment that the quarry owners were undertaking. In September 2000, the Minister confirmed in writing that

"White Mountain Quarries Ltd has confirmed that its assessment of the remaining mineral reserves of the quarry is now almost complete, and it hopes to be in a position to let the Department have information on this within the next few weeks."

That was in September 2000. In January 2001, the Minister again wrote to me, apologising for not replying sooner. He said that his officials had had difficulty in contacting White Mountain Quarries. He added that the company was not prepared to release the information requested, as they regarded it as commercially sensitive. In 1992, the Government and the quarry owners said that they had at least 20 years’ worth of reserves. In 2000, the quarry owners said that they had at least that. However, in 2001 the quarry owners are not prepared to release the information requested by the Government, as they regard it as commercially sensitive.

The people of west Belfast — especially those that I named earlier — ask a simple question. How is it that an assessment made 10 years ago stated that there were 20 years’ worth of reserves? How is it that a similar assessment was made last year, and how is it that this year that company is no longer prepared to share what it says is commercially sensitive information?

This also raises a wider issue about who governs the North. A large quarry is having an immense environmental impact on west Belfast — all of it adverse. How is it that a private company that is granted planning permission by the state is not prepared to share information with the Government and the wider community that it was prepared to share earlier? Legitimate questions are being asked about the long-term prospects of the quarry. Is it not the case that — far from 20 years’ worth — there are 30, 40 or more years’ worth of reserves? In that context, Members can understand the concern about the long-term consequences for the mountain.

In responding to environmental need, not just in west Belfast and the Black Mountain — I also mentioned the Colin Glen proposals — it is also time for the Government to assert control over what White Mountain Quarries is doing, not just in respect of quarry reserves, where there is ambiguity, uncertainty and concern, but also in ensuring that the 19 conditions laid down when the quarry originally got planning permission in the early 1980s are strictly and fully enforced. The experience of 10 years ago was that planning conditions were routinely not enforced in respect of this quarry, particularly those relating to landscaping, planting of trees, the removal of plant from the front of the mountain and the damage to the top of the mountain.

I agree with Gerry Adams that the Government should assert authority over what is happening in the Black Mountain. Unless there is clarity about how many years’ worth of reserves there is and how many more years of destruction there will be, the Social Development Committee would be advised to follow the model adopted by the Regional Development Committee in respect of the Port of Belfast and initiate a formal inquiry into what has happened to the Black Mountain over the last 20 years.

The purpose of that inquiry would be to mitigate the adverse impact of the quarrying to date; to further protect and develop the mountain as a civic amenity; to consider the closure of quarrying operations on the mountain as a matter of urgency; to review the history of planning enforcement conditions and how the situation has developed generally; to determine such other action as is deemed necessary, including moving the quarry to a more environmentally suitable site; and to explore European funding mechanisms to have the quarry closed down.

The Minister should respond, or be seen to respond, to those concerns, on which he has been on notice over the last year. If he does not, it is the intention of the SDLP and, I am sure, other parties to prevail upon the Social Development Committee to initiate an inquiry into how the situation arose and to call people to account for what has happened.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a leasCheann Comhairle. I support my Colleague Mr Adams’s motion, which is timely and appropriate. I was going to say, tongue in cheek, that Dr Adamson stole all my lines. You are quite right, leasCheann Comhairle, when you say that he used poetic licence, but the Black Mountain is a very poetic place for Belfast people in particular and, I am sure, for those who come from beyond Belfast.

It has a special place in the lives of the people in Belfast, particularly those in west Belfast. For those of us who grew up in Belfast 60 years ago, a day out was on Cavehill or the Black Mountain. It is a place that has been well versed in song — the McPeakes sang about it in their song ‘Belfast’. The words include "coming home to your Black Mountain, Cavehill and River Lagan". The Black Mountain is as much a part of Belfast as the River Lagan, Cavehill and the city hall. It is something special to the lives of people of Belfast.

As Belfast grew industrially and expanded socially, people had nowhere to escape to but to Cavehill or the Black Mountain. As Mr Adams said, all the industrialisation and quarrying over the years — uncontrolled quarrying, let me say — has despoiled and left an unsightly mark. I am sure that the Minister — a Fermanagh man, proud of the lakes and countryside of Fermanagh — would not want to see an amenity like the Black Mountain’s being further despoiled for the sake of profit or more industrialisation. The Minister should remember that Belfast needs an attraction — it needs its Black Mountain. You can stand practically anywhere in Belfast and see it. You can see why it was called the Black Mountain. It has an image of darkness and beauty and a special appeal for the people of Belfast and beyond. We have the green Glens of Antrim, and I ask the Minister to ensure we have the Black Mountain for Belfast.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I congratulate Mr Adams for bringing this most important motion to the Assembly. Not in recent times, but certainly over many years, I have been involved in this subject. I had many meetings with Ministers going away back — Richard Needham’s name has come up several times.

I put myself in the same bracket as Mr J Kelly, when it comes to my childhood. From Bellevue, and I am not talking about the zoo, across the upper Shankill and upper Springfield, the hills of Belfast are a place of great beauty and culture, steeped in the history of people of both traditions.

I recall asking Richard Needham to go onto the mountainside, which he did. He arrived in a helicopter. I remember his expressing great anger about the situation — some people might wonder whether it was genuine. He had a background in quarrying. The real sin here was not committed by him or by his people at that time, but long before that, when planning permission was given. I do not recall the name of the owner of White Mountain then — it was not the present owners. Planning permission was given to dig that quarry, and that was wrong from every point of view. It was morally wrong and wrong in terms of all people from both traditions.

Other things happened at that time, and I suppose there is no point in our going back in time and pointing fingers. Close to the mountains is the Monagh bypass, which is really a motorway. If you asked people or senior civil servants today why the Monagh bypass suddenly stopped at the mountainside — that is going back some years ago — many people would say that it is just as well, because the mountains are still there. However, there were plans to build a motorway cutting right through there and to save the hills all around it. That would have been a place of great beauty. I do not make the argument for motorways; I simply say that decisions were taken to build a motorway, and then all of a sudden it was stopped. It is difficult to find out precisely why that happened.

As Alex Attwood said, there was an inquiry in respect of the hills, but I have found it difficult, during my time as MP for West Belfast, to find out details of that original inquiry, which was buried. I did get some details, but they were not very helpful. I recall speaking on several occasions about this issue to the then Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew. He spoke once about the beauty of the Belfast hills from upper Springfield right across the upper Shankill, and he totally agreed with me that something could be done with the Belfast hills for the sake of the people.

It is important to remember that we are talking about west Belfast, north Belfast, Lagan Valley, south Antrim, all of Belfast; in fact, it is Northern Ireland that we are talking about. The hills are truly beautiful in terms of our cultural history, bird life and animal life. All the important points have already been made — my Colleague Alex Attwood covered the main ones. Where do we go from here? This is a shared inheritance, belonging to all of us. I believe that at one stage the Northern Ireland Office was toying with the idea of doing something about it. I think that they were considering whether it would be a good thing to do from a political standpoint, in terms of peace between two traditions. They were toying with it, but it never went any further than that.

Many organisations have been involved with the preservation of the mountainside, and Mr Attwood mentioned some of the people — Aidan Crean and Terry Enwright are very much to the fore in this. However, we are now concerned about the mental and physical health of all our people and about their environment.

The Minister is a very fair person, and I would like him to go to the mountainside some time with an MP, or with any of us — it does not matter with whom he goes; it is important that he goes — and that he and his people make an assessment, not just of west Belfast, but of all of the hills, and consider in what way they could be used for the good of all people.

I understand that to buy off White Mountain Quarries Ltd would cost a substantial amount of money, because planning permission was given to them — although very wrongfully given — and apparently to undo that would be very expensive. I made the point earlier that what could be done was being considered, and one of the ideas was to buy the mountain back for the people over a number of years using the funds that went to Making Belfast Work (MBW) — but not on a direct payment, because there is not enough money for that.

This is a devolved Assembly; it is about the health, welfare and environment of our people. I support the shared inheritance that has been spoken of. There should be an inquiry. The Assembly and the Executive should give whatever support is necessary — financial or legislative — to give the mountainside back to the people of Northern Ireland.

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

Gerry Adams put forward the motion with the focus on his constituents in West Belfast. However, the Black Mountain impinges on at least two other constituencies — East Antrim, and my constituency, Lagan Valley. My constituents are as worried about the destruction of the Black Mountain as are the people in West Belfast.

There are several key facts relating to conservation on the Black Mountain; some have already been mentioned. There has been quarrying with planning permission since the early 1980s. Overhead photographs and the profile of the mountain show the enormous environmental destruction that has occurred over that time. Taking into account the destruction that has happened in the last 20 years, how much more will occur in the next 20 years or more? As Gerry Adams and others mentioned, there are indications that at least 20 years’ worth of reserves could still be gouged out of the mountain.

There are concerns that the Department of the Environment has not properly monitored the situation. There is evidence that the original planning conditions imposed in the 1980s were not monitored or enforced. In the 1990s the then Minister, Richard Needham, was required to intervene in order that the planning conditions could be introduced. Those included the need to plant trees in the front of the mountain to shield the site and to blend it in with the surrounding environment.

The community is rightly concerned that the original planning conditions have not been observed or enforced. To rectify the situation it is essential that the Assembly investigate how quarrying can be terminated. The Assembly must ensure that there is a maximum environmental restoration of the mountain and that there is adequate restoration of trees and plants in the area.

The Department of the Environment can take immediate action by adopting a comprehensive road cleansing policy in the area, and it could confirm that the optimum wheel-washing facilities are on site.

I acknowledge that there are employment repercussions. I ask the Minister if it would not be possible to relocate another basalt quarry and retain these jobs there. This matter should be referred to the Social Development Committee, and I support my Colleagues’ request for an inquiry.

Gerry Adams (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Gabh mo leithscéal, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Dúirt mo chara John Ó Ceallaigh, nuair a bhí sé ag caint, gurbh é clann McPeake a cheol an t-amhrán ‘Béal Feirste’; ach ba é Barnbrack a cheol an t-amhrán sin.

For the historical record my friend, John Kelly, credited the McPeake family with the song ‘Belfast’; it was, in fact, Barnbrack.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I am grateful that the Member clarified that.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the debate for many reasons, none more than it gives me the opportunity to provide explanations. I am a conservationist, and I do not want to despoil any territory anywhere. Mr Adams referred to beauty spots in the Province such as Lough Erne. We are all proud of the Province, but we must not allow ourselves to become too sanctimonious.

The countryside has been pockmarked for 30 years by terrorist activity. It is to be regretted that we did not receive united condemnation of that fact at the time. We hope to rectify the utter destruction in our land. I want to assure everyone that I wish to conserve rather than to choose one area against another.

Although the title given to this Adjournment debate is "Conservation on the Black Mountain", it will be helpful if I begin my response by considering the Black Mountain in the context of the Belfast hills. Just before Easter I announced the publication by the Department of the Environment of the Northern Ireland Landscape Character Assessment 2000. On that occasion in Parliament Buildings I drew attention to the Belfast hills as being one of our most prominent and well-known landscape features and mentioned how they provided a magnificent backcloth to the city of Belfast. The report stated

"The basalt cliffs are a striking landmark …They have a wild, brutal, untamed character which contrasts with the familiar bustle of the city below."

The Department of the Environment recognises the importance of the Belfast hills, not only in providing a landscape setting for the north and west of the city, but also as a recreational resource of immense potential for all the people of Belfast and the visitors to Northern Ireland. I also recognise that many difficulties and challenges must be overcome if this potential is to be realised — not least the fact that the majority of land in the Belfast hills is privately owned farm land. The genuine concerns that landowners and farmers have regarding trespassing, vandalism and damage to property have to be addressed if we are to win the confidence of this important section of the local community.

I am conscious that pressure for Government action to protect the Belfast hills has been building for years. The zoning of the hills area as a regional park was proposed in the mid-1990s as a means of providing protection, public access and enjoyment. However, there was strong local opposition to this concept for the reasons that I have stated.

Pressure for action continued, and in 1998 a feasibility study on the Belfast hills was commissioned at the then Minister’s request by the Department’s Environment and Heritage Service on behalf of a consortium including the four local authorities for the hills and the charity Bryson House. This study identified continued lack of support, particularly from land owners, for the establishment of a regional park. Also it was felt that insufficient land was in public ownership to make the concept viable. The study instead recommended the setting up of a Belfast hills trust to provide a practical and integrated management mechanism for a smaller operational area of the hills running from the city limits to the back of the hills overlooking Belfast, Lisburn and Newtownabbey. This recommendation received widespread public support and much less opposition from local residents.

In 2000 the Department of the Environment established a working group which employed consultants to prepare a business plan for the proposed Belfast hills trust. The draft plan is now complete, but it is still awaiting final approval from some members of the working group. It will be presented shortly to potential funders in support of the case for the establishment of a Belfast hills trust.

The Black Mountain is seen as an important part of the Belfast hills. It has particular importance because of its visual prominence on the skyline and its closeness to a large population. I am fairly confident in saying that a strategic plan for its wide use would be a high priority for a hills trust. Such a trust would also be well placed to feed ideas and information on the sustainable management of the Belfast hills into the Belfast metropolitan area (BMA) plan process. The BMA plan will set out Government policy on development in the Belfast hills, including the Black Mountain. It will consider in detail the recreational potential of this area and how the Belfast hills should be protected and managed. I referred earlier to the challenge of reconciling the needs of farming with the aspirations of those who wish to use the hills for recreation. There are other legitimate activities taking place in the Belfast hills such as the quarry which has been referred to on the Black Mountain.

There is a long history of quarrying on the Black Mountain, dating back to the mid-nineteenth century. Growth for most of this period was intermittent, but it took off rapidly during the 1980s. In 1978 the Department of the Environment received a planning application from the current operators to develop 127 acres of the mountain area for quarrying and ancillary use. The application was approved in July 1979.

Further applications were received in the mid-1980s and granted in 1988.

I have no hesitation in accepting the invitation to visit the Black Mountain and the quarry area. My diary secretary will be in contact to organise that.

I cannot answer for all the Administrations that were here before me. I have been asked once or twice when the quarry will close. Dates have been suggested, but all I can say is that it will happen when the reserves are exhausted. It will depend on the production processes of the operator and will be dictated by demand, not by the Department of the Environment.

I am asked why the Department does not close the quarry. The Department could initiate discontinuance action under article 39 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. That, however, might involve significant compensation to the operators. The Department would also have to justify taking action against that quarrying operation and not against others.

I have been asked whether the Department will grant further permission on the site. Any application would have to be considered on its merits and against prevailing plans and policies. It would be improper for me to say in this forum how my Department might assess any application.

Through the planning process, my Department has imposed strict limits on the extent of quarrying. Those restrictions were reinforced by the 1985 planning application, which contained a proposal to forfeit part of the area approved for extraction in 1979, for the purpose of preserving the skyline. I assure Members that my Department closely monitors those area limits, and they have now been reached. In that context, the visual appearance of the quarry should not now change significantly. However, the quarry can be deepened, within the limits imposed. That will have limited — if any — visual impact from outside the quarry.

I have read in the press that it is in my power to stop quarrying on Black Mountain at a stroke: that is not so. I am sure that there will be relief that I do not possess such draconian powers. I have the power to discontinue planning permissions, but exercising that power involves a lengthy process, with no cast-iron guarantee of success. If successful, my Department would also have to pay significant compensation to the quarry owners for the closure of their business, and, ultimately, that bill would have to be met by the taxpayer. The operators have valid planning permission to quarry on the Black Mountain, subject to conditions and until reserves have been exhausted. My Department has no powers to dictate deadlines for completing those operations. There are 250 quarrying operations throughout the Province. Do we want to make life difficult for those quarries as well? They are a necessary contribution to the economy of our Province.

I emphasise that my Department has imposed stringent conditions on planning permissions to protect, as far as possible, the visual amenity of the Black Mountain. Through that process and through discussion with the quarry owner, significant tidying-up and landscaping work has been undertaken along the southern edge of the quarry, above the Upper Springfield Road. The improvements include the relocation of quarry stockpiles and waste tips, the grading and seeding of frontage embankments and the planting of trees and shrubs. As a result, a considerable visual improvement has been achieved.

My Department is also responsible for the control of dust emissions from quarries through the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. I acknowledge that the operations of the Black Mountain quarry may, from time to time, cause dust and noise. I emphasise, however, that the quarry is regularly inspected by the Environment and Heritage Service to ensure that its operators are doing everything in their power to prevent dust and are meeting the conditions set out in the authorisation under the Order. Additionally, all complaints about dust are investigated within 24 hours of receipt.

The Department is committed to conserving and enhancing the environmental qualities of the Belfast hills, including the Black Mountain. I cannot turn the clock back to a pre-industrial Belfast, but I will use the powers and opportunities that I have to work for a better environment for local residents and visitors alike.

Adjourned at 5.04 pm.